Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Adrignola/Archive 2

< User talk:Adrignola
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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →


Thanks for updating MediaWiki:Common.css. I forgot to include the explanatory comment on the talk page. Can you add it? Edokter (talk) — 18:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

   Done . – Adrignola talk 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was talking about this part:
/* Fix so <syntaxhighlight> tags and .css and .js pages get normal text size.
   [[Bugzilla:26204]] */
Sorry to border so much... Edokter (talk) — 19:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Taken care of. – Adrignola talk 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As of Aziza photo 028 edited.jpg

Can you please check if the author's permission is received and if it is enough [User:i_rodionov] 22:10 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched for any emails regarding it and couldn't find any. – Adrignola talk 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Strange, I personnally spoke to the author and the permission should be from <>. If it happen you cannot find it, what should I do to get out of the situation [User:i_rodionov] 23:31 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Searching for that email I don't get anything either. It's possible it was sent to info-ru, which I don't have access to. I hate to cause extra trouble, but it couldn't hurt to send it again to permissions-commons I should then be able to tag the image as being in the process of having permission confirmed, which is better than the current tag which says we haven't gotten anything at all regarding it. – Adrignola talk 23:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you use a forwarded e-mail form the author as a confirmation of the authority? Or I better should ask the author to send another message. She is non-English person so it is some problem [User:i_rodionov] 23:49 5 May 2011 (UTC)
A direct email is more authoritative, but a forwarded email that shows the original email address can still be useful, as it allows us to make contact if we need to get clarification on the matter. – Adrignola talk 23:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Then I will be doing in this manner: I will ask the author to repeat the message. I will ask the author _also_ to forward it to me and I will send it you too. After this if your communication will be prolonged the author will forward the messages to me (for the author is not English speaking) and the whole correspondence will be send to you [User:i_rodionov] 00:05 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm quite worried that there are not enough speakers of languages other than English on our volunteer team, but I will do what I can to see that it's handled as quickly as possible. – Adrignola talk 00:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just stated I would be a proxy for the English. Wait another message for the subject. Thank you. [User:i_rodionov] 00:14 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You can check also by e-mail <> Please [User:i_rodionov] 00:21 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NordicHeritageCenterSportClub01.jpg OTRS pending

Hi Adrignola, I noticed that you deleted the image on commons which I used as an illustration in an article of the german Wikipedia on the Nordic Heritage Center. I did the upload from the facebook page of the Nordic Heritage Sports Club with their permission as I noted on the discussion page of the file. The OTRS request is still pending due to some delays on their and my side. But we are still in contact and I am still waiting for a proper response from the copyright holder of the pic to OTRS. Could you please restore the image or what tell me what I have to do to get it alive again? --DiethartK (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any emails regarding this file in our system. Could you provide me with the ticket number that should have been added to any subject lines you may have received from OTRS volunteers, so I can mark it with {{OTRS received}}? – Adrignola talk 18:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem. On April 13th I got the following e-mail from them:
I apologize for the very delayed response and hope that I have not discouraged you from putting this site together. It's great to see our small town being recognized in Germany and we appreciate the support as well! I just wanted to let you know that I have emailed the needed information to the owner of the photo. I will get back to you as soon as I hear from him.
Take care,
Sarah Gahagan
NHSC Programs Intern«
So I am still waiting for the response from Sarah. What shall I do now? --DiethartK (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's always the option to be a nag and send messages again. Maybe Sarah can provide you with the information on the copyright owner so that you can have a direct line for communication. Alternatively, maybe another source can be found for the image. But I couldn't find any similar ones on Flickr under a good license. It's a poor situation, I won't deny that. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I took the option. I'll upload the file again as soon as I have the proper information. Thanks so far --DiethartK (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How to become a helper as an English-Russian translator

I can do the volunteer work to help Russian speaking people to communicate to English speaking

Please see m:OTRS/volunteering. – Adrignola talk 00:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I asked not concerning OTRS, and I am not a member of the mentioned thing. You just had said you worried that the people herein were Engilish speaking in common. i_rodionov talk 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
But you could volunteer to become a member on that page and handle emails sent in Russian. – Adrignola talk 01:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
How to become a member for Russian e-mails? i_rodionov talk 01:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You just have to follow the instructions at m:OTRS/volunteering. If they feel you are trustworthy, they'll ask you to come aboard the team. – Adrignola talk 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you i_rodionov talk 01:10 , 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I sent a message but no answer. Obviously they think I am not trustworthy. Sorry i_rodionov talk 23:44 , 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You send an email to them but also post your willingness on the above page. They'll discuss it on-wiki, not through email. – Adrignola talk 15:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I got a standard declining text. After this my attitude got lower and I had some kind of not good aftertaste. Sorry. But anycase I will do contributions.i_rodionov talk 22:26 , 11 May 2011 (UTC)

About your tags

I have sent permissions for the photographs contributed by me. As for the rest, they are logos of open-source softwares. Can you suggest how to get permissions for their use? Thanks. Pratik.mallya (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For the software you can likely just link to a page on the site where it states that the logos are under a free license. It's important to keep in mind that open source software may be free and so screenshots of it will be fine, but that doesn't apply to the logos. Blender 3D, for instance, is open source but their logo is not under a free license. – Adrignola talk 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Btw, the logo for MayvVi is the "boy" figure, which i don't really think has any copyright issues,as it may be considered a "screenshot". In particular, the image i uploaded was created by plotting the figure in MayaVi and taking a screenshot :) Pratik.mallya (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if it was actually from a screenshot, I've removed the trouble tag from that file. – Adrignola talk 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if you give me warning before deleting the photograph Pkkelkar.jpg. I have got an email permission from the owner, but it seems she hasn't forwarded the template, which i had also sent to her. Giving me some notice would have saved time for both of us. Pratik.mallya (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

MIT OCW videos

Hello Adrignola,

Thank you for staying on top of the rights release for these videos. There was an initial email to the permissions queue over a week ago, but it was not framed formally enough (it was a generic "yes! and we should add more" comment from the professor, to a long email, not clearly approving the use of a particular license) and needs to be resent. Please be patient; we just had an excellent meeting at the annual OCW Consortium conference, and there is broad support for expanding this project across the OCW community. clear email approval for these initial videos should be coming this week.

Regards, --SJ+ 03:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User problems, again

Hi. That Greek guy Meliniki did not learn the lesson of good faith and neutral editing and continues with personal attacks. Here, in his comment you can see what he said about me, and the same thing can be seen here. I am really tired of him and his disruptive editing (see my new complain about his reverts). Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a cock-sucker FyromBoy :-p Truth can't be stay hidden. What about the paid propaganda using wiki?! So shame! Note: While there is propaganda, is useless you to cock-sucking admins, cuz probably they are smarter than you and they know that the user can just reset his modem to take new ip or use any proxy, also in case of anything, can register for new username and so on, is really hopeless. By delete or blocking they know that cause bigger problem. Enjoy sucking! And hey Adrignola give advantage to your little pretty smurf, that's not unfair haha?! Check his logs, edits and related topics. But i guess either you, you don't care to spend time for nothing like those paid persons.--Meliniki (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket 2011050410012388 - license at flickr changed, too

Hi Adrignola! The owner of the photography has changed the license at the (flickr source), too, but to CC BY-SA 2.0 instead of 3.0. I hope this is okay. - Fiorellino (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Reviewed . – Adrignola talk 01:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! – Fiorellino (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS noticeboard thread

FYI: Name dropped you here.--Chaser (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, following up the above thread (thanks, Chaser).
Adrignola, I just re-sent a OTRS email with the permissions for the 28 images listed above. (I'm not sure how to find the OTRS ticket number). Will need help 1) verifying the permissions are valid for the 28 images and 2) restoring the images that were deleted, and marking them as verified. Can you help with that? Green Cardamom (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have received the email and done just that. – Adrignola talk 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I just about had a heart attack after the days and hours getting all that together, and thanks for restoring the images on en.wikipedia too. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Flying Tadarida brasiliensis in Texas.jpg

Since you're the admin who deleted this image I thought I should note that it was used as a source for derivative work File:年賀状-コウモリドラゴン-横.png. Since it's rather far removed from the original I'm not sure whether to tag it copyvio also or send it through a DR or just leave it alone. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it was simply "inspired by" if anything but not a derivative. It's not taking the photo and manipulating it and it's not even of a bat. I've modified its description as I feel it's not a true dependency. – Adrignola talk 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello. Can you check whether this admin kept the map of the user that attacked you according to the rules of Commons? All the users involved in the request for deletion were against the map and its existence on Commons, but the admin decided to keep it (see here), even though the map is imaginative, POV and represents false data. He claims the map is in use, which is not (expect on a talk page on BG wiki where they make fun of the map). I tried to upload new version of the map according to the official last census of Macedonia, but the admin reverted me and blocked the map. Any help? Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin did that in line with Commons policy. We don't editorialize over other projects. If you have your own "better" map, you upload it under a new name and then any debate over which map to use occurs on the projects themselves. If nobody likes the map then it simply goes unused. That's why it was protected against reuploading. Unlike Wikipedia, where there will be one primary location for an article on a topic, there's no need to butt heads here at Commons. A new file can be uploaded quite easily. We have ten million of them and counting. – Adrignola talk 15:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed only Greeks and Bulgarians and I expect my version to be returned. Also, if there is a possibility, the name should be changed too (of the file and in the map). Macedonia is not called FYROM or Vardarska. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You can download your old versions here and here, but the upload will have to be done by you. I don't get in the middle of these map content disputes and won't rule as to which one is best because frankly I know nothing of the country (and don't care to research it). – Adrignola talk 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Helmet of Iron Gates

Hi! Thanks for the note. I put a lot of work on getting and adding the Helmet of Iron Gates images. I am in contact with the Detroit Museum who sent me these superb pictures. After initially accepting to share the pictures with Wikipedia, they are a bit turned off by this phrase: "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws." within the standard e-mail I asked them to send. Is there a way we can choose another license or make a special provision for these pictures? I've seem that in certain cases, some special licenses or provisions are added to images. They were very nice to send me the highest quality pictures available for this rare helmet. It would be a pity to lose he momentum. Any thoughts/suggestions are greatly appreciated. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they'd like to restrict it to noncommercial use only or have it be an exclusive license to Wikipedia. But that's not compatible with Commons' (or Wikipedia's) policies. The GNU Free Documentation License has similar provisions but is such a pain to use (include the full text of the license with each use) that they may like that one instead. – Adrignola talk 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the detail. So to clarify, is the GNU Free Documentation License restricting to noncommercial? Is there any images you can point me out too as an example? Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not restricting to noncommercial. The argument to make would be that it's so unpalatable for reusers, at least for online users, that nobody will want to make use of the images. But someone could still put them in a commercial book with the GFDL in the appendix with the image credits. Unless they agree to commercial use they'll have to be deleted. No way around it unfortunately. – Adrignola talk 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see, good points. How about moving them to Wikipedia which is not so restrictive? If I do move them there, should I use "Fair use" or there is another license that covers non-commercial there? Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has the same policies we do and is just as restrictive on prohibiting noncommercial restrictions. The only difference is for public domain items; here we require the images to be PD in the US and the country of origin while (English language) Wikipedia only requires images to be PD in the US, where the servers are hosted. These images are replaceable (in the sense that someone could take another photo) and so wouldn't be justified under fair use. – Adrignola talk 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to see if I can convince DIA to license the pictures under GFDL. Please do not delete them yet. They DIA images are somewhat irreplaceable because of the details and angles they could photograph the helmet. I took pictures myself (see the less shiny ones), but as a visitor, you can not have access to take the pictures from such angles as they did. And the key to the pictures and the article that I am working on, is all this mythology engraved on all the possible sides of the helmet. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS for File:Hotforex logo 300x300.jpg

Hallo Adrignola, you had added OTRS to File:HotForexlogo2011.jpg. Is it not applicable to File:Hotforex logo 300x300.jpg, too? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't specified specifically, but since it's the same uploader for both, discussing content from the same site and the logo specifically, I would say yes. I had not checked the other uploads of the user. – Adrignola talk 01:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I think "yes", too. The user said on his talk page on enwp that he is a company official, so it should be valid what he says if it is verified from an official email address. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Closing DR

Though I have added quite often "done by ..<other colleague's name>.." to close small user requests settled by other colleagues, it came never to my mind to feel me as "a clerk" or to criticize them in such a manner as you. And for sure, I didn't ask you to be my clerk. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


Stopping by to ask a favor of you: Can you take a look and see if the image which was here is the same one which is now at en:File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg? Also, judging from the DR it was sourced to the NARA somewhere, did the description provide an actual website source? Your admin powers would be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It only had {{PD}}, then was changed to {{PD-USGov-NARA}} by another editor, but at no time did it have actual source address for it. They aren't exactly the same file, but they are definitely derived from the same source somewhere. The deleted one here is a thumbnail version of Wikipedia's, only a different shade of black and with feathering around the edges. – Adrignola talk 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess more research is required to figure out what the actual source for the image is then. <sigh> Anyways, thanks for looking into that for me. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

my OTRS cases

they are all in Croatian. Quahadi Añtó 08:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

All the non-English queues are backlogged and I'm not sure how many people on the volunteer team are familiar with Croatian, so it could take even longer for those as a result. – Adrignola talk 12:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Someone followed-up here.--Chaser (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permissions for ticket number 2011051610002072

What were the issues with File:Encosternum delegorguei harvesting.jpg and related images? If it has something to do with the images being in the follow up email, I can send those too (I didn't initially because they contained nothing but the attached images). You may also contact the author to confirm if you wish.--ObsidinSoul 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to the sender of the email with the details of the issue. I am not permitted to disclose confidential communications with outside parties. – Adrignola talk 14:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh... okay. This 'outside party' will now reply to said email... ¬_¬ --ObsidinSoul 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't associate an email address with a particular user. If it were possible for me to do so, that would violate the Foundation's privacy policy. There've been several cases where the person I communicate with is not the same person as the uploader. Additionally they want all pertinent communications documented in their system for their records. So, yes, bureaucracy, but they tie my hands on the issue. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries and I apologize. Just tired and a bit snappy today, rewriting a problematic article on Response sent.--ObsidinSoul 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard MacDonald Studio

Hi, do we have any permission to use images by Richard MacDonald Studio uploaded by User:Morton Sumner?   ■ MMXX  talk  16:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed you are adding OTRS ticket to the files.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag on File:ColinHolt-YorksDay.jpg

I would like to resolve the position on File:ColinHolt-YorksDay.jpg. I uploaded the file originally after it was supplied to me by the Yorkshire Ridings Society (the YRS). It was recently tagged as showing insufficient evidence of permission from the copyright owner, the YRS, but I am aware that the Chairman of the Yorkshire Ridings Society e-mailed the required file permission on behalf of the YRS in the last day or so as he e-maled me to say that he had done so.

You have tagged the image now saying that the e-mail received was insufficient. However it copied the exact wording required. If it is just a question of the type of copyright licence (CC rather than GNU, or whatever) then that can be corrected by changing the file permission code. What actually is the difficulty?

Hogweard (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The email was received from a hotmail address, not the admin shown at (or some other email ending in that website's domain). Therefore it is left in doubt as to whether we have actually spoken with a YRS representative. – Adrignola talk 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If it came from tykeafloat, that is the YRS Chairman all right. The one on their website is a mere redirect for receiving e-mails. Hogweard (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I have sent an email to the admin address and will see if my email is quoted in a response from either that address or the previous hotmail address. – Adrignola talk 15:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, Adrignola!

Hi, Adrignola! Good day! I have answered your kind answer about the image. This is a copy of my answer, which I am reproducing here:

"Hi, Adrignola! Thank you for answering! The copy of the e-mail I have sent to permissions-commons is already in the body of this topic, above. I think the e-mail perhaps is not reaching Wikimedia Commons, or you would be able to find it. You may also see here in my site (I'm the author of the image [ File:Capa livro primeiro 50 p cento.JPG ], here discussed, and of the book where it's the cover) a public permission to free publishing of all the illustrations, images and covers (so, including the one we are talking about) present in the books of my authorship. If you may need any other information, especially if you could not find the several e-mails I sent to Wikimedia Commons (as the above reproduced), please write directly to my e-mail - which adresses I am here exposing as another confirmation that I am indeed the author of the image, the books and the only owner and webmaster of the site with access to it.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I have sent this same minute a new copy of my e-mail above reproduced to Wikimedia Commons. Here is the copy or the new e-mail, which I have sent by another of my e-mail adresses to assure reception:

"(repeating e-mail and sending by another of my e-mail adresses to assure reception)

From: Cláudio César Dias Baptista Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 3:47 PM To: Subject: AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLISHING IMAGE


I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ File:Capa livro primeiro 50 p cento.JPG ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license [ FAL, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, GFDL].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

NOTE: - I am the ONLY OWNER of the copyright and THE PUBLISHER of the above mentioned image, which is the cover of the book "Géa", of my authorship and the image above is ALSO of my authorship. Iam the person who uploaded the file with the image, I cannot violate my own and exclusive copyright! Please, do not delete the image from Wikimedia Commons

Cláudio César Dias Baptista – CCDB - " Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)"Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have marked the all but one of the images mentioned in the many emails received as having permission confirmed. I just need you to respond to the one email I replied with regarding the image depicting you, regarding the identity of the photographer. – Adrignola talk 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fukushima area 01.png

Hi, you have deleted this file because of an unsufficient OTRS ticket. Can you please tell me what exactly was wrong with the ticket?

I would like to contact the copyright holder(s) to get a new license for the diagram, but I need to know if the problem only referred to the diagram's creator (Phillip Mills,, or also to the data source, which is Japanese prefecture of Fukushima.

Thanks, Peter --PM3 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The image was taken from a web page stating "These graphs are free to be used anywhere you like" but that is not specific enough for Commons' purpose. Are they {{cc-zero}}, {{copyrighted free use}}j, some other license? We never got clarification back after requesting that the uploader get a better release. – Adrignola talk 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will contact the author of the webpage wo made the diagram and ask him for either a CC license or release as Public Domain. --PM3 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet

Hello Adrignola. Do you remember the user:Meliniki? Well, if you do, then I would like to inform you that there is great possibility that he created another account so he can vandalize the articles. He created the sock puppet User:MacedoniaBoy (with similar name to my own). I claim that he is sock puppet of Meliniki since both of them delete my announcements here, both for same file, same talk page and same issue that existed between me and Meliniki. Thanks, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. – Adrignola talk 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo of French Butter Dish

Hi Adrignola, You recently deleted a photo of a hand made butter dish I both made and photographed because of no OTRS permission received (FrenchButterDishOpened.jpg). I think I created the problem since I had forgotten to update my email address. Do I need to re-submit the photo? Thanks for any help - Jim

Please do not recreate deleted content. Instead, you can send the relevant information to permissions-commons and an administrator will be able to restore the file for you. – Adrignola talk 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on simple.wikipedia

See my note at w:simple:Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Regards, EhJJ (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Uploadform arrow new.svg

Now that the original has been fixed, do you still have some use for your alternate version, or may I just delete it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No use for it; I deleted it myself. Several things changed since I uploaded that file including my acquisition of administrator abilities, which had I had them at that time would have negated the need to upload to a new name entirely. – Adrignola talk 19:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

request information of deleted snake picture(s)

Hi. You deleted a snake picture (File:Garter snake close up northern ontario canada.jpg) that I was using in a couple places in a Featured List at EN-WP (

I can't tell from the deletion rationale what specifically was wrong with it. Could you please reach into you memory and say what was wrong with it? Or undelete it so I can look at it? I'm not trying to fight for any image that is "bad", but I just want to ensure that the image should really have been cut. Or perhaps if the issue is minor, save it. But for that I need to know the specifics.

Also, I think this was part of a whole set of similar images? Was there any picture to picture rationale driving the deletions? Also, (to see if it worth me working for the save) wondering how much useful images we lost?

Thanks in advance and this request not meant in aggression, just as stated, based on losing the image for my Featured List.

TCO (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This image was tagged as lacking permission, as it was stated to be from (and had also been transferred from Wikipedia) but had not had any confirmation of a release sent in to the OTRS system here. Should we receive that it would be no trouble to restore it as nothing is really lost with the software. – Adrignola talk 20:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Eh...ok...maybe. to be honest, I still don't understand the explanation. Not in a manner where I could say with confidence the image was wrong. Also, there has been a lot of talk about how people should NOT transfer stuff from Wiki to Commons because of no-discussion deletes. Meh. TCO (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OTRS applies to images at Wikipedia too. Had it been tagged as lacking permission it would have been deleted just the same without discussion. I've had to request undeletion of images that had OTRS permissions sent in for there as well. The main difference between the two is whether you want your images used by one Wikipedia or all of them. – Adrignola talk 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You are referencing how it was tagged. I would like to know what was on the page itself!

It seems like the rationale lists a bunch of different factors and I can't tell what the actual issue was. Was it source, authro, licence or what? (all were listed)TCO (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission is the issue. We could also use a better source than as well (the actual page where the image can be seen on the site so we know it actually came from there). – Adrignola talk 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont delete own photos

Please dont deleted own photos Dencey (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"I am the creator, the owner and the uploader of food images and I give permission to use it under licences used in Wikipedia Commons."Dencey (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Poroma photos

You have just deleted a couple of photos of the Bolivian Poroma region which I had uploaded with the photographer's permission earlier this year, and where the photographer has told me via email that he had sent a permission to Wikimedia. I am just trying to contact the photographer to make him mail a copy of his permission again. -- Meister (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. The onus is on the uploader to prove permission. 30 days should be more than sufficient for email communications to be handled. – Adrignola talk 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola, the photographer of the photos you have deleted has just informed me that he sent an email to <> on April 9th, 2011, giving permission to have the photos "Sucre-Poroma 01.jpg", "Sucre-Poroma 02.jpg", "Sucre-Poroma 03.jpg", "Sucre-Poroma 04.jpg", "Sucre-Poroma 05.jpg", "Sulcorebutia torotorensis.jpg" used on Wikimedia. A copy of that mail is at my hands now. How can we procede now? Can I send a copy of the photographer's mail (which is in German) to your or to somebody else? This is somewhat annoying, I must say. -- Meister (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to be easy, else the weight of an OTRS validation wouldn't have any meaning behind it. I don't handle the permissions-de queue as I don't understand German. Thus forwarding it to me directly would be both outside the established procedure as well as fruitless as I could not understand it. The permissions-de queue has a backlog as opposed to the standard queue, but again I cannot understand mail sent to it so I cannot expedite this for you. When the ticket is handled, either someone will contact me or they will restore it themselves. The main thing will be to have patience. It could be that an OTRS volunteer is already holding discussions with the photographer and the two of us wouldn't know it. – Adrignola talk 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you deleted the photos, so to me you have been in the procedure that you know where to get safe information if a photo has OTRS permission or not. If you have no information if "an OTRS volunteer is already holding discussions with the photographer and the two of us wouldn't know it", I don't understand why you delete photos without knowing if permissions are in queue. And if some OTRS volunteer were handling the photographer's mail right now, he wouldn't know which photos the photographer is talking about as you already deleted them. You ask me to have patience, but that's one thing you didn't have, so to me the idea seems controversial somehow. What's more, the photo information has now been deleted on the different Wikipedia pages, so even in case they might somehow be restored on Commons, it's some extra effort to restore them on the Wikipedia pages. -- Meister (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No OTRS permission received? PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Was tagged since February 7 stating that an email was sent in to indicate permission from the photographer, Nikki Chouinard, but no indication that one was even received was made. Upon additional examination, given the Facebook source, the Facebook user needs to indicate the license in the image's description and also make the image publicly viewable (no way to verify the source or view that description otherwise). We can't associate email addresses with Facebook users so an email would only be to prompt an OTRS volunteer to check the Facebook photo page for the modified description and then confirm its release under an acceptable license. – Adrignola talk 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

permission otrs

Dear Adrignola, I've noticed you made changes to the permission tag on some of the images in the Infecting the City category. I see you made the OTRS pending in to a license. Could you explain to me exactly what you did there? I'm trying to understand Commons better and I'm not quit sure what I need to do after I uploaded, send a permission via e-mail, received an OK via e-mail and then the changes I have to make to the image-summary. If you have the time I would like to learn. Riannedac (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The process is this: you the uploader will tag an image with {{OTRS pending}} once you've sent in an email. When we receive an email, if it's not immediately good for verification, we will tag it with {{OTRS received}}. When permission has been confirmed a trusted volunteer will change it to {{PermissionOTRS}}. On the images in question we already had permission confirmed so we didn't need an additional tag stating that an email had been sent in for permission. (We already received it.) There are additional images in that category that would need OTRS verification using the email process done before. – Adrignola talk 12:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you. Riannedac (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I lubz you

Thanks OTRS person!!! TCO (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa; accidentally overstepped my bounds

Hi. :) I accidentally used admin tools this morning undeleting an image in quickly responding to an OTRS matter--followed the link and didn't even think about the fact that it was on Commons. I don't have adminship here. If I'd been using my User:Moonriddengirl account, it wouldn't have happened because it couldn't have; I don't have tools here under that name. :) (I've got them under this account as part of my temporary "staff" role, but deletion/undeletion, etc., are not supposed to be used without office direction, which was not the case here.) I might never have noticed, since OTRS log-in is the same for me either way, but I routinely watchlist items I edit for OTRS for a while and was startled to see that the edit summary said "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member". That's when I realized I was using the wrong account...and what that meant. :/ Anyway, sorry; I'll be careful to make sure it doesn't happen again. I'm not redeleting the image because that seems a bit like process wonkery, but I wanted to let you know in case you felt like it should be redeleted or redeleted and restored by someody who actually passed adminship requirements here. (You being both an OTRS agent and an admin, you seemed ideal to ask. :D) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually have access to the ticket to verify that it should in fact be restored. Laughable! You must now seek out someone who is an OTRS agent, admin, and has access to the ___ queue. :P But avoiding process wonkery, I can imagine you would have requested undeletion at the administrators' noticeboard or the OTRS noticeboard and by virtue of membership in OTRS under Moonriddengirl I expect the same outcome would have been achieved. So no big deal. The reverse though, deletion, is always tricky as someone might think it was an Office action. – Adrignola talk 16:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! You need access to other queues. :/ That one's in the info queue because it started off as an article issue and switched over to permitting the image. I'll find an admin who has that queue as well, but more leisurely since you don't think it's a big deal. I will be very careful to avoid doing it again, and especially deletion! (Unless so instructed by the office. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review license

I would like to ask you to review the license of this photo File:Sixten_Sild.jpg. It was taken from the same source as File:Olli-Markus Taivainen, 2009.jpg and File:Rain Eensaar, 2009.jpg --Dnikitin (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing.    Done . – Adrignola talk 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please solve the problem here

Dear Admin Adrignola,

Can you please resolve the problem which you created and add the OTRS ticket. I discussed the issue with Admin Jcb here It is a lot of pictures to OTRS and you started the problem and Jcb asks that you resolve it. Please read the message carefully and act before the panoramio human review gets even more cluttered. Wikiwal made a response to your remarks here in German on the OTRS ticket number. Perhaps you can confirm if this permission applies to Dennis Wub's pictures here? This has become a big mess. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The procedure is to change the license at Panoramio. We cannot associate an email address with a Panoramio account and I will not accept emails in to OTRS that attempt to bypass this process. If someone has a problem with that, you can post to OTRS/Noticeboard. – Adrignola talk 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


You broke the template. Please fix or revert your change. --TMg 10:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made the change on the talk page as requested. Please provide updated code that resolves any issues and provides the requested features. This is why there's a backlog of protected edit requests. People request changes then people complain to the administrators who make them. But then people complain if they don't make changes and handle the backlog. Deal with it on Template talk:ImageNote. – Adrignola talk 12:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Docu provided updated code so now it should be fixed. – Adrignola talk 12:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Dear Admin Adrignola,

  • I apologise if I offended you in any way. I was not 'Admin shopping'; it just appeared that Admin Jcb seems to know this uploader--and this uploader actually gave a ticket Number. So, why not check the permission in the ticket? That is what I thought. Nothing more. I hope you do not hold this against me. I was asking if Admin Jcb could check (or get another Admin to check) OTRS Ticket 2011061510013551 and see if it gave permission for the uploader (Dennis Wubs) to upload his images here. Only a very few Admins have OTRS access as you probably know. Nothing more.
  • When I asked to be a reviewer many years ago, I said I had no intentions to be an Admin and my opinion has never changed. It is just too much work but you seem to have coped well with the responsibilities. One gets all the complaints, abuse and vandalism of images, articles and user pages. That is one reason why I edit less at Wikipedia and more at WikiCommons in the first place. Simply put, there are less trolls here that at Wikipedia. As far as I know, OTRS doesn't operate on changing the actual flickr or panoramio license. It operates on the copyright owner agreeing to send a message saying he or she agrees to license image X on link Y on a "CC BY" or "CC BY SA" Generic license. I have had a few images saved this way through the OTRS permission statement (the images were uploaded in 2004, 2005, 2006 or very early 2007 by other uploaders--flickrreview only came into operation in November 2006, I think--but the flickr license is today unfree) where the copyright owner sends me the statement and I forward it to permissions or an Admin with OTRS access. At that time I worked a lot with MGA73 on contacting flickr owners via flickrmail to get a flickr license changed or get an OTRS permission message archived by MBisanz. I would never upload an image without the flickr owner's permission in an OTRS message where he/she mentions the correct license. Here are a few old images that I have saved by getting a license change:
  • File:Roman Colosseum With Moon.jpg
  • File:Roman mosaic floor LosAngeles County Museum California.jpg
  • File:Karatsu Castle.jpg
  • File:Persia - Achaemenian Vessels.jpg
  • File:Praying mantis india.jpg

The last image almost makes me sick! How can a Featured image fail flickr review?? As usual, I had to save the image from deletion. But I cannot save them all as in this DR that I sadly filed. These were all old images uploaded mostly before flickrreview even existed. If no one acted, they would be lost to WikiCommons today. I think that is why Lupo, Kanonkas supported my application to be a reviewer...because they trusted me. With kind Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No hard feelings. OTRS works well only in certain circumstances. If someone uploads a file that they took themselves but someone doesn't believe they did, then OTRS can't really do anything because the assertion through email isn't any better than when they asserted upon upload. It works well when you've got a file that was published previously on a commercial website specific to one individual or organisation, where the email address permissions are sent from can be associated with that entity, either because the domain for the email matches or because the site has a contact page that lists the email as being an official representative. It falls short when you get to other shared image hosting sites that perform much like Commons, where there are user accounts but no public display of email addresses. Is an email we receive really from the same person that operates under a certain username at another site? We can't really know and I've actually been personally fooled by someone asserting that an image was theirs to release to us under a free license.
Sometimes people take copyrighted images and then upload them under their own name at Flickr and put them under a free license to get around the Flickr review process; see Commons:License laundering. That's bad enough as it is. Add in the possibility that someone might try to pilfer a Flickr or Panoramio user's collection of images by pretending to be them and it gets even worse. And what if I certify such images as being legitimately licensed and then the real user sees all their photos here and decides to take action for copyright infringement. Say they take legal action. For standard uploads maybe the Foundation is a defendant, maybe the uploader if the guy's lawyer gets a subpoena for IP addresses used and they've edited in the past three months. But for OTRS-approved uploads? It's been stated on the mailing lists that editors are responsible for their actions. If I've given my certification on a file I might be held liable as a party to the issue; the Foundation does not provide any indemnification. Should the Foundation start wanting to hold onto the identification that volunteers like myself with advanced permissions initially provide, that makes subpoenas even more effective at determining my identity. Not a risk I'm willing to take for situations where I can't match up a free email address to a freely registered account. – Adrignola talk 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •    Comment : I completely understand what you are saying. Some people do create false accounts in a real artist's name. I remember a case where an uploader here was banned and had all his contributions deleted when an Admin managed to E-mail the real photographer and ask if he uploaded image X on WikiCommmons...and the real photographer said No! The uploader had used the photographer's name to do this. But with flickrmail, one cannot get an E-mail address because I'm contacting someone for the first time for a license change. There is no E-mail address on their flickr profile and they will not give out their E-mail address to a stranger who contacts them suddenly. Would you in this situation? Almost certainly not. If a flickr copyright owner is willing to send an OTRS permission message but not change the actual flickr license and the OTRS message says "I [Author's name] do license picture X copyright free on an 'Attribution Creative Commons Generic' license" would you reject the permission because it is contained in a flickrmail and had no E-mail address to contact the copyright owner? It seems to me that the OTRS volunteer could archive the permission and then notify the flickr account/copyright owner of the image's presence on WikiCommons by flickrmailing him/her and posting the link to the image. Is this reasonable? --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It might very well be possible for the OTRS agent themselves to send a Flickrmail to verify the permission. If they received a positive response they could then vouch in the OTRS ticket that they had received such. It wouldn't be within the OTRS records archive, though. But it appears that the profile for the Flickr user at this time now shows a contact email. Most of the users wouldn't add their email to their own descriptions like that and if it was there earlier and I had thought to check for it some grief could have been avoided. I myself am sorry as I could have been more diplomatic in some of my comments to you. – Adrignola talk 13:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I supppose it will have been preferable to check the panoramio's account owner's profile page but an Admin cannot be everything. That is why it is not easy being an Admin sadly--the responsibilities are very heavy. But at least the problem is now resolved between Jcb and you on those pictures. And they are high resolution pictures too. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


For handling this :) --ErrantX (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Please, give me two days to thoroughly read the rules. Thanks --jakubkaja (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have time for training rules right now. If do you have any doubts about the license, simply delete the object. I won't have anything against. --jakubkaja (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

That was fast! Thank you so much for your help with all the OTRS permissions! Best wishes, --Wikiwal (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey Adrignola, what you saw in the permission field in this file was my fault, actually, as it was (incorrectly) tagged as OP with that message hidden. When I removed the improper OTRS tag, I left behind his comment, and that's what you saw. He said he will contact the copyright holders to get a permission, but since it involved a lot of organizations, including well known news agencies, in the case of this file I believe it was pointless. I just wanted to make it clear that the message you saw was not there on purpose, apparently. Cheers, --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, all we got from him via OTRS was a link to the file page here at Commons (which is what pointed me out to it). I explained why the file is not his own work but I don't expect anything to come of it. – Adrignola talk 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh So he did send a mail to OTRS after all! But of course it was useless... Well, he's still learning, hopefully he will pass into the good side of the force. ;) --- Darwin Ahoy! 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient

While I think all of us have to cope with the rather beguiling complexity, I appreciate that you're working hard to get everything shipshape regarding permissions and such. I hadn't realized how difficult the whole issues of copyrights are -- and how much work is entailed to make sure things are right. I think I've got the rules down now (hopefully I've got it down now; it's a rather tough learning curve) and hopefully will do the picture uploads correctly from now on with emailed permissions to the OTRS and will get my act together so it's less work for persons such as yourself. Thanks for being patient with me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate on-wiki facilitators such as yourself who, having familiarity with the processes, help speed up OTRS processing by ensuring that all the requisite information is present in submissions upon first receipt. It saves us quite a bit of time and hopefully reduces frustration for copyright holders. – Adrignola talk 13:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Adrignola. Can we close the competition? Please see here. Thanks.--miya (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I replied there, but in summary, I would say we can. – Adrignola talk 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have added this permission to some of images by User:Kedesk, does this permission also apply to File:My Big Break poster art.jpg? if yes, please undelete it, thank you.   ■ MMXX  talk  14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This image wasn't explicitly named in the permission statement. They have a newer poster that they uploaded so they likely do not need the older one. – Adrignola talk 14:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | hrvatski | italiano | 日本語 | português | português do Brasil | македонски | +/−

Thank you for uploading some images! Did you know that the SVG format is often the best alternative for this type of image? Scalable Vector Graphics have a lot of advantages: They scale better, the file size is usually smaller then raster graphics, and they are easier to modify and translate, helping Wikimedia to distribute knowledge to all of the world. A lot of modern programs support SVG export, though the result is not always what you may expect. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, a member of the Graphic Lab, or the Graphics village pump. Uploading images in SVG format isn't mandatory, but it would help. (Just to avoid any misunderstandings, please don't just put the raster image into a svg container as embedded raster.)[1] Thanks, and happy editing!

theMONO 16:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip! :P – Adrignola talk 16:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:HC Vitkovice Steel.png

Hi, I know why you want to delete the team logo Steel?? All information on enabling the logo here got approval from the editorial team of HC Vitkovice Steel on the official website! I even sent an e-mail ( permits the team logo and I even they themselves sent it to me!!! Otherwise, I wrote on the official website, (exactly - with an editor on the web either write e-mail! --DanielCZ (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that there was an email sent in. I have forwarded it to volunteers who can understand Czech and verify that the proper statement of permission has been received for use of the logo at Wikimedia Commons. Depending on how much of a backlog there is, it should be resolved or you should see a response within a few days. Thank you for your patience in this matter. – Adrignola talk 17:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So what should I do now or where I have to send what you do not know bo? --DanielCZ (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone who understands Czech will look over the email and make any necessary changes to the description page. This could take some time and there's not much you can do at this point. Because I do not speak Czech I cannot approve it myself. – Adrignola talk 18:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:021105-O-9999G-086.jpg & File:021105-O-9999G-093.jpg

Can you think of a better title for these two US Air Force photos? It needs a rename, I think. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

   Done . – Adrignola talk 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sofia Hayat Actor.jpg

Hi there - with regards to the file Sofia Hayat Actor.jpg, I understand you received an email at OTRS about the image, but permissions weren't confirmed. The user has modified the image page to at 'Creative Commons' to the licensing section, removing the OTRS template - I just wanted to know if this is fully confirmed or not? Thanks. Mato (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not. No license was specified and I received no response to my request for one. If they're going to remove my templates, ignore my emails, and try to bypass the process, then instead of defaulting to retaining the image until permission is confirmed, we'll default to removing the image until permission is confirmed. I assume good faith until actions prove otherwise. – Adrignola talk 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard: Request on this DR

Can you please post this DR on an Admin noticeboard somewhere so that other Admins can make a response before the discussion spins out of control? The nominator is accusing the participants of WikiCommons of being liars and...worse...when the flickr upload bot proves he licensed his images freely in the past. This deletion request needs emergency adult supervision. The flickr account owner only has 4 images here and yet he goes crazy! He should just change the license on his images. He's almost insane. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a notice of the issue at Wikipedia's incidents noticeboard for administrators: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darley62. I reversed the removals at Wikipedia. And of course I have the ability to do admin actions here. I will keep an eye on it to see if it escalates. – Adrignola talk 03:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  •    Comment : Thank you for your help. I hope this does not escalate but I fear it could. The person who seconded the nomination may be sockpuppet since his account is only 24 hours old. But I don't want any trouble there as its a distraction. I just want the facts to speak for themselves. PS: I apologise...I should have said "The flickr account owner only has 4 images here", Not the uploader. I amended my statement to you above on this. But I think this could get much worse before it gets better. I hope Kersti does not get dragged into this mess too. But both her and Snowmanradio's uploads prove this flickr account's 4 images here were 'CC BY Generic' at upload. So, I don't understand what more the flickr owner wants? Is it the threat of a lawsuit? Only God knows now sadly. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne images...

Hi Adrignola, this is in regards to the two Avril Lavigne images, File:Avril_Lavigne_leaning,_St._Petersburg.jpg and File:Avril_Lavigne_eyes_shut,_St._Petersburg.jpg. Nicole, the photographer, actually emailed me the specific sizes she wanted to license. She did not want to license the full size images for free use. She emailed the images to me, along with a Declaration of Consent which listed the Flickr URLs. I most likely did not make myself clear that the URLs required were the Commons URLs—were she to email permissions-commons directly. I have had images emailed to me in the past and uploaded them to Commons with the email serving as the release, always without issues. Every time Flickr is involved, it becomes a flippin' mess because the photographers want to release the images under 3.0, not 2.0 (and why shouldn't they?). The full size images should not have been uploaded to Commons. However, last time I had Flickr involved, I was told the Flickr images needed to be freely licensed as well because there is no proof that the images between the email and the Flickr account are linked. I had absolutely no idea that when she licensed the image freely, the original suddenly became available (it wasn't available before; always limited to the size I uploaded). So what I would like to do is essentially start over. Forget Flickr, it's just too confusing. I have an email from her, with the two images attached that she'd like to license, and I can send that to OTRS. It is the exact same email I sent you previously, only I removed the attached images (figuring they were available on Flickr, and again, not knowing they were suddenly available at a larger size).

Does all that make sense? I'm really sorry for the confusion. Again, she wants to license only the smaller version, which is entirely in her right to do. Please advise. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In truth it's probably been me that's stated that the license at Flickr has to be changed. Or it could have been another; we do have a stock response stating to do that very thing. Because the license has been changed, I can see the photographer has been involved. Otherwise I would have no choice but to send the response that you find so frustrating regarding changing the license at Flickr. You have to understand that we have a hard enough time with people uploading copyright violations to Flickr, putting them under cc-by or cc-by-sa and uploading them here with the Flickr review bot approving them; then there's people who pretend to be a Flickr user and send an email from a free email address to bypass the process that would reject an all rights reserved image.
I will revert to the smaller versions. The photographer can revert the license to all rights reserved at Flickr now. In the future, what I've seen suggested is for the Flickr user to upload the smaller size a second time at Flickr, changing only that one to the some rights reserved, so that the full size version is never shown to be anything other than all rights reserved. For anyone not stuck on the 3.0 version, please keep that in mind as a way to bypass us bureaucrats at OTRS and make use of the automated procedure. – Adrignola talk 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are awesome, thank you! And yes, it was you I dealt with before, but in no way am I complaining about the system or your suggestion. I was simply "following through" from your suggestion last time (and last time, the full size was licensed, so I didn't have the same issue as now). I understand completely about the sad situation with copyviolations (I didn't realize the extent people went to) and I always want to do everything I can to prove the images are truly licensed for free use. I will contact the photographer immediately and have them change the licensing back to full ©, but your suggestion for re-uploading the smaller version is fantastic and didn't even occur to me. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello Adrignola, this one is legit, apparently it was transferred from wiki-en manually.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:USS Lexington Sloop of War.jpg

Regarding the speedy deletion of this image. There is a copy here but the image itself comes from the Military Archives of the US NAtional Archive. How do you fix the origin?

I'm pretty sure this was all originally on en.wikipedia and its not the first related image to be deleted. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the description to reflect your comment. – Adrignola talk 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This DR

Can you close this DR for me? I withdrew my nomination. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   Done . – Adrignola talk 19:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting images without notifying uploaders

Hi Adrignola, I've just noticed that you deleted two images I uploaded (File:Simarouba_amara_sapling1.JPG and File:Simarouba_amara_sapling2.JPG) without notifying me that there was a problem prior to deletion. Hopefully you can understand that it is annoying to spend time obtaining images from people off-wiki and then find they are deleted with little explanation. Do you think you could take a look at the images again and let me know who the author was? Unfortunately I don't seem to have the original emails anymore, but will try and get them again off the author. It would be helpful if you could let me know what the reason for deletion was, beyond "Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons" did I forget to forward the emails or what? If I'm not being annoying already, it would help if you reply on my talk page on the english wiki just in case I forget about this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page at regarding my rationale for all actions. – Adrignola talk 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I was a bit annoyed at you before, when it was me who messed up! I'll try and get it sorted out soon. Smartse (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for restoring those redirects. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Una pregunta desde España

Hola, me gustaría saber el motivo por el cual han sido borradas las fotografías de los Alcaldes de Rafal y de otros lugares de ese municipio. Esas fotografías son históricas, estamos de acuerdo de que no cuentan con la mejor calidad, pero son muy antiguas y por eso tienen esa resolución. Me parece muy mal lo que se ha hecho y pienso poner mis quejas si no se restifica tal acción. Espero tu respuesta. Saludos.--Usuario:Javier Baeza Valero (discusión) 11:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No hablo Español. Commons:Café. – Adrignola talk 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lowell Milken Image

Hi Adrignola, I noticed that the Lowell Milken image discussion is no longer on the OTRS message board, but the warning on the image is still present. I just wanted to check in with you about whether you had received the image and permissions from the photographer. I spoke to the photographer whose username is ehpaulo and he uploaded the image directly from him files to give permission for its use. If you could let me know the status of the image I would be very appreciative. Much Thanks Sarahkeen (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not receive a response to my request for information as to who the photographer was, with either the photographer sending in a free license release for the image or a clarification provided for how the copyright was transferred to the Milken family foundation. If copyright was transferred then the photographer's permission isn't required and the photographer uploading the image and licensing it is contradictory to the original license statement I received. If it wasn't transferred then the photographer should contact us via email and the Milken Family Foundation shouldn't claim copyright on the photographer's work they way they did in the original email. – Adrignola talk 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


I replied to the initial request about the Scarlett Johansson image and others. For the Gemma Atkinson ticket you processed, I'll recontact the publicist and see if she can identify the author. Another editor discovered the author's name within the metadata, so hopefully that will help in contacting him for verifying approval. If not, I'll try and get another one uploaded in its place. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Would you move this back to where it was? I can't edit it anymore now. --  Docu  at 18:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The naming allows people to easily see what editnotices apply to any page throughout a namespace (Commons:Editnotice). And yes, I know that there is a title blacklist entry that prevents non-administrators from editing, but please feel free to ping me for changes or use {{editprotected}}. It's quite the power to be able to edit a notice that will show up for every page in a namespace and it's a serious vandalism target to be able to allow anyone to do so. Frankly the previous page should have been fully protected. I did combine both your and Rd232's changes; yours shows up if the category doesn't exist; his shows up if it does. – Adrignola talk 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Adrignola, his edit notice for category namespace was previously discussed in the forum and not adopted, thus please don't implement it.
If your objective is consistency, you could still add a link at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category to load the one from the place where we previously had it. Please apply semi-protection there if you think that is needed. We hadn't encountered any problems there yet except with Rd232. --  Docu  at 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I see. I have commented-out the if-exists editnotice; the if-doesn't-exist notice remains as it was. Commons:Protection policy says "pages may be full protected indefinitely if they are heavily used images or frequently transcluded templates to prevent vandalism". In this case with the page affecting the interface for any category namespace page I have to believe that full protection is the way to go. It is consistent as objectified above, in that both you and Rd232 have to discuss before changes are made. I understand that this isn't ideal from your perspective but you are both free to use {{editprotected}} or point me to any consensus discussions and I will show no favoritism to either. As it is, despite the location change, nothing about the notice has changed now that the if-exists notice has been hidden. – Adrignola talk 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are using your admin tools to implement a solution that suits you, simply ignoring people who usually do things around here. --  Docu  at 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. – Adrignola talk 19:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Please restore the previous solution and seek consensus if you want to change it. --  Docu  at 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There were no objections at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enable_Group_editnotices. – Adrignola talk 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The proposal itself didn't require or include moving existing notices. --  Docu  at 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about me "implementing a solution that suits" me, when I am seeking to improve operations at Commons, your allusion to abuse of admin tools, your allusion that I don't do anything with "people who usually do things around here", and your seeking to wear me down until I relent with constant messages leaves me with no desire to continue this conversation here. You may express concerns at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enable_Group_editnotices, where others' opinions may be sought out. – Adrignola talk 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please attempt to communicate about your solutions. --  Docu  at 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


Pyngodan is the blogger name of Baiju T Balan and that's why I gave Baiju T Balan as the author for this image. I did not notice the metadata while uploading. Actually, he fails from a place called Pyngod in Kerala, India. Anyways, as asked, he has send permissions again and it is available as TT # 2011071310013286. Since you handled the first ticket, can you please check this ticket and close it out if the permissions are OK? --Sreejith K (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)   


. – Adrignola talk 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


This vandalism needs deleting. -- PoliMaster talk/spy 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -- PoliMaster talk/spy 16:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You can use {{reason here}} in the future. No need to nominate for a full discussion for vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. – Adrignola talk 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Photos meaningless

I had sent a copy of the permission to upload photos of the sculptures Pelinor, Dácil and Ico Princess, to wikipedia commons, not to mention that, regarding the photos of Rudy Perez and Porfirio Toledo, had not only sent a copy of the author's permission that indicating that I had a license to upload the photo, as happened with the previous photos, but also the photo was filed in commons because permission had been found. Why do I have to send copies of permits to I have suggest that I have license to upload photos to wikipedia if even so, will they be removed? And by the way, another user found the permission to upload a photo of the sculpture Pelinor. The only thing I can think is that you are removing pictures simply to eliminate them. Nobody thinks to delete a photo that is on file at wikimedia commons because they found their permission to be uploaded to Wikimedia.--Isinbill (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you delete all images from this user, and block him. You don't answer to his messages on your talk page, and on his talk page you don't explain your deletions, and you don't warn that he's blocked, why he's blocked and how he can appeal from that block.
I keep an eye on this user since his first uploads, and i would like to know what went wrong with the permission mail, please ? --Lilyu (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no fewer than 81 emails from this user into the OTRS system. Repeatedly insufficient emails are sent in claiming that people's work on other websites is his own. I have responded to an email for each image that has now been deleted, requesting permission to be submitted by the actual copyright owners. I've explained this in personal emails outside the system. All that's happened is another dozen emails sent in again, with the same assertion that photos on third-party websites are under a particular license, with no evidence to support that and no obvious connection between the user and all of the disparate sites. To top it off the user then slaps on a fake OTRS permission confirmed tag to one of the images tagged as lacking permission. And several of the images were reuploaded after they were deleted the first time, which is a serious violation. After all that I can only assume that they are seeking to have OTRS perform license laundering by repeatedly sending in emails until an OTRS agent that is not well versed in copyright law mistakenly approves the uploads without permission being received from the true copyright owner. You cannot simply take an image off the Internet and claim that it's under whatever license you wish; it's not yours to do with what you please. – Adrignola talk 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations : maybe you could add something on his talk page to warn other users/admins/OTRS of the problematic behavior of this user ?
Few days ago, I contacted a spanish speaking OTRS who said he would deal with the permission mails of this user, and he was unaware of the problems you mention--Lilyu (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll send an email to the OTRS mailing list regarding the issues I'm having so that others can look into it. If Spanish is the native language of the individual a native speaker may be able to explain the need of Commons to contact copyright holders. I'm not having much luck. – Adrignola talk 15:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok !   Lilyu (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This DR

If you have a view on this DR, it would be nice to hear it. This DR is also another interesting one...if you have a little time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your assessments on both are spot-on. – Adrignola talk 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your assessments on the DRs. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted pictures which I uploaded

Hi. You deleted Zeitstudiengerät.jpg, Modern_Hanhart_Time_study_stopwatch.jpg, ORTIM_a5_Time_Study_System.png today. The three of them were pictures which I did not take myself but the owner of the rights send me and you emails to allow a publication in commons. The first is a picture which took a friend of mine himself - other are company owned ones. So please tell me, what was wrong with the license, and give me a chance to correct this. I worry about because the emails told me, that everything is okay? Last: What is the different between the three deleted ones and this: Drigus Multidata 6 Time Study System.jpg? Same circumstance, same email-license. Didn't you find the emails? Didn't you understand them because in german?-- Tasma3197 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A specific release under a free license was required and no response to the request for one was received for over a month. I was not the one handling the ticket since as you know I don't speak German. The particular individual who received the emails and sent back a response requesting the specific license was User:AFBorchert. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


Please mind your language. Multichill (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi. CommonsDelinker I see that this image is now removed. I just want to know one thing, was there a discussion on this topic before its removal. If there was no discussion at all then it not fair to immediately removing it. I guess that image supposed to be dated by 1960, so it could have had its own valid reasons for its inclusion other than the reason "No source" for its deletion. ----Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre tagged this on June 29th as being a derivative work of a copyrighted certificate design that provided no date of the design's creation for determining whether the original was public domain due to age and no source for the document's origin other than "Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons". This is essential information and the image was tagged as missing this information, the uploader notified, and a full two weeks provided to rectify the situation (minimum is one week). – Adrignola talk 04:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fake edit log

Please undo the merge of the edits done at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category. The diffs no longer allow to follow the edits done on the separate pages. --  Docu  at 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_21#Fastily_.282.29 regarding Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion where others said diffs did work. I wished for both you and Rd232 to receive credit for contributions made to two separate locations and so a history merge was performed. This is not easily undone. But all of the changes are together; you and Rd232's edits on June 10th are all together, with the initial creation of the notice and subsequent edit on November 2010 clearly shown prior to that in the page history. While some history merges can scramble the combined page's history, this appears to be a case where the result is easily followed. – Adrignola talk 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit history merges are generally not acceptable. I didn't agree to the log of my edits to be merged.
I understand that your adminship is fairly recent, but this doesn't dispense from respecting other users contributions and doesn't allow you to implement your views in the way that suits you. Please undo this mess. --  Docu  at 14:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We will have to disagree on the requirement that all contributors must consent to a history merge. I've never heard it to be a requirement but it's something that, if you desire, could be discussed in a village pump for wider input. I split the history and your edits are back at Commons:Categories/editnotice. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File deleted

Hi. Why did you delete the file Francoise_Sagan_au_studio_Harcourt_1963.jpg ? -- 18:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This file specified "Internet" as the source. It is stated to be taken in 1963, but with no source that can't be verified; maybe in some countries it could be public domain but it's not likely, and with no source we don't even know the country of origin. Furthermore there is no evidence of permission from "Studio Harcourt" listed as the author. And finally the image didn't even have a license tag. So that's a triple whammy of missing essential information that was not corrected after the file was tagged and the uploader notified on June 29th. – Adrignola talk 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Images deleted without warning me?

I have just noticed a whole lot of "missing" images I had uploaded last year and have had to track back to find out what happened. According to the edit summaries here you deleted many images I uploaded in April. I am concerned because I was neither warned of this here nor sent an email about any OTRS concerns. As far as I was aware the OTRS came through and I am frustrated and a little upset because I will now have to go through and recreate the files from the email they were sent to me by and then upload them - and when you're talking about that number of images I'm not looking forward to it. Can you please tell me why they were all deleted without any warning whatsoever? I'm usually pretty responsive to such things! PageantUpdater talkcontribs 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploaders of such files should receive notification from User:HersfoldOTRSBot as you had at User_talk:PageantUpdater#Files_you_uploaded_may_be_deleted for other files. As far as I can tell you are the same person one of our OTRS volunteers was trying to converse with, at least given the email address's similarity to your username. A forwarded email was received on 7/31/2010 and due to a backlog the volunteer responded on 9/06/2010. He replied to the email that was supposedly the origin address for the forwarded email (this is the address I believe to be yours - pageantsmart...). He wanted confirmation from that address to ensure that the person forwarding the email had not forged the forwarded information. But no response was received from September 2010 to April 2011. So, yes, you should have received an email but we received no response back to it. It would have stated ticket 2010073010014147 in the subject line. – Adrignola talk 02:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem - he replied to the email address of the photographer who gave permission to release the images not my email address - is that usual practice? By doing that they essentially took me out of the loop despite the fact that I was the person who both uploaded the photos and lodged the OTRS permission, leaving me clueness until now. The Stephanie Smith images are a different case because they came from a different photographer and are/were not related to the Miss Teen USA images. I am still unaware as to what was wrong with the OTRS permission given the photographer filled in the standard release template. Surely a warning on my talk page before deletion should have been warranted? PageantUpdater talkcontribs 04:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
So you're asserting that the email address similar to your username is in fact not your email address? I was a new administrator at the time going through backlogs nobody else would handle and it did not occur to me to leave a notification for an image marked as not having sufficient permission for over six months. The images can be restored rather than reuploaded if the photographer sends the release to permissions-commons I personally often accept forwarded statements but I will respect the wishes of the volunteer who wanted to get it directly. If I were handling the same situation today I would have done things differently I will admit. – Adrignola talk 12:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar but no, that's his email not mine. Why does it have to go through the photographer? Can I send you his original email? It's explicitly clear he's given permission. The pics were from this time last year and I don't want to bother the guy about it again. PageantUpdater talkcontribs 13:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we can accept a forwarded email then. If the photographer has a professional website we can use that for providing credit as well. – Adrignola talk 13:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Adrignola/Archive 2".