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.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →


File:Liquid Space 6.1.jpeg

Hi Adrignola, when Flickr-reviewing this image yesterday did you realize that the resolution of the uploaded version (1342×900) ist clearly higher than the highest available resolution on Flickr (929×623)? In addition, the Flickr version has a full EXIF data set[1], which includes the name of photographer Lotte Stekelenburg, whereas the uploaded version has no EXIF data. I am not suggesting Flickr-washing here, however, at least the author crediting is questionable as Lotte Stekelenburg[2] does not belong to Studio Roosegaarde[3]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In the OTRS ticket that referenced File:Intimacy2 by Studio Roosegaarde.jpg, a supposed intern for Studio Roosegaarde was trying to address the no permission tag that as applied. While he said he was not yet listed on the website, and I did not see him listed on his website, I noticed that deletion request that had taken place for File:Intimacy2.jpeg which referenced Flickr and the person who wrote in through OTRS also said he was changing all the licenses at Flickr. So rather than try to get email releases for the rest from a source that was not definitive, I altered the source information to point to the Flickr files which had been licensed properly. I am not infallible, so if I've missed something that you feel is critical I will not take offense to a deletion request to sort it out. I note that as I've been writing this, the uploader made a change. Perhaps it was a work for hire? – Adrignola talk 14:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you contact this user please

Hi man, can you please contact the user as at {{BenKing}} - it is the user User:Biggerben, we just need to confirm his holding of copyrights. Cheers, russavia (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sent a message and I will add the ticket number when I see a response come back. – Adrignola talk 14:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket help

Hey, this is with reference to File:Ayesha Takia - Bollywoodblog-Aug-8th-2006.jpg. I wasn't able to locate the OTRS ticket (the ticket ID doesn't work and I'm still getting the hang of the search function) but en:User talk:Riana/BollywoodBlog appears to go into deeper detail about this. Apparently there was a problem of the blog not knowing what images were theirs to give and what wasn't. This one's already gone through a DR here. Would you be able to take a look? log for the image is at en:File:Ayesha Takia - Bollywoodblog-Aug-8th-2006.jpg cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First, let me make sure you aren't confusing this with Bollywood Hungama, which has its release in ticket 2008030310010794. Bollywoodblog first granted a CC-BY-SA license in ticket 2007091710010455. Apparently some screen captures of movies were being uploaded by people under the blanket release, when those weren't covered because the copyright didn't belong to the blog. Images taken at events (like this picture) are covered. However, in ticket 2007111410015862 where some OTRS members requested that unfree pictures be marked as such, the blog's operator said it would be too much trouble and suggested it be best if the partnership be concluded. Now, CC licenses can't be revoked, but we do have good evidence that not all of the pictures on the blog were freely licensed. In the DR the admin says that it was verified to have come from the blog and because this was taken at an event and likely by the blog's photographic agency, it should be freely licensed. – Adrignola talk 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm very familiar with the Bollywood Hungama ticket and the Filmi Tadka release (I have 100+ of the Hungama uploads pending review right now). I'm currently going through a copyright clean up of India film images (image wise this is a high% of my India related copyvio work on and here), so I want to make sure that everything is kosher in the cat at least as of this week and am uploading a few images for each actor/actress to provide a choice for the "choice based copyvio enthusiasts". For some reason I couldn't find this ticket when I searched for it on the system. The reason I asked for this particular image is that it looks like a duplicate of this Bollywood Hungama image which of a higher resolution (I don't know how to do pixel comparisons etc, but even the strands of hair are at the exact same positions on both images). I'm not questioning the editor's statement along with file upload or at the DR, I'm really questioning the reliability of the Bollywood Blog and was curious to check that against the OTRS ticket. All these images were deleted from apparently. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Given what you say about the other images, and your convincing evidence for Bollywood Hungama being the source, I think we should upload the higher resolution version of the image over the old version for this highly used image and adjust the information to point to Bollywood Hungama and its OTRS ticket instead. – Adrignola talk 14:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There's another image from the blog too, that was deleted on [4] as copyvio based on the discussion I've linked above but is currently on Commons. I'll see if there's an alternate source for this one and let you know. Are you suggesting that I just reupload the Bollywood Hungama version over this one and re-attribute it? We'll also need to get rid of this Bollywood Blog category after both images are taken care of. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as this image is used on many articles and we have a legitimate source for it. – Adrignola talk 15:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Done the Ayesha Takia image (it needs review of the BH license). I haven't looked for the other one yet, will do so soon. Also, if a file rename is requested, the bot will go around and fix it on all the wikis right? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As long as you use the "move and replace" link rather than the "move" link. – Adrignola talk 20:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • On File:PriyankaChopra.jpg, it appears to be a crop of this, and I'm not sure the blog's OTRS ticket should hold water. We don't have an exact free equivalent, but we probably ought to move another image to this name so as to prevent unlinking. How do you suggest going about this one? SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, hopefully this is the end of the images from this blog and there aren't any that are outside of the (now deleted) category. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Something up with OTRS email?

Hi - You've probably seen the post already, but it looks as though someone else has problems with the OTRS email address (@ helpdesk). Should this be logged anywhere? Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 09:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It really seems like it's on their end, as we've been getting plenty of emails to the permissions addresses lately. Or some server along the way is deleting their email as spam and not sending back a notice. I'm not quite sure where or what the issue is. Maybe if we could determine whether both individuals are using the same email provider or whether there's some other commonality. – Adrignola talk 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I just got word that the email was sent to (one of) the other addresses - it is sent in regards to File:Bakel plein omstreeks 721 na Chr..jpg & that there were no issues that time. As I'm not talking to the person sending the email, merely to the uploader of the file, there's not much troubleshooting I can do from this end. Anyway - thanks for the help. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Safely delete emails?

Hey man, is it safe for me to delete the emails which have been OTRS confirmed? Just need to make some room in my email, so if everything is safe to delete, I will do that. Please advise. Thanks russavia (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't know how you manage to fill up 7 GB on Gmail and I don't think your text messages and tiny Word documents will make a dent in the total. It's more likely messages you've received with attached images that are sucking up the space. – Adrignola talk 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket regarding User:Gtroy's block

Hi Adrignola, I saw this ticket moved into stewards queue, is there any action needed from stewards? seems to me it's just a unblock request on enwikt. Regards--Bencmq (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the private information in the email can't be disclosed on the wiki and it is extremely unlikely that any en.wikt admins are active in the sister projects queue to handle it. – Adrignola talk 14:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

and authors also confirmed?

I just worry because authors not the same here and here --Алый Король (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked for and got full size versions of the pictures that are on file to prove that they were the original photographers. No size image as large as what each provided is available online. – Adrignola talk 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
ok, and do the authors mind uploading the images in their original size? --Алый Король (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
They should have provided them to the uploader if they didn't mind. I told them I would not upload the original sizes myself. These are professional photographers and they are free to license lower resolution versions of the images differently, in order to protect the commercial potential of the largest sizes. – Adrignola talk 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
but you always can ask directly, its better than suppose, maybe they agree or maybe they don't --Алый Король (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Flag of Hezbollah

In fact, the SVG is a deriavative work of an artwork which can be seen in public often (perhaps hundreds of times) in the Lebanon, as any flag is designed for use in the public. The uploader of the SVG released his rendition into the PD or the file had a CC-licence. I do not believe it should be a problem that a PD or CC deriavative of an artwork under panorame freedom should be a problem here. The real problem in the UnDR is the fact that lebanese panorama freedom is to weak in normal cases, as it restricts its use to education porposes. But in that case the flag can be used only in educational porposes, because it contains a logo. I explained in the UnDR: "The image is restricted in use by trademark issues, it can be used only for educational porposes. Commons accepts such restrictions, any coat os arms, logo or seal has them. But here, also the copyright restricts the use on educational porposes. It may be a general question if such cases are acceptable." --Antemister (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not understanding freedom of panorama, which can never apply to an SVG. And a restriction on educational use only is not permitted, as that is effectively a non-commercial license, which is also not allowed. Your local Wikipedia can host the file for use in relevant articles for which it has an educational context, but the hosting of the file at Commons does not comply with our policies. – Adrignola talk 19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It is allowed for a painter to create a picture of a copyrighted building in country with FOP, and he can release his works into PD oder publish them as CC - same as for an SVG. And we have many files which can be used only in educational, but not artistic publications: Any insignia, coat of arms, seal, logo is protected by trademark issue against use in artistic works, even if it is not protected by copyright. The educational porpose can of course be a commercially sold book or documentary film, for example.--Antemister (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
Good work on your photos. I have sent an email request regarding on requesting my rights immedatly. Regards Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Louise did her Last day at Mecel today, Mathias.Fritzson (at) could help to clarify the licence. I have send a message so this get sorted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balp (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC)
Excellent. I thought it was odd that the person sending the permission was no longer with the company. – Adrignola talk 21:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


I left this advice for User:Hold and wave, who I am concerned may be coming pretty close to the kind of comments that triggered the recent block. Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

About File:Bagaucircular1peque.jpg

Hello. The file was deleted "Bagaucircular1peque.jpg" for having no license data and permissions, is the hallmark of Taoist society in Cuba, and would like to re-upload with the name "Sello_Sociedad_Taoísta_de_Cuba.jpg." But every time I try I get the following warning: "A file identical to this (File:Bagaucircular1peque.jpg) has been deleted before. You should check the history file deleted before uploading it again". By the way the file was created by myself. Can you help me to upload the file again please?.
Pd: excuse my english
--Wong Yu Lian (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You must request the file to be restored at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎, providing the missing information (license or permissions). You cannot and have no need to upload the file again since it can be undeleted. – Adrignola talk 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS query

You have stated that OTRS is confirmed here but there is no OTRS number? --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Auditing my edits? I had forgotten to add the number and it is now present. – Adrignola talk 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope - trying to tidy up udel reqs. --Herby talk thyme 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Those do often go neglected. I've often wished that the OTRS admins would observe the first few permissions approvals for new OTRS members as I do see occasional mistakes, such as not matching licenses to those specified in an email or correcting an author to the actual one rather than the username of the uploader. As we saw here, I focus heavily on having correct information, to the point that I overlooked the mundane of the OTRS tag. – Adrignola talk 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

While we are on that subject...! Can you take a look at this one maybe - from here it looks as though OTRS was suggested and somewhere has removed a deletion tag in the re-uploaded history but there is no number? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dupe of File:Actor Cal Rein.jpg. That file itself is Flickr washing. Ticket 2010051610031319 did not come from an address associated with the website in the Flickr user's profile. – Adrignola talk 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again (& for clearing up!). --Herby talk thyme 08:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eleutherna Bridge

Hello. Concerning the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, could you please add the License Review template for these two images (File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 02.jpg and File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 04.jpg), as you already did for the other two (1 and 3). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No license review will be performed if there is no exact source provided to the file's location on for actual review of said license. – Adrignola talk 13:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Liszt Ferenc-mellszobor (Schillingsfürst), távoli.jpg.jpg

You've deleted the picture with "No OTRS permission received" edit summary. Simply not true. The OTRS permission is and was here from Sept 5, 2011. Bennó (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Then put the tag on the file next time. I'm not restoring the file because I don't have access to that ticket and you uploaded the file so I can't take your word on it. You may request assistance at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. – Adrignola talk 16:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm member of the OTRS team, that's why I've uploaded it. You can take my word on it as seriously as in any other case. The picture is not mine, I did'nt have any relation with it's author, except that I was the OTRS agent who received his e-mail. & just for the record, if my memory serves me right, I indeed have put the tag on the file. No, I won't do anything. Honey, if you really don't mind having deleted a useful file with proper permission, why should I? Bennó (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the file. You can see quite clearly in the page history that you did not place any {{PermissionOTRS}} tag on the file. I have marked it as lacking permission. You may vouch for the file but I will not do so for any email that I do not have access to. – Adrignola talk 16:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you do not have access, but I have. True, I did not place the tag, but you can clearly see from my userpage that I'm indeed a member of the OTRS team & sysop of huWP, who supposedly do not upload files for the humour of it. If you've had enough time to mark the picture as lacking permission & after to delete it, probably noticing me about the problem would not have been a bad idea. Bennó (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

thumb|260px: the same problem, the same ticket. Bennó (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is common for uploaders to tag images as OTRS pending to avoid having files deleted due to lack of permission. I have cleared out many such files that have been tagged as such even as far back as August and with the time period we're talking about, with backlogs at less than a week in OTRS, it's safe to say that they lack email verification. Any deletions are not performed any sooner than 30 days since tagging; as such it would be expected that the uploader would seek feedback on the status of an image at the OTRS noticeboard if nothing has happened in a month. This file has been restored and is awaiting verification. – Adrignola talk 17:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Bennó (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Massa.pdf

You deleted today a pdf.file for which I had permission from the author. I sent his email forward on 8/9/11 to

   Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 4:39 PM
   Dear Taco,
   you are explicitly allowed to upload my article on Isaac Massa.
   Greetings Pim.

May be I missed something, or did you? Taks (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't missed anything. If an OTRS volunteer felt the image had permission, they would have tagged the file as such. From what you have quoted above, that is not a sufficient release. The copyright holder must provide an acceptable license and none of those licenses are specific to Wikipedia or a particular article. A release that doesn't even mention a license and designates the release for a particular article is therefore not sufficient and this should have been relayed to you by an OTRS volunteer. – Adrignola talk 17:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

hello Adrignola, I have never uploaded a pdf file before in my life, so things can go wrong. Besides English is not my mother tongue. I contacted the author a few minutes ago. Should we upload the file again, or could you restore the file, when Van der Meiden comes up with a apropriate email?

The file can be restored when the email is read by an OTRS volunteer. No need to reupload. – Adrignola talk 19:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Works of art by Svein Nyhus

Hello, I can see that you have deleted File:Dahle Nyhus Den grådige ungen forside 1997 2011.jpg and File:Svein Nyhus Lars er Lars forside 2011.jpg. The artist is both a friend of mine, a reknown children's books artist nominated for the en:Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award, and a major contributor to no:wp as no:Bruker:Wolfmann.

He has released several of his works of art on commons, by good licences. See also User_talk:Wolfmann#Image:Nyhus_Opp_og_ut_00.jpg. Beeing his own work of art, I wonder why it should be necessary with an OTRS-ticket. Would you please consider restoring the pictures, and give the necessary warnings at no:Brukerdiskusjon:Wolfmann, where i assume that he is more likely to read them. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

These files were tagged as needing OTRS permission by the uploader, which would normally tell me that they received the content from someone else and were going to forward an email from the copyright holder to the OTRS team. These images in particular were book covers, which were published by Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, and so the publisher needs to provide the release, as they will have the copyright on the images. If you look at a book you will normally see on the inside pages a notice that the book is copyrighted by the publisher. And ordinarily such illustrations on the front of the book will be a work for hire for the publisher. I shall leave a note for the user along this line. – Adrignola talk 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a cover illustration would normally be a work for hire; but in these cases, we are talking about picture book's, where the illustrator's copyright is equal to the author's, and of longer duration that the publisher's. Plus; Svein is both author and illustrator for the one, whilst he is illustrating his wife's text in the other of these books. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
But content in books beyond the cover is also normally copyrighted by the publisher, with the author paid for the transfer of the rights to the publisher. As I said, I've left a note on the user's page and ideally an email will be sent in to clarify the issue as to who owns the copyright. – Adrignola talk 22:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you applying norwegian, english or US copyright law and publishing agreements in your description of what is normally? I also repeat my question from above: would you please restore the pictures until this is solved; so that I too can see what problems there may be. --Morten Haugen (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The images have been temporarily restored. Content at Commons faces the copyright laws of both the source country (in this case Norway) as well as the United States (the jurisdiction applicable to the servers this site runs on). – Adrignola talk 01:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:OTRS pending

Please don't test on a template. Just copy it to a sandbox. Play around with it, test it and than change the main template. Now the template was producing expression errors and other garbage. Multichill (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It was missing one bracket for crying out loud. – Adrignola talk 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Please be more careful. Your edit to Template:AntWeb permission caused 30.000+ files to end up being tagged with missing permission. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You really need to stop doing this now. Edits like you did on {{Nationaal Archief-license}} are not helpful at all. Multichill (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
And aren't they lacking permission? No OTRS approval has been received for these files in months and you were the one who was insisting, on these templates, that the OTRS pending tag remain on them, theoretically to require that OTRS approval for the files be received for the files to be kept. Shall we ignore requirements just because it's quite a few files? – Adrignola talk 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You do sloppy work and you don't realize the impact of your actions. If you would have checked you would have realized Antweb updated their terms of use since I last tagged this template. But you didn't check, you just blindly followed the rules. Multichill (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't care for your personal attacks. I do a lot for Commons and you can take your holier than thou attitude elsewhere. – Adrignola talk 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS of Zannatul Ferdous images

I will send the permission as soon as possible. Please hold a bit. Thanks for your reminder! :-) — Tanvir | Talk ] 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Hello, you recently deleted File:ChrisGardnerSept2011.jpg, due to no OTRS permission. I just checked my records and it should have the permission from the ticket #2011092610000324 (currently used for 12 other images). Let me know if there are other details I need to provide if that permission doesn't state it. Thank you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the ticket, I see that you had linked to the source at Flickr in the list sent to the original copyright holder but had not linked this image in the list you provided to us. So it was missed in being tagged under the release. I've restored it, tagged it, and relinked the image. – Adrignola talk 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


You deleted photos which were obtained by permission as there File:Мечеть в Гордали.jpg. Дагиров Умар (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider 2011092510010379 to be a valid release. It is not clear why the volunteer told you it was acceptable after telling you that it could not be confirmed due to a lack of any public email address being shown to match against the email address from which the same release was sent twice. I don't speak Russian and rely on machine translation for this particular situation and therefore the OTRS agent handling the email should have tagged the files as having permission if he felt it was valid despite my misgivings. You may contact User:Ahonc to request the restoration and tagging of the files as he is an administrator and the one who tagged the file you linked above. – Adrignola talk 03:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:South Campus architecture close up.jpg

Can you confirm the ORTS details of File:South Campus architecture close up.jpg, specificity there have been lots of uploads of copyright img's from the uni website and given the copyright statement in the metadata and the mismatch in Authors. Is it clear that the uploaded and ORTS ticked submitter can bind the university in such a manor ? Mtking (edits) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The individual did write from a university email and asserts that he is on the board of directors. But his release did not specify the university as the copyright holder and claimed he was the copyright holder. And the descriptions state he took the pictures when, as you have pointed out, someone else is specified in the camera's metadata. I have asked for clarification. If you do not see a change on the files soon or a follow-up from me, ping me and I will delete them. – Adrignola talk 20:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am revising the information as these were works for hire. – Adrignola talk 20:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Given neither of the names given are listed on the Our Leadership page of the uni, and given the statement made on the "Description" of the upload that he is a "a student at the University at Buffalo", I suspect that he does not have the status to make the ORTS verification. Mtking (edits) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Also have a look at this edit. Mtking (edits) 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following is how he signed his mail, which is a address:
-Board of Directors | UB True Blue
-Assembly Member | UB Student Association
-Public Relations Officer | Academic Affairs Committee
I've asked for confirmation from him that he is in a position to enter into legal agreements for the university. – Adrignola talk 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
He states that he is a student. If you find the situation to be fishy, then you need not worry about any ill-will from me should you wish to nominate for deletion. He said the pictures were taken by him as part of a cooperative project with the other individual listed in the EXIF data. – Adrignola talk 03:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I do find it to be fishy, I do not believe that he has the universities consent to upload, I will nominate them for deletion. Mtking (edits) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
They shouldn't be deleted!


Hi, I'm just following up the OTRS discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Summary. Further down that page you made some comments about housekeeping of Special:ListUsers/OTRS-member. Am I right in thinking that OTRS access does not expire due to account inactivity? Because that would seem a fairly obvious thing to do, and if so it could be proposed. Perhaps you have some other ideas too. Rd232 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Access to OTRS does expire due to inactivity, assuming the OTRS admins are staying on the ball. However, membership in the OTRS-members group here on Commons is not necessarily kept in sync with those who currently have access to the OTRS system and the permissions queues within it. I have rectified this, though, in a recent request that had inactive members removed from the group here at Commons. – Adrignola talk 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I see. OK then. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File licensing question

Hello ! I would like to ask you a question concerning the upload of sound files on Commons. I want to upload a musical sample of a folk song which is to be used on some articles on the English Wikipedia, but I am not sure what license to use. The song is Bulgarian, and according to the copyright law of Bulgaria, works of folklore are in the public domain. In this case, would it matter which artist is performing the song, or it will still be in PD regardless of the performer, thus eligible for upload ? I don't know if an artist can claim copyright status on a public domain work as defined by law...- Tourbillon 18:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't provide a definitive answer on this. I am not familiar with Bulgarian law and my experience has been limited to images. I must direct you instead to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where others with more experience in the areas of sound files and Bulgarian law can assist you. – Adrignola talk 19:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will check out the VP, thanks ! - Tourbillon 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB permission

Dear Adrignola, Sorry for bothering you but could you please take a look at Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Users, the last 2 requests. It looks like nobody else is working on it.--Joopwiki (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you have 200 edits on Commons to indicate a knowledge of how things are done here, despite any edits elsewhere. Admins are waiting for you to become more involved before adding you to the AWB list. – Adrignola talk 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? I have 210 edits on Commons.. Nevertheless, why would/should it be a problem to grant access to the Commons AWB section to 100.000+ edits Wikipedians? If that's indeed a rule.. that'd just be ridiculous. Grashoofd (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, you have 179. It says quite clearly on the guide that you must have 200 edits. Live edits are what I consider. Edits elsewhere do not hold any standing, and why should they? Wikipedia considers Wikibooks to be an external site. No other project is even close to Commons in terms of how it operates. Before you are allowed the ability to make automated edits, regardless of whether you say you will make edits or not, a familiarity with this project must be demonstrated. Perhaps someone else takes a different view. But that is my view. – Adrignola talk 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As you wish: [5] - Grashoofd (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


Can you update the links (different languages) inside the locked template? Many thanks.

English: [ Fondazione Cariplo - Artgate]

Italiano: [ Fondazione Cariplo - Artgate]

(Old links are [ Fondazione Cariplo]).

--M.casanova (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure.   Done. – Adrignola talk 20:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. --M.casanova (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

resuscitating the deleted File:RH090515 Cover 101 Billionaires HR.jpg

I am the creator of and main contributor to the en:WP article en:Rob Hornstra. I have just noticed that it is missing a graphic previously hosted at Commons, File:RH090515 Cover 101 Billionaires HR.jpg. Digging around here reveals that on 22 August User:Mabdul asked about this -- and also about one other file used in en:Rob Hornstra but not (yet) deleted -- on the talk page of User:David-vroom, who had uploaded it but had contributed nothing to Commons for five full months previously and who unsurprisingly failed to respond. Neither User:Mabdul nor anybody else attempted to contact me about either file. And as I'm not an administrator here I can't look at the deleted file and check the details.

As for the other file, this edit by you has a comment reading OTRS does NOT apply to this file; do NOT copy and paste OTRS tags from other files! Is this relevant to the deleted file? Or what is required for the undeletion of File:RH090515 Cover 101 Billionaires HR.jpg?

Unless my memory is mistaken, the latter (deleted) file simply shows the front cover of a book titled 101 Billionaires. This cover design in turn comprises a possibly cropped but otherwise trivially altered photograph by Rob Hornstra. The design would therefore be either © Rob Hornstra, or © the Sochi Project (authors and publisher of the book). RH is half of the Sochi Project and can speak for it. User:David-vroom was at the time working as an intern for RH, who asked DV to upload some cover images to Commons. I don't know what the precise instructions were, and would wildly guess that both of them were only hazily familiar with copyleft versus public domain, and that DV didn't spend the considerable amount of time that's needed for a newcomer to sort it all out and make the best choices when uploading.

Despite my perhaps suspicious degree of knowledge of RH, I am not RH, and not a stooge for him. (He and I became slightly acquainted by email after I wrote an article on him. I hope and believe that I have edited this impartially since we did first exchange email.) And I can't claim to speak for him. I do know that he's very busy. (And I don't have unlimited time or patience myself.) But all right, what should/might he or I do? -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The publisher needs to contact OTRS and confirm the licensing. If they did not pay Rob Hornstra to take the photograph as a work for hire then they need to confirm his contact information and have him instead license the image. Starting out with the publisher will establish a legitimate point of contact, as assertions from a freely-registered-by-anyone email such as Gmail cannot be accepted without corroboration. This assumes that all the parties involved are aware of the license terms. Also be aware that book covers can be uploaded under fair use at Wikipedia for use on articles about the books. – Adrignola talk 15:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Right then. Should I invite RH to send the following message to, or do you suggest any changes to it?

I'm writing about the file "RH090515 Cover 101 Billionaires HR.jpg", previously at Wikimedia Commons but deleted some time this year. (Please see a November 2011 discussion about this at .)

The image is of a book cover, and the book cover shows a photograph. I am the author of the photograph. The book is published by the Sochi Project, the partnership of Arnold van Bruggen and myself. (This is described in .)

I hereby affirm that I am the creator of the photograph shown in the image, and, with Arnold van Bruggen, the copyright holder for the book and its cover design.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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 claimed to have been made by 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.

Rob Hornstra
Publisher, The Sochi Project

Can you suggest any tweak for this that would enable him to upload further images without going through the OTRS rigmarole every time? Something like:

I have created the user ID "[WHATEVER]", which I will use to upload works whose copyright I own. Please note wherever appropriate that "[WHATEVER]" is indeed me, in order to minimize the likelihood that I'll have to make further OTRS requests in the future.

Or would it be better for this second request (or something similar to it) to be separated from the first one? -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The wording is fine and if the email comes from an address associated with an organization, a note can be left on the user's user page regarding the relationship. – Adrignola talk 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good, thank you.

And now the joke (at my expense): I was so pissed off (sorry!) and tired when I noticed that the image had been zapped that I misattributed the book to the Sochi Project. It's not the Sochi Project; it's instead Rob Hornstra personally. (Or Borotov Photography, which is actually Rob Hornstra personally.) This should make the message to OTRS a bit simpler. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Massa.pdf

On 29 October you deleted "File:Isaac Massa.pdf" (No OTRS permission received), remember? On 31 October I sent an email to with a new and more elaborated authorization of the author. Now I hope it will not take several months before it has been uploaded again. If it does, please leave a message the email has been received! If I did something wrong or missed a detail blame it to my "house-garden-and-kitichen" English. Thanks a lot.Taks (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Adrignola, could you give us a clue? It is all legal matter and quit difficult. Is Creative Commons the best for an article this size and without pictures? Taks (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Van der Meiden: There is no copyright on my article 'Isaac Massa and the beginnings of Dutch-Russian relations and therefore anybody, everywhere in the world, is allowed to publish it. Taks (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now restored the file with the clarified licensing and a reference to the email. – Adrignola talk 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi, Aaron! I've uploaded the image of video game composer Jeremy Soule recently, with the permission of his representative. She sent the OTRS permission to Commons; five days have passed since, but it is still not confirmed. Can you check for it? Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  Done. I have not had the time lately to put in to OTRS and backlogs are up to 25 days and growing. – Adrignola talk 15:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Clent Hills 1988

With reference to this deletion why did you not contact me before deleting it and ask me to follow up the OTRS request?

To the best of my knowledge I sent in an OTRS request. I know little about the internal workings of OTRS, so when you write "No OTRS permission received" do you mean that it was not received from me or from the third party? Please reply on my talk page. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I'll email him again see if he is willing to fill in the form. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello Adrignola, first:I apologize for my english (I do not know a lot about). the reason is ask for help, yeah!, is for the Image is an singer, of which I have been working to become a feature article in the WIKIPEDIA in spanish. I thought of you because you are a manager of OTRS, (I do not know if I could help), would be a great contribution, Thanks for any response. BYE :).

--Chrishonduras (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you are asking me to do. I do not speak Spanish and OTRS only handles copyright issues. – Adrignola talk 01:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your template

Hello Adriagnola, I have seen your template User:Adrignola/category-tracker and I think that it is really good for all those involved in maintenance. I came her to suggest its move to the official template space, and so give it a bit more of "official" character, but first I would like to double check with you. Best regards, Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be fine. I know many people use variations of it in one form or another and I based my version off a previous one someone else had made, so it is quite likely to be useful to many. – Adrignola talk 19:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lambert Schlechter photo Francois Besch.jpg

Hi Adrignola,

Just saw that you've deleted above file (No OTRS permission received).

However I've sent the permission at 22:44 on 29SEP11. Should I repost the permission to or what is the procedure to follow?

Best regards --Jwh (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you should. An OTRS agent will request more information if needed. If nothing else is needed they will restore the file as well (no need to re-upload). – Adrignola talk 04:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your fast reply, have a nice day. --Jwh (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Hello Adrignola, how do I upload this a picture through the OTRS ? --MyCanon (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The captions all indicate different photographers and that they have been licensed via Getty. They are therefore not going to be eligible for free licensing. Getty will never permit such an arrangement, even if you were to get in contact with the original photographer, as the photographer must agree to Getty's terms (exclusive licensing) to sell images through them. – Adrignola talk 22:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, no problem. But I want to know how I can be the upload image by OTRS. Best Regards. --MyCanon (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. – Adrignola talk 01:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I mean, how do I upload image image such as (this), through the OTRS. Best Regards. --MyCanon (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't like Flickr files submitted through OTRS. For those you should use the procedure at Commons:Flickr files. For all others, the procedure at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. – Adrignola talk 02:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, my friend, I understand that. thank you for discussion on this topic. Best Regards. --MyCanon (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Adrignola, If I take a picture of a person X with my camera, I am the copyright holder (right?) since I took the picture, but I was wondering whether I need to prompt the person X within the picture to forward an email to Wikimedia saying that yes, they consent to having a picture of themselves in Wikipedia. Or is such a procedure even necessary? Or is there some other procedure to do alert Wikimedia that the person-pictured gives their permission? I remember seeing things like "personality rights warning" on some photos in the past, and I am not sure how to avoid such a tag. And thanks in advance for your attention to this question.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You only need to assert that consent has been obtained if the picture is of an individual in a private place (see COM:PEOPLE), but no third-party proof is required under current policies. This can be voluntarily indicated by yourself with {{Consent}}. – Adrignola talk 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thank you so much; simpler than I thought.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Administrator's barnstar

  The Administrator's barnstar
I hereby award Adrignola this barnstar for high activity as Administrator on Commons in 2011. Very good work! -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Hmm, I don't understand this your edit. It's a guess or it's confirmed via OTRS or something? Trycatch (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was a guess. I can't recall how I even came across the file, it's been so long ago. – Adrignola talk 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on a couple of gadgets. We are trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- MarkAHershberger(talk) 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Permission for some pictures

Hi, Adrignola! Can you look at the e-mail sent by (me). --Batman tas (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 21:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect graphics

Hi. There is no such species [6] Alter welt (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I only verified the license, not the accuracy of information in the description. I'm certainly not a biologist. If you know the correct information, I can correct it and/or rename the file. – Adrignola talk 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Monitoring of the request

Good night, sorry to bother you, but advised me to speak with an OTRS volunteer, so that you do not care, do the follow-up request. The request concerns the following images: and

Thanks, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The email related to those files is in the Commons Portuguese language queue and should be handled soon by someone that can understand the language. An OTRS representative has linked to the email from the files and indicated that they are in the process of being approved. If any further information is required, it will be requested via email. – Adrignola talk 00:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, several of your recent uploads (example: KA24ITB20.jpg) would be much more useful if you added a description stating exactly what the item is. Without a description or a meaningful name, the image is nearly useless. – JBarta (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I only know that they are of a particular Nissan engine's parts; I'm not a car guy and am just exporting images from Wikibooks so I wouldn't know what to describe them as. They are categorized, however. – Adrignola talk 21:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


I was wondering about a photo of college marketing brochures. I have about 20 brochures that I set on a table, and took a picture of them as a group -- no one brochure stands out -- they're all overlapping -- some brochures have images & graphics on them -- the resolution is medium resolution (1000 x 800 pixels approx). Would this be a violation of copyright? I wanted to use it for the article "College admissions in the United States". Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that because each brochure and picture is such a small portion of the image, the de minimis rules will apply and so there will be no grounds for copyright violation in such a picture. – Adrignola talk 21:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
smile Aec77 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi Adrignola - you uploaded File:Bird 7.jpg sent in to Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission and with an OTRS ticket. Any chance that any of the original submission details includes any clue as to the location of the photo? (e.g. a locatable ip-number?). I'm trying to identify it, and knowing which continent it was taken on would help a lot ;-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I will write a follow-up email to the individual, as I'm afraid I don't have anything to go on at the moment. I'll give you a talkback ping if I hear back. – Adrignola talk 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Public domain photos from Israel

Dear Adrignola, You have helped me before with copyright questions, and I'm hopeful you can help now. I uploaded a photo of Yad Kennedy (the JFK Memorial in Israel) to the wikipedia page of that name. Israel has Freedom of Panorama which explicitly allows images of public memorials, statues, or sculptures that are located on public property (such as this national memorial), so having the image of the memorial in the photo is not a problem. (And it would not be a problem if I took the photo myself). However, I found the photo on the Israeli ministy of tourism website, where the photos are clearly available for download and use -- and new Israeli copyright laws actually encourage the use of photos that show Israel's cultural sites. The only problem (and question) I have is which license to use. If I use something like PD-Israel a public domain template for Israel does show up, but it includes requirements about time, such as 71 years or 51 years after the photo is taken. I know that an official US photo is public domain, and I'm convinced this is the case for Israel -- but I just don't know how to get that license to show up. Any ideas you could share would be very much appreciated. NearTheZoo (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, based on my interpretation as a layman, the PD-Israel template is correctly aligned with the wording of the 2007 Copyright Act. Work by a state employee transfers copyright to the state—the state is the "first owner". It also states that "Copyright in a work in which the State is the first owner of the copyright in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5 shall last for a period of 50 years from the date of its making." Assuming that government works in Israel are public domain like they are in the US would be incorrect in my mind. This doesn't rule out contacting the ministry and having them explicitly release the photo under a permissive license, however. – Adrignola talk 14:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this response. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi Adrignola, I am willing to unblock Rodolphus1974, provided you agree to, per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Unblocking of Rodolphus1974 (2). Kind regards -- Rillke(q?) 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Hopefully the user is more familar with Commons' policies at this point. – Adrignola talk 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Dear Adrignola, Can you confirm that OTRS-ticket 2008042410024381 applies to File:Spivak Michael.jpg? Perhaps there are more similar images ([7]) requiring this OTRS-tag? How could that best be processed? Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that ticket 2008042410024381 is apparently in a queue that I do not have access to. (I receive an error of "no permission"). I will therefore have to request that a general query be placed on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard where hopefully someone else with access to this ticket can provide assistance. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I have posted my request at the OTRS Noticeboard. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to update the screenshot.png ?

It is 2 years old. Cheers--Basquetteur (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Kill City 2010 Cover.jpg

Could you take another look at the ticket? I am not seeing a Creative Commons release, just a release for the use of the image on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the wording was not as explicit as it should be. I've sent another email in an effort to get a more definitive release. – Adrignola talk 20:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I've received a response and they are happy with the license on the file. – Adrignola talk 03:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.jpg

Please recover the original version of this image. The Android screenshot is not copyright violation, the OS is licensed under the Apache License. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You will need to reopen Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.jpg to contest this, as the current version of the file is that which was agreed to be kept as a result of that discussion. You nor I alone can decide to revert to the original version without community consensus in this case. – Adrignola talk 16:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


File:Delta-bonding.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

DMacks (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Flagger Symbol.jpg

File:Flagger Symbol.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:08 UTC 07:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


File:81042537fa2.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Palosirkka (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Reason ?

Hello, Can you please expand on the exact reason that led you to delete the image File:Carte-bepo-complete.png? The deletion comment you wrote was "Copyright violation:". Maybe I'm missing some detail but, from what I understand, everything about bepo is free licensed, including this image, with the license specified both on the page you linked and there. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you may be correct. The translated license talks about the layout and text. It has 3 years since that deletion and so I am unable to remember the exact rationale. I also no longer participate on this site as an administrator and so you will want to list a request at Commons:Undeletion requests for undeletion. I personally don't have any objections and so as long as no admin disagrees, it shouldn't be a problem to restore. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 00:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the rapid reply. (I wasn't sure to expect it, having seen that your contributions had been few in the last year.) I will follow your suggestion and do an undeletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

File:High School Life Science 10-19.pdf

File:High School Life Science 10-19.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, /St1995 11:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Adrignola/Archive 4".