User talk:Christian Ferrer/Archive26

Active discussions

July - August 2017

Blocked people

What's wrong with you. I uploaded a copyright u blocked me now not copyright u also blocked your mind is it got blocked. I blocked you then you know Bryan4562013 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Richard L. Bernal Photo

Hi Christian, I received permission to enter that photo into the public domain. Just checking what the reasoning was for removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, I delete a lot of images every days and I don't remember this image. Tell me the exact name of the file, or give me a link to your talk page or to the relevant talk page. But if you have received a permission, be aware that the copyright holder have to send a permission to com:OTRS, where you can read on how to do so. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Logo of "IAVNU".jpg

Hi Christian, you deleted today the File "Logo of "IAVNU".jpg", reason was "above threshold of originality". The Logo is composed by myself, the foreground image (planet) is completely created by myself. So why is this a copyright violation? Sincerely --Arjoopy (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Poilaunet

Bonjour, J'ai posté un message dans la page de discussion du sujet en question, j'ignore si la démarche est suffisante. Merci de me signaler si la méthode n'est pas correcte. Poilaunet (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Poilaunet: Bonjour, les Deletion requests (requetes pour suppression) sont en fait des pages de discussions ou tous le monde peut y apporter ses arguments, votre message aurait donc été plus approprié sur la dr elle-meme. Cela dit, j'ai fait part de votre message au bon endroit et j'ai demandé un délai supplémentaire avant la suppression mais cela ne peut pas rester en attente trop longtemps. Si la photographe envoit une permission valide alors les images seront gardées, et si la permission arrive après la suppréssion alors les images seront restaurées. Il y a parfois des délai assez important car les volontaire qui s'occupent des permissions ont beaucoup de travail. Pour l'instant je ne pense pas que vous puissiez faire plus. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

French translation

Hi. I was wondering if you could add a French translation to the description for this photo: File:Passion Vine NBG LR.jpg. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi you have deleted my media which is authentic the image was also captured by me *🦂😎 Nabeelgm 😎🦂(Talk)•°(contribs) File:JamiaDarussalamLogo.jpgNabeelgm (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


This photograph was taken in 1920 عرايبية بلال (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If a file have been deleted, while it is in the Public Domain, then first, what file? secondly if you upload old images then you have to provide the author(s), date(s), country(ies) in order to determine the copyright statut otherwise, except for a few obvious cases, the images will likely be deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


My logo update for the Kansas City Mavericks page was deleted as a possible copyright infringement. I work for the team (Director of Communications) and was instructed by our GM to update it. Is there anything I can do to make the picture work?

If you need to email me, my email is


Brandon Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonweiss15 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brandonweiss15: I'm not in charge of the permissions. In order that the file be restored, please follow the instruction written at OTRS. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh! I'm so sorry....

I'll use another IP. Blocking me would be useless or do are you expecting me to beg for you not to block this useless account... Getting a picture up on Wikimedia is such a hassle. I tried to make the band's page as nice as possible but you had to ruin it with your bureaucratic shit. Go ahead block me so you could feel like a real man for once. Just to be clear English is my 4th language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohalucky13 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of File: VR-программа на 39 ММКФ.jpg

Hi, Christian! Yesterday you have deleted my photo from Wikimedia. Could you explain the reason? This photo was made by me during the event made by me and our team. All persons on the photo know about the shooting - it was demonstration for the press. If something wrong with logos of Samsung, I can remove it - if in that case everything will be ok with this photo and I can upload it again? Thank you!

Nataliaseverina (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Nataliaseverina: Hello Natalia, the reason is simple, the image have been previously published on the web [1], now every body can come and say "I own the copyright", therefore in this kind of case, and in order to protect the rights of the copyright holder, our policies requires that the copyright holder send a permission to OTRS, where you can read on how to do so. Or the first publication on the web has to be licensed with an adequate license. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Christian Ferrer:Yes, we granted it to mass media. Anyway, thank you! I will upload another picture

Nataliaseverina (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Cote d'Azur

Côte d'Alerte. Un usagé enthousiaste (Cote d'Azur) nous distribue des labels VI en minéralogie, j'ai enlevé ceux qu'il m'a généreusement octroyé mais je viens de m'apercevoir qu'il en a émis beaucoup un peu partout. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   Done Bonjour l'ami. Je lui ai demandé d'arreter et j'ai annulé ces actions. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New Nikon

On July 25, the 100th anniversary of Nikon, they're supposed to announce a new camera, the name D820 or D850. It's an upgrade to the D810 and will have a 45MP sensor. That's gonna be awful tempting.... ;-) PumpkinSky talk 13:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes indeed, but me I 'm going to keep mine a bit more time...but maybe that you, you want to upgrade your material? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously tempted. It's way better than the D5300 I have now, which is nice camera. But that 800 series is so much better. PumpkinSky talk 14:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Any thoughts

Hi Christian:

I know these aren't FP material, but I was wondering if you have any feedback on; both are waiting for the bot to run at QI:

File:Butterfly Garden NBG 3 LR.jpg or File:Japanese Garden Stone Cistern Fountain NBG LR.jpg

Thank you, PumpkinSky talk 19:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi ok,
File:Japanese Garden Stone Cistern Fountain NBG LR.jpg is far the best of the two, the subject is clear, well insulated, technical and post processing ok, the issue, if there is one, is the composition, if you chose to show the stones that surround the fountain then show the entire stone design, or nothing.
File:Butterfly Garden NBG 3 LR.jpg is less good, there is no clear subject, and this is a little bit overexposed (for my tastes) (maybe fixable in postproduction). If you want an overview of the place by integrating many elements, foreground and background, then chose a bigger DoF IMO. If the subject(s) are the flowers and the tree, then there is too much stone in foreground. If you wanted to integrate the foreground stones in the composition, then it looks a bit unbalanced IMO. We don't really know what is the clear subject.
Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I do appreciate it. On the cistern one, there's a large object (stone lantern) right by the stones I had to crop out--it was very distracting. Maybe I can get this at a different angle. I plan to go back Saturday at the latest. There are a billion photo opportunities at the Norfolk Botanical Garden. I'll try different angles and positions. Good points on the second photo. I'm always confused when people say "bigger DOF". This photo was f/5.6. Does bigger DOF mean go towards f/2 (a bigger opening in the camera) or go torward f/11 (a deeper DOF with more in focus)? PumpkinSky talk 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
torward f/11 Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi Christian Ferrer. I strongly suspect that Arthur Brum might be trying to evade your block of his account by using a sock puppet (Ignácio) to continue to upload copyvios. This is partly based upon what I posted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dom Luiz I of Brazil.png, but also because the user is identifying himself as Arthur Brum at both User:Ignácio on Commons and en:User:Ignácio on Wikipedia. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, you did well. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The other account has been confirmed as a sock and blocked. I suspect Arthur Brum will be back again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Johannes-Vieweg2017.jpg

Hi Christian,

The photo that was provided was taken of Dr. Vieweg on campus by a photographer who gave our school full rights to use. The photo is not protected by any copyrights. How can I get this undeleted? Do you need something from the photographer himself? Dr. Vieweg is part of the faculty at NSU and we were only intending to update the photo that was there before. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatosDano (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, in the case where a work of art have been published somewhere, example in other websites, our rules and policies, see com:Licensing, require that this publication must be explicitly licensed with an adequate license. Otherwise the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS where you can read on how to do so. In summary to get this image restored, provide a link to a legitimate source with an adequate license or ask the copyright holder to send a permission. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick catch

Hi Christian, thanks for noticing the licensing issues on the four pitviper uploads of mine which you deleted yesterday; I had added a number of images and failed to notice that those four were not licensed for commercial use (!). I'm glad you caught my mistake so quickly, because (aside from just not wanting to put inappropriately-licensed items on the project), I was about to use them prominently in a new article, and it would have been a pain to have to reformat it after leaning on those photos for the ecology they display. Good eye! I'll be more careful with flickr in the future. Snow (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, although I am happy if I have rendered you service indirectly, this was Elisfkc who found those four images, me, I found the 17 others. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I see. Well, I'm already looking the commons novice that I am, so I might as well admit, I thought CC 3.0 and 4.0 were always commercial-use-allowed, by default. Not sure where I got that erroneous impression, but if I upload any photos in the future, I will scour the license page more scrupulously. It's a pity to lose those images; I had applied them to some nice species-specific articles. Perhaps I'll reach out to the rights holders; if they were willing to do CC to begin with, maybe they will be willing to adopt a new license that removes the last restriction. In any event, it's better to learn what was up sooner, rather than later. I'm a little bummed, but thanks for your work here all the same. Snow (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I know it would be a few minutes more work than I've already cost you, but since you have access to the deleted pages, could I trouble you for a list of the urls I included in the licensing info for those uploads? I didn't keep track of them all after the uploads were complete, and it could save me an hour or so of tracking them all down again for the purpose of contacting the photographers about them. Snow (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:   Done

Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you--much appreciated! Snow (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Himantopus himantopus, Sète cf26.jpg

Saw this on Flickr. I think you've got an FP there. It has artistic value, which most of our wildlife photos lack. I like the stillness of the water and the zig-zag of the legs. I know there is an other photo which is more comical with the splayed legs and open beak, but the water isn't so perfect there, and it is cropped too close on the right-hand-side. The other one looks more like a ballet pose. I'd be happy to nominate, unless you wish to. -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Colin: Thanks you, but I think it's better to wait a few days that I finish checking my RAW files. I still have delays to sort RAW files, and I always spend a lot of time doing this, too many RAW files maybe?! :) With luck I maybe have one or two other good image in this series, if I don't find a better image I will follow your advice and I will nominate it, thanks you again! Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Excellent. This is exactly why I asked first, rather than just nominate. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: I've nothing better, you can nominate it if you want, I will not do it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


An image of the submarine NAUTILUS that I uploaded more than a decade ago has been deleted, apparently through a misunderstanding of it's origin. I would like to request that it be undeleted. I can't see what I said when I originally submitted it, so I'll start from scratch. The statement 'created for the DVD cover' is incorrect. This is an image of a CGI model of the submarine Nautilus. I created the model under contract for Disney for the 2004 DVD release of the 1954 movie 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Stills and movies of the model, also created by me, were used for DVD menus and special edition features. The specific image NautilusByWikiFred.jpg does *not* appear anywhere on the DVD, cover or otherwise. It is an original rendering I made for use on Wikipedia. When I submitted it I thought I had given all the appropriate permissions for it's release into public domain and inclusion on Wikipedia. It has since been used by other websites many times, almost always with appropriate credit to Wikipedia and/or myself. If you Google for the filename, this is the first hit, so it's still in the system somehow!  :)

Any help you can give me to get this reinstated will be greatly appreciated!

Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFred (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid, that Disney company may have some right on the publication or re-publication of this artwork, because they likely own the copyrights of the original artwork that serve to make the CGI model. In my point of view the CGI model, and/or your original rendering is a derivative work of the Disney Nautilus. I hate to do that but I have to nominate the file linked for deletion too. You can make your arguments and discuss to keep this file directly in the request (not in the talk page, but directly in the page, and don't forget to sign if possible..). If this image is kept for good reasons, we will think at a potential restoration of your image too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Japanese cistern photos

Hi Christian:

If you're still interested in looking at my cistern photos from today (and last week), here they are:

Any feedback appreciated. If you don't have time or interest, that's ok, I understand. PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, the compositions are quite successful, congratulations for the effort. See my comments below the images. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What I don't get on the bell photo (the last one) is why the focus is not on the bell. I use single point focus for this type of photo and I had it on the bell. Hmmm. I'll work on issues that are workable and upload new versions. Can you tell me what you think of these two:

thank you. PumpkinSky talk 11:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I've modified the two with a "*" at the end of the comments. PumpkinSky talk 11:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
For the bell, it's maybe my eyes who plays with me, the bell seems in focus, but the stone at top left, a bit less. I don't know, not bad thereis still some fringe. The flower image is a good image, you can maybe add a bit of local highlight in the purpose to add some twist to the image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The white flower image is a good and nice image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You mean add hightlight to the red and yellow one? PumpkinSky talk 13:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes a bit Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  Done. I'm thinking of putting the white flowers up at FPC and maybe the red/yellow ones. I took more shots of the cistern today but haven't processed them yet. PumpkinSky talk 17:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The white flowers may have a chance but not the red/yellow IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right. I took another look at the white flower. Notice the border is tighter on the right (the long thin things come closer to the border). If you think it's worth adding some border to the right, could you do that in PS? I don't have PS. If this is too much to ask, that's okay. PumpkinSky talk 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No it will be complicated to find the time, the work week begins again. Sorry. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
>:That's ok. Thanks for all the help. PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Your message about A.Savin should be in a separate section, not as a subsection of the one tilted User:Smial. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I explained in the text why I choose to made a subsection, I thin it's acceptable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh ok you changed it, fine with me thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Январское побережье.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Январское побережье.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Himantopus himantopus, Sète cf26.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Himantopus himantopus, Sète cf26.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Bonjour Christian Ferrer, il y a aussi ces 2 images ; File:Nautilus K.Nemo.jpg et File:GoffNautilus.jpg suppression ou pas ? Cordialement. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation of NTR BiggBoss pressmeet pictures

My username is Srinivastarun It has come to my notice that some of the files I've uploaded have been put under copyright violation I actually have the permission to use the content which was given to me by the verified account of the source. If only I knew the procedure of getting it known to the Wikimedia, my files wouldn't have been slashed off from the Wikimedia Commons.Please advise me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivastarun (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • If you have the permission's) from the copyright holder(s), then you must ask them to send their permission(s), to publish the works under compatible licenses, to OTRS where you can read on how to do so. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Lenses for MFT

Bonjour Christian,

some days before I went on holidays I had got a new lens, a 14 mm f/2.5 Lumix which is, besides the horrible Olympus lenscap lenses, the smallest MFT lens. I shot a lot of images with it but now, as I'm developing my photos, I wish I wouldn't have bought it. Practically all images get quite blurry towards the corners. This is something that I didn't experience until now and very frustrating. Ironically, I have a 12-32 mm zoom which is a very basic Panasonic kit lens and only a bit higher than the 14 mm but the image corners are more than acceptable. I got the 14 mm to make the GM1 even more pocketable... Fail.

So if someday you are going to get some MFT equipment, check out for Panaleica 15 mm f/1.7, the Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7 and the 60 mm f/2.8 Sigma DN Art, both sharp at almost any aperture and I'm very happy with them. Furthermore the 15 mm has an MF switch so that you don't need the missing lever on the GX80. All Sigma MFT lenses seem to be quite good and they are very, very cheap.

I hope that this is interesting for you...

Best regards,

--Basotxerri (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Basotxerri: Great, thank you very much for sharing your experience. I will take them into account when I make my next purchases. Have you already uploaded images taken with this new lens? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't uploaded images yet, the next days I'll do. However, as so many images I've shot are blurry in the corners, I won't upload many of them because they won't get any chance as QIC. It's really, really frustrating. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm going to give you some list here!
@Basotxerri: Seeing those images I don't think the lens is good for the larger (or extreme?) aperture, it's not a so bad lens but you should try to stay between f/7.1 and f/11, as evidence this one at f/7.1 seems to have the best quality over the whole image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, it's true that this can be related to the problem. Normally I try to shoot at about f/5.6 for obtaining the best sharpness. I'm going to test it. However, I haven't got this problem with any of my other lenses. The 15 mm is almost always sharp and on any point of the image, and have a look to the Sigma 60 mm, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Basotxerri: Yes indeed, that's good images , here they say, in french, that indeed the 14mm is not good on the borders, and they says also the opposite of me above, the lens is best for use at f/2.5 or f/4. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC) viens de lire ça... Well, according to that forum discussion, the lens isn't that bad and the images posted aren't too bad either (at least at the published resolution). Perhaps I've got a bad copy, too. I agree that the 20 mm f/1.7 is very good, too, although the AF is quite slow. Interestingly both the 14 mm and the 20 mm cost about 300 €. The 15 mm usually costs about 500 € (I was lucky and got a kit GM1 + 15 mm Panaleica for 600 €) and the Olympus 12 mm f/2 isn't very cheap either, I think (although not in Nikon terms, I suppose). --Basotxerri (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
see also Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you happy with the Panasonic Leica 15 mm f/1.7? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! I haven't any complaint about it. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

how to prove its mine?

Dear Christian, the image you deleted is of my father Asrarkhan.jpg . and yes i took it from facebook, because i shot that image few year ago. and that is the place where i have this image available. now tell me how can i provide the proof that he is my father and i am the one who took that image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishankhan (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Christian, Thanks for your intervention. I'm writing from my personal account as I check it more often than the account I helped set up for KAS, User:KAS-ACDP. Fyi, I'm head of a department there. Yes, this is an "official" account if you will. And yes, we also officially claim the right to license these files. Aside from uloading them to Commons, we also use our own technical infrastructure. I'm not sure, however, that OTRS will work. The legal relationship between the CDU and KAS is very clear on the one side, on the other it's very difficult to explain: "The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. (KAS; Konrad Adenauer Foundation) is a German political party foundation associated with but independent of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The foundation's headquarters are located in Sankt Augustin near Bonn. Globally, the KAS has 78 offices and runs programs in over 100 countries. Its current chairman is the former President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering. It is a member of the Centre for European Studies, the official foundation and think tank of the European People's Party (EPP)." Be assured that nothing we do is against the will or without consent of the political party we support and as whose think tank - and official archives (!) - we serve. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Thank for the unblock. Do you have Skype? I would love to ask you a few questions.

CMCreator900 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • No, sorry. I have not Skype and furthermore I prefer public communication, I can answer on Wikimedia Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


Hey, Chris - I just uploaded File:Pants on fire.jpg and was wondering if you'd take a look at it. I'm of the mind that it's a share-alike license per this site. Thanks in advance...Atsme 📞 15:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Atsme: Hello, no sorry, I deleted the image, they say "... are for Personal Use Only ...", it's not compatible with our licensing requirements: "Republication and distribution must be allowed. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed." Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha - ok, thx. You might want to remove the note underneath your delete notice that says No file by this name exists, but you can upload it. Atsme 📞 18:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Redoute du Pont-Levis, Sète cf01.jpg

Bravo Chris, superb photo. FYI, I have Photoshop now. Mostly I've done focus stacking. PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry very much

Sorry for ignoring some of the provisions of the Wikimedia Commons.
I promise to fix the above error to not lock the right to work anymore.
Love! Giang-wikia (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


How to edit a pictures or make a article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khulekani ndlangamandla (talk • contribs) 10:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • You may be interested by Help:Contents. Wikimedia Commons is not for articles, and I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "edit a pictures". In order to know what kind of uploads are allowed, you may read com:Licensing, but if you want to know how to "edit a file" that is already in Wikimedia Commons, then click on "Edit source" at the top of the file page, first you can make experiments in Commons:Sandbox. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Logo Nibelungenlauf.jpg


why did you delete the file without discussion? In my opinion, the file was not under copyright, because it was too simple?

Best Regards, --Tonialsa (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

informacion sobre imagen borrada

Hola Christian, seria posible me orientes sobre en donde estoy fallando al subir laa imagen juguetes-sexuales.jpg es una imagen creada por mi en photoshop, no he podido entender bien que hice mal, la imagen la subi tambien a mi blog porque en los mensajes e pedian que indicara una pagina web, en fin hoy recibi mensaje de que fue borrada y me gustaria saber como puedo solucionar eso, ya envie un mensaje de autorizacion como me lo pidieron a, pero aun no tengo claro que mas debo hacer

saludos y gracias de antemano por tus atenciones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afroditahelena (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hola, en primer lugar, el enlace de Internet ( no muestra la imagen. En segundo lugar, al final de la página, podemos leer "Copyright © 2017 · Como Hacerle el Amor a Un Hombre". Wikimedia Commons sólo acepta contenido libre.
    Puedes poner una licencia compatible a la imagen en tu blog, y usted puede darnos el enlace a la página exacta donde está la imagen. Por ejemplo, directamente debajo de la imagen en el blog : "Esta imagen está bajo la licencia siguiente CC BY-SA 4.0".
    Si no puedes o no quieres poner la licencia en el blog, entonces usted debe enviar el permiso a OTRS.
    Atentamente, Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ateneo Blue Eagle

Hello Christian! I am Dino Santos. You recently flagged my uploaded (Ateneo Blue Eagle.png) as a possible copyright violation. I checked the Commons:Licensing page and I am not sure I understand how this might be the case. Does this refer to the "We can't accept works created or inspired by others" clause? Because I am not aware that this specific imagery of the Ateneo Blue Eagle is a licensed identity of the Ateneo Blue Eagles nor of the Ateneo de Manila University itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoSantosMD (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you by the way for your help, and would sincerely appreciate the elucidation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoSantosMD (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, logos and trademarks are accepted in Wikimedia Commons only, if 1/ they are in Public Domain for a specific reason, 2/ they are freely licensed by their owner or 3/ they are below the Commons:Threshold of originality. And in the case that the deleted logo is your own version, then there is two cases, 1/ it is very similar to the original logo, therefore it is a derivative works or 2/ it is completely different from the original logo, and it will be out of our project scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Redoute du Pont-Levis, Sète cf01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Redoute du Pont-Levis, Sète cf01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion recommended by you in articles as supposed vios

You have put numerous photos uploaded by me as supposed vios. Whereas I am checking some of them which may have given me as secured rights, the majority of them were personally taken by me. I fail to see upon what grounds you have decided to delete them or nominate others for deletion without discussing the issue with me. The photo of Professor Avraham Oz, for instance was taken by me personally at Oxford on 1993; that of Tal Itzhaki was taken by me personally at Bermuda in 2009. Several pics from the productions of the Academy theatre in Tel Aviv were personally taken by me personally. Others were public relation pics given me by the Academy and the rights belong to them. I strongly demand that a particular query will be put to me regarding each separate photo deleted or nominated for deletion. Sincerely, Dr Sarah Fine, sfine8Sfine8 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Some of your files were indeed tagged as copyvios, not by me, and indeed deleted, again not by me. Please read com:Licensing in order to understand what kind of content is allowed here. Images previously published on the web without an explicit compatible license, and then uploaded here as "own work", are indeed considered as copyvios and are potentially subject to a candidature for speedy deletion. The other images uploaded by you were indeed nominated for deletion, again not by me, in this request, where you had the possibility to argue in favour to keep one or several images durind 7 days, you did not. I deleted all the images and closed this nomination following our policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, as your uploads were indeed copyvios or were at least suspicious. At least two other experienced administrators agreed with this rationale. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I said before, some of the files deleted were taken by me personally: the fact I don't enter wikipedia daily, especially when I am occupied by other engagemnts, and thus not aware that they were tagged as copyvios, should not, in my opinion, entail a deletion within the short span of 7 days. However, regarding materials not photographed by me personally, not being experienced with uploading visual material to wikipedia, I have assumed that if I were given stuff and permission to publish by institutes or private persons who hold the rights for those materials it satisfied the licensing demands of wikipedia. I therefore re-upload for the time being materials which I have created myself, and will read carefully the requirements for licensing materials which were entrusting me by the owners of the rights. I repeat my strong sentiment that before the extreme measure of deletion, the person who uploaded the materials (with the good intention of improving a given article) should be approached and consulted within a reasonable period (7 days seem to me much too short for anyone whose concern with wikipedia is not the major occupation in life. Yet perhaps I'm wrong. Dr S. FineSfine8 (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't recreate deleted content or you will lose your editing privileges. You can ask an undeletion request. And again I repeat :the images previously published on the web without an explicit compatible license will be deleted again, unless the copyright holder send a permission to com:OTRS. Persist uploading potential copyright violations may also lead to a block of your account. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2017 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Ukraine


Запрошуємо взяти участь у міжнародному фотоконкурсі «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! До 30 вересня включно Ви можете подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи. Звертаємо увагу, що завантажені матеріали будуть враховуватися у тій версії файлу, що був на час завершення конкурсу, тож якщо у Вас гарне фото, вантажте його одразу у високій роздільності. З регламентом конкурсу можна ознайомитися тут.

Якщо у Вас дуже багато фото, скористайтеся масовими завантажувачами або зверніться до нас.

Окрім традиційних номінацій за найкращі фото і найбільшу кількість сфотографованих об'єктів, у конкурсі також є спецномінація для Ваших відеоматеріалів про пам'ятки. Якщо у Вас розмір відеофайлу завеликий для конкурсного завантажувача, спробуйте скористатися стандартним завантажувачем, але не забудьте поставити ідентифікатор пам'ятки. Якщо виникатимуть будь-які труднощі — пишіть нам на wlm

Приєднуйтеся! Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться у блозі конкурсу. – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 21:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Favor, please?

File:Cutter_bill.jpg - I tried to clean-up the image that was there (Bloodbred's original image) but it looked much better in PS than what it looks uploaded. Will you delete my 2 screw-ups dated today? Thanks in advance...Atsme 📞 16:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to delete anything IMO, you reverted, it's enough. But in the future if you try to make digital restoration or/and a big change on an existing file you should create a new file, see Commons:Overwriting existing files. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Christian Ferrer/Archive26".