User talk:EPO/Archive3

Archive: July 23rd, 2006 - January 8th, 2007 Archive: March 12th, 2007 - April 24th, 2007 Archive: December 7th, 2007 - September 16th, 2008

Archive: January 8th, 2007 - January 26th, 2007 Archive: April 29th, 2007 - July 12th, 2007

Archive: January 26th, 2007 - February 12th, 2007 Archive: July 16th, 2007 - November 6th, 2007

Deletion log

Hi, it is a good idea to periodically check your deletion log. You see that some users are reuploading deleted images :(. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

hi there!

please ban User:Secondwhiteline – he did copy vios, posted some anti christian pictures and overwrote at least two of my pictures yesterday. see also his talk page, User:AnonMoos assumed too much faith, i think.

thanks, --JD {æ} 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --|EPO| 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot. where can i make such postings about vandalism easiest when i don't find an active admin via rc? --JD {æ} 13:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. --|EPO| 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, thanks... i'm still feeling very lost in here sometimes. ;-) --JD {æ} 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, once more: could you please check the user's other contributions?

btw: i don't think that it makes sense that my watchlist doesn't give any information when a watched image gets overwritten... is this just seeable through special:log? --JD {æ} 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Berlinare Flickr photos by Howie Berlin

We have a very tricky matter at Commons:Deletion requests/Berlinare Flickr photos by Howie Berlin. This involves photos with cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 licenses. However, as [1] has modified photos with cc-by-sa-2.0 licenses, I am making the replacements. Though you have deleted Image:Meryl_Streep_2006.jpg, I do not blame you, but I am replacing with a better version for Commons. Please come to deletion discussion when you can. Thank you.--Jusjih 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images

First; I cannot see the image, but if Image:VassalToTheKing-Skardsbok.jpg is simply an image from Skarðsbók, it should be restored as PD-art. The manuscript is from the 14th-century.

Secondly, perhaps you could remove links to the images you delete that are here on Commons? I just fixed glasses, which looked very ugly indeed earlier (See [2]. Not saying you deleted all of these, but it doesn't give a good impression of Commons, does it?) --Ranveig 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The image has now been restored with a PD-art license. Typically administrators just delete images when they have been marked for deletion in a week or so. In this case the uploader had not picked a license tag and was thus deleted. Therefore it is often seen that administrators does not consider a license choice instead of deleting. This is surely not the best solution but the amount of work would just be too large if every single image should be examined before deleted.

When marking an image with e.g. "no license" it is therefore also a request for help to secure correct license. This work may be done by anyone and may remove the "no licence" once the problem has been solved.

Regarding deleted images I agree completely. In fact there is a bot operating on some of the Wikipedias removing images from articles when they are being deleted from Commons. I will see if I can get this to Commons too. --|EPO| 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Un-deletion -- thanks! I know there is too much work involved in checking each and every background, which is why I did this one for you. And yes, a CommonsDelinker for Commons sounds like a real egg of Columbus! --Ranveig 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Restore the flag of the African Union, please!

Image:Flag of the African Union.svg

Isn't there something about flags sort of being non-copyrightable? --Petercorless 10:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. In this case you should post your request at Commons:Undeletion requests. --|EPO| 11:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! EPO! Why hadn't there been a discussion first? This is _not_ the regular procedure! Henning Blatt 13:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EPO deleted these pics:

* Image:SCO logo.jpg

* Image:Logo of the African Union.svg

* Image:Flag of the African Union.svg

There is no reason given for the deletions. There was no prior discussion or even notice about that. For whatever reason the deletions itself do not appear in EPO's user contributions, but in respect of the SCP logo, the deletion was stored here. The issue of International Organizations' logos and flags in the Wikipedia has already been discussed numerous times, e.g. here. IMHO EPO's behavior has to be labelled vandalism. Please restore the pics. Henning Blatt 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the topic was not subject to a larger discussion. However for the SCO logo and the AU flag there was not provided a source or a license as required. Uploader was notified about this. Minimum 7 days later the images were deleted due to this as uploader did not react.

For the AU logo it was not provided by a source or any other statement confirming the image was/is in public domain. Uploader was informed by this and did not react within minimum 7 days. Due to this this image was deleted.

For images without sources and/or licenses these may be deleted after minimum 7 days after these have been tagged. This is completely in compliance with standing procedures and rules.

In case you would like to discuss the topic further I must ask you to continue at Commons:Undeletion requests. --|EPO| 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Meconium.jpg

It seems to me as if Image:Meconium.jpg has been erroneously deleted. After User:Cnyborg notified me on my talk page that the image had been listed for speedy deletion on the grounds of not having a source specified, I noted on the image talk page that the uploader is indeed credited as creator of the image. This notwithstanding the image has been deleted. Could you doublecheck your dealings with this matter? __meco 11:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The template for CopyrightedFreeUse should not be used for users' own works. Therefore there got some confusion about the copyright status. I have talked to an administrator on English Wikipedia who confirms it was uploaded by en:User:Jeremykemp under that license.

Seems plausible he took this photo and I will restore the image now. --|EPO| 12:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the article w:Meconium at the English Wikipedia where CommonsDelinker had removed the transclusion and I have asked User:Orgullomoore‎, the bot operator to undo other language version removals. __meco 12:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

James Brown

Could you please delete these two photos I hadn't noticed they were already uploaded:[3][4] They are already in the James Brown group:[5] Quadzilla99 Thanks. 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --|EPO| 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki DYK?

Could you do me one more big favor? I started a couple of articles and submitted them for DYK? over on Wikipedia. The pics I found for them haven't yet been checked to make sure they comply with the rules of creative commons. I was told they have to be checked if they are going to be elgible to be put on the front page of Wikipedia with the DYK's, so could you check them real quick and give them the approval? They're flickr pics and licensed fine it should only take one minute:[6][7][8][9] Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --|EPO| 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. Quadzilla99 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you care much about B-Ball but the article is a DYK? on Wikipedia's front page right now (with the image), thanks again. Quadzilla99 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:Image:Thor.jpg

I get it from english Wikipedia, where appears to be in the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thor.jpg). From where they get it I don't know, but if you need the source, I only know that it's from en wikipedia. Alexan 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but stating Wikipedia as source is not enough. The page must be provided with a link of some sort that enables verification of the selected license. E.g. a page stating John as author, who lived 1900-1930. --|EPO| 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Yes, only the one with some rights reserved are uploaded.

Chanakyathegreat

Correct "some rights" are reserved. But too many rights are reserved. Those images you uploaded did not allow modification and/or commercial use. Therefore they have been deleted now.

Please check licenses carefully before uploading to Commons. --|EPO| 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So is the same can be uploaded in Wikipedia. Not commons.? User:Chanakyathegreat

Not neccesarily. The Wikipedia projects are allowed to set their own policies regarding images. So you should check for the specific project if they will allow these images. --|EPO| 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ELER

Jamen det er jo kun små stumper. Og desuden har han selv udgivet dem under Creative Commons, så jeg stoler da på at han ved hvad han laver. --Ysangkok 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At det er små stumper er sådan set sagen irrelevant. Materialet er stadigvæk beskyttet af ophavsret. At han udgiver striberne under Creative Commons er langt fra ensbetydende med, at han har ret til det. F.eks. er det slet ikke sikkert, at det er tilladt at redigere i den oprindelige stribe af Dilbert.

Eksempelvis indeholder visse af striberne firmalogoer. Disse omfattes næppe af en fri licens.

Så jeg fastholder sletningen. --|EPO| 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kan det så ikke være fair use? --Ysangkok 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Og hvad med alle dem som ikke indeholder uoriginalt matriale? --Ysangkok 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Og når du nu er igang kan du jo lige så godt også tage den her: Image:Everybody Loves Eric Raymond 2006-01-06, ELER 2006 prediction outtake (uncensored).jpg og kategorien. --Ysangkok 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beckum evangelische Kirche.jpg

Sorry for that, my uploader was misconfigured. Thanks for your open eyes and the hint. -- Stahlkocher 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mercury god.jpg

Du slettede dette billede. Nu er det gendannet, og kilden er answers.com som er en kopi af Wikipedia. Skal den slettes igen? --Ysangkok 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Billedet er ihvertfald indstillet til sletning med tilhørende forklaring. --|EPO| 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think this is "a non-2D surface"? It says it is a mural. Those are normally flat, as in 2-D, and I don't see anything that indicates otherwise. So why do you think so? Regards --Rosenzweig 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well.. A cave wall is not completely flat. If you read the link on the image page the photo of the painting is considered a reproduction and therefore may therefore be copyrighted. --|EPO| 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea from that this is from a "cave wall"? I never heard of any caves in Pompeii, where this is from. The wall in question is almost certainly the wall of a house, and those are flat. From Commons:Derivative works, which you referred to: "Old frescoes and other PD paintings on flat surfaces should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks." That's the case to apply here. --Rosenzweig 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. I don't know about many cave walls around Pompeii either. Must have overseen that information. I thought I had taken a pretty good look at the page, but seems like I missed it anyway. My apologies. I will go buy myself a new pair of glasses on monday :) --|EPO| 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, so we're agreed. Good luck at your optician :-) --Rosenzweig 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so:) Szwedzki 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moyne.gif

Du slettede dette billede. Det er blevet gendannet uden kilde. --Ysangkok 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreløbigt er det markeret som værende uden kilde og således indstillet til sletning. Hvis brugeren kan dokumentere en fri licens kan billedet beholdes. --|EPO| 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Ther image was created by firm Underwood & Underwood, as it very clearly stated in the text, where I also link to the page explaining who the firm was. Please read the text before writing: we can both save a loss of time. Thanks. --G.dallorto 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see that you answer without reading. It must be a habit. --G.dallorto 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would not call it clearly stated. But I see your point. I do believe the author should be stated more clearly. Especially where the image is taken from - e.g. a book or web page. This to document the photo was originally distributed by Underwood & Underwood. --|EPO| 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:WMD-radiation.png

Image deletion warning

Image:WMD-radiation.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Ysangkok 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ELER 2

Kan billederne som indeholder uoriginalt matriale så ikke licenseres under fair use? Og hvad med alle dem som ikke indeholder uoriginalt matriale? Hvorfor skal de slettes?

Og hvis det hele alligevel skal slettes så husk kategorien. --Ysangkok 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dem med uoriginalt materiale kan næppe licenseres under fair use. Under hvilken begrundelse ville du mene, at der berettigelse for brugen af ufrie værker? Husk også, at hvis materialet ikke er frit, så må det heller ikke redigeres. Ydermere tillades fair use ikke på Commons.

Jeg har slettet de striber, der indeholdt klart ufrit materiale, samt enkelte, der med ret stor sandsynlighed indeholdt ufrit materiale.

I loggen kan jeg se, at User:Bastique og User:Zirland slettede en del (resten?). Min formodning er, at dette skyldes, at samlingen ikke falder ind under Commons:Project scope. --|EPO| 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Jeg har forstået. Eftersom selve siden også er slettet regner jeg med at der ikke er mere tilbage bortset fra kategorien. Tak for samtalen og alle dine henvendelser, svar, og ulejligheder. --80.63.213.182 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Navne ændring

Hej EPO Hvordan ændre jeg navnet på et billede, som jeg lagt ind når finder ud af det er den forkerte måde det staves på. Dét drejer sig om thumb|250px|left som bør ændres til Akkordeon. Hilsen --Fredelige 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Man kan ikke ændre navnet på en fil. Du bliver nødt til at lægge billedet op under et nyt navn. Så skal du sikre dig, at det gamle navn ikke benyttes, men kun det nye navn.

Når du har gjort det giver du lige besked her - og så sletter jeg det gamle. --|EPO| 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SophiaGal.JPG

Hello! For some reasons, I (as the author of this file) ask you to help me to remove this image from the Commons depository.. I would appreciate your immediate action.. Thank you for understanding! Greetings from: --Riva72 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As this image does not seem to harm anyone or that alike at the moment there is no reason for deleting this image immediately. You can use Template:Delete to nominate the image for deletion with any reasons you might have. --|EPO| 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted image

21:16, 27 February 2007 EPO (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Atomium 2645.jpg" (Derivative work)

Hi EPO,

By derivative work, you mean that because the Atomium is a work of art, as well as everything else that it is, a photo of it is also a derivative work? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Also read the text in Category:Atomium for more information. --|EPO| 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Annoying. I guess they're OK under fair use if I upload them to en.wikipedia? Can I trouble you to look at

File:La Défense 0200.jpg

Image:La Défense 0200.jpg

Image:La Défense 0200.jpg, see if the same applies? I suspect it does. And

Image:IMG 3682.jpg

Image:IMG 3682.jpg looks like it's no good either. Drat. Thanks, Ben Aveling 07:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given it some thought. Think the second image is okay. As it is shot from behind and therefore does not clarly show a substantial part of the artwork. La Défense on the other hand would be derivative work.

But please note that these answers are only guesses from my side. Derivative works is a difficult subject, which I do not understand completely either. Also note that the images are subject to national laws regarding this.

Regarding fair use on English Wikipedia it will probably be alright. But better check with them over there. --|EPO| 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

logo_pdr.jpg

Hello ! I don't understoud what is the problem with this image ? How can I make a copyright violation on an image I did myself ? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Silver24 (talk • contribs)

You have been victim for the lots of people who upload company logos etc. claimning own work and such. The thing is that these logos are not free and therefore not allowed on Commons. But lots of users does not seem to understand this and uploads these anyway with more or less creative licenses. Often they notice company website as source and just picks an "own work"-license when uploading.

Due to this it has more or less become standard procedure for many administrators to delete any suspicious looking logos. In this case you stated Parti Démocrate Romand as both author and source using an "own work"-license. Exactly as many daily copyright violations.

Of course you have my apologies and I will restore the image immediately. --|EPO| 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ELER 3

Der er stadig en "Everybody loves Eric Raymond tilbage". --Ysangkok 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ikke længere. :) --|EPO| 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad Delp

Hey, you deleted the picture of Brad Delp, but the author uploaded it on www.flickr.com and gave it into public domain. I tagged it without permission, because I wasn't sure, which I must use.--Ticketautomat 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The images are tagged on Flickr with "© All rights reserved". You may have seen the sign "This photo is public", which means it is for public viewing. --|EPO| 13:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry--Ticketautomat 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Esser

Ive got an email with the permission to use this picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Esser.JPG , should I send this email to you, or what can I do--Ticketautomat 15:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You should contact OTRS, which I also wrote on the image page. --|EPO| 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Max Weber.jpg

Please restore. Source.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but that source is not good enough. We need a source from where a photographer has been credited and we can be sure that this has been dead for more than 70 years. --|EPO| 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)