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.

Contents

An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Celebrate the Magic.jpg

This media may be deleted. Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | français | hrvatski | italiano | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Tiếng Việt | +/−


 
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Celebrate the Magic.jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial ( ), No derivative works ( ), or All Rights Reserved ( ), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as   (CC BY),     (CC BY-SA) or   (CC0) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

Ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Royals Celebrating Winning the 2015 World Series.jpg

 
File:Royals Celebrating Winning the 2015 World Series.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

2001:980:C132:1:4C9B:89A:D99D:68D5 10:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please give images better names

العربية | česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Українська | 中文 | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−


I noticed you've uploaded File:March 1 IMG 20150301 210559339 (24046206912).jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error. Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: sorry about that. I've been uploading a bunch of pictures today, so I didn't have time to make a names for all of them. I'll try to get around to it! Elisfkc (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts to File:DisneyJr 2011 2D.svg

From Commons:Deletion policy: "If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request". Please refrain from reinserting the {{Copyvio}} tag until my deletion request is duly closed.–Totie (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Disney Junior Entrance.jpg

I saw that the logo was removed. However, I am confused why you then uploaded this photograph when this is likely a derivative work of the same logo, especially with such a clarity and resolution. Do you think that this is allowed?–Totie (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Totie: That's a good question. Images inside the parks seem to be ok. Also, this image has a source where the author gave it a CC-by-2.0 license. Elisfkc (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The licence of the photo is not an issue. The problem is the depiction of the logo and of course the cartoon characters. These are protected by copyright and that persists in derivative works. See the link above, this is explained there. You could easily use this picture as a substitute for the now-deleted logo and because it's published under a free licence, you could simply crop the picture to show just the logo.–Totie (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
True, which is why this section exists. Since the file is being used to depict the entrance of the attraction, not the logo, it is ok. Elisfkc (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Read the section above that one, that's the crucial one. What you are linking to only explains the nature of the copyright. Applied to this matter, Disney does not hold a copyright on the photo you uploaded, but they still have the copyright in the logo and the cartoon characters. Nevertheless, that section still makes clear: 'Can the photo be used as an illustration for "[Disney Junior/Mickey Mouse]"? [...] If so, then it is not allowed.' The fact that this photo is now available under a permissive licence means that everyone can do whatever they want with the picture. I could crop it, re-upload it and use it as the logo you objected to earlier. I believe that this is a copyright violation per derivative work. It doesn't matter that the photo itself is published with a permissive licence or that it's meant to depict the entrance. What matters is that it shows the logo and the cartoon characters too and they can't be abstracted from this.–Totie (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Totie: So, what you are proposing is that nearly every single image in Category:Disney amusement parks's subcategories should be deleted, because there is a logo or character in there somewhere that might be abstracted from it, then re-uploaded and used as a representation? Elisfkc (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure, I find this equally confusing, but the policy itself makes this clear. I asked the opinion of Ellin Beltz who closed the request.–Totie (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

--  Gazebo (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

According big.espn.com (the official ESPN brand identity guide), which requires access that I was able to gain, the colors are #CC0000 (red) and #231F20 (black). Not to mention the fact that yours is for th Special Olympics partnership with ESPN, not ESPN specifically. You can gain access by request. I won't give you my login info because it contains personal info. Please don't change it again. Corkythehornetfan 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Donkey Kong Kart.jpg

 
File:Donkey Kong Kart.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)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete this file ? https://www.flickr.com/photos/jennycu/2893580261/
licence is here, and resrect commons policy https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
I can upload, transform, adapt it, author was credited. So why ?
I can't find anything that can't let me upload this file...
So why ?
There is no reason for deletion, so i'm waiting for you to give clear explanations. --Archimëa (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It was cropped show only a copyrighted character. That's not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Elisfkc (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Ok, thanks for answering, and sorry for disturbing --Archimëa (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing

Two things:

  1. Flickr filenames consist of a long decimal number followed by an underscore and a long hexadecimal number. You can access the file information page (and thus verify the copyright status) by using the interwiki prefix flickrphoto: [[flickrphoto:decimal number]] takes you to the file information page on Flickr.
  2. {{Unfree Flickr file}} and {{subst:uffd}} state that the user who added the template either is an administrator or a licence reviewer. Considering that you are neither of those, it may look confusing if you add that template to a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2:, sorry about that, I figured I'd help out by tagging files that are Unfree that the FlickReview bot wasn't able to figure out. Elisfkc (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

tagging uploads from Flickr for speedy deletion

Hi Elisfkc,
when you find files that have been uploaded from Flickr (source) and that appear to be empty (or corrupt), before tagging them for speedy-deletion[1], please check whether the image is correct at the source, which means that only the transfer has gone wrong. In such cases, one can simply re-upload the file[2] and everything is fine. --Túrelio (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Túrelio: ok. I've just been tagging them because it's quicker right now. They seem to be getting fixed anyways. @: you should also check your script that you are using to upload these images. Elisfkc (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the WMF servers seem to be the root issue. From a volunteer uploader perspective, corrupted files are virtually impossible to detect without doing (from an amateur client-side) expensive SHA1 comparisons. Fortunately the number of corrupted files is very low as a proportion of uploads, and may be related to events at certain times. Unfortunately they are a drag to find and a drag to fix. See Phabricator:T113878 as an example. -- (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@: ok. Just figured I'd throw you in here, in case it was a problem on your end that you didn't know about. Elisfkc (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your new job...

 
If you use the helper scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

... is that of a license reviewer!   Congratulations and thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:140322-F-ZZ999-002 (25422547293).jpg

 
File:140322-F-ZZ999-002 (25422547293).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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Ww2censor (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Weimar Roldán 2013 crop.jpg

What makes you think the actual licence is not valid? Yes it is their copyright, but they have licenced it under a creative commons {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} licence. I'm going to pass it as I have done for several others from this source. If you disagree then I suggest you nominate it for deletion. Here are all the ones I can find and if you look at the cropped ones you will see that other reviewers have passed them too. Ww2censor (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: seems to be Flickr washing. Couldn't find any evidence that the Flickr account is associated with the website and it says it's copyrighted on the photo's credit. Figured I'd follow COM:PRP. Elisfkc (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed that may be the first impression but with over Flickr 1,000 pages and 100,000+ images AND their profile page links to their own website, I have to assume good faith as I assume did other reviewers with their other image. Ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: ok Elisfkc (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem with either image mentioned. I guess you are fairly new as a reviewer, so it takes some time to figure out some of the nuances which in some cases can be very complex. If in doubt let someone else review it. I do that sometimes even though I have been reviewing for a long time. Or just ask someone what they think. Good luck. keep up the good work. Ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

file:Hood (1995).jpg, File:Hood play the Sausage Machine.jpg & File:Iggy & the Stooges (2005).jpg

"Image is credited as being from natephotos.com, which says all images are copyrighted." Well, that is besides the point. Of course they are all copyrighted. And these are licensed by the photographer Greg Neate on his flickr account as CC-BY-2.0. Btw, it says "© Greg Neate, www.neatephotos.com", which is more of an identification. But, as said, that is not relevant. Tekstman (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tekstman: well, © is the symbol for copyright. The site also says "All images and content are copyrighted and may not be used or published without permission". That's pretty clear that it is copyrighted. Elisfkc (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, I am not questioning that it is copyrighted, because anything that is not in the public domain is copyrighted (threshold of originality and other criteria not considering). The question is how it is licensed by the copyright holder. Well, the owner of the copyright gives permission to use it under the conditions of CC-BY-2.0. Tekstman (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that you and JCB's speedy deletion is not correct. Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion states: Content is apparently a copyright violation, with no clear evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder. There is clear evidence on the flickr pages. At the least, these pictures should be restored and given a normal deletion procedure, in which arguments can be exchanged. Tekstman (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Palatino Swash Initials.jpg

Thank you for filling out the license on this photo. However, I am trying to fit this photo into a Wikipedia article with a lot of photos and I need the cropped version to make it clearer. Could you put the cropped version back? Thanks. Blythwood (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Gazebo (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Thap-Duong-Long-Cham-Towers,-Binh-Dinh,-Vietnam.jpg

 
File:Thap-Duong-Long-Cham-Towers,-Binh-Dinh,-Vietnam.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

czar 06:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Fine by me. Only reason I uploaded any version of it was so it would be readable by FlickrReviewR. Elisfkc (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please help me?

Добрый вечер! Прошу прощения что я пишу по русски, я не очень хорошо говорю по английски, поэтому пишу вам по русски. Надеюсь, вам не сложно будет перевести через переводчик. Смотрите, вот два файла: File:Член Совета Федерации от Челябинской области Олег Владимирович Цепкин.jpg и . На flickr.com указана одинаковая лицензия, автор один, но в чем принципиальная разница? Почему вы хотите удалить мои файлы, но не этот и другие? Zooro-Patriot (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zooro-Patriot: Привет. Я не знаю русского языка, поэтому я использую Google Translate, чтобы перейти с английского на русский. Я добавил шаблон Template:Unfree Flickr file до File:Член Совета Федерации от Челябинской области Олег Владимирович Цепкин.jpg, потому что вы удалили часть, которая имела запрос удаления. Имел запрос удаления раньше, но я добавил Template:Unfree Flickr file шаблон для вас.File:Члены Совета Федерации Ирина Гехт и Олег Цепкин.jpg Если вы говорите о другом файле, пожалуйста, укажите ссылку на него. Elisfkc (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New versions of Flickr files

Hello Elisfkc!

I saw two or three times (e.g. on the botlike uploads by Fæ or at this example) that you took a new file version "straight from Flickr", according to your edit summary. But these weren't the actual originals as uploaded on the source, but, I think, the "large" version as rendered by Flickr. That would not be the best way, as the large versions are often smaller than the originals or more compressed. Additionally, they lack EXIF data. So, I think that we should stick to the "original" as available. Ah, and BTW, there is no need to reverting your edit if it happens that we have a near missed edit conflict in uploading (I noticed some instances of this happening too, at Fæ's uploads), that would only create some unnecessary revisions on the servers for exactly the same content. Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: that was my mistake, I was trying to upload the image correctly so that the bot would get it. I try to use the large instead of the original because I have a slow internet connection, so the original image takes a lot longer to load. Most of the Fæ ones that I saw you had already uploaded the original on I reverted back to your version. I apologize for this problem. Elisfkc (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to apologize, I simply lack the ability for expressing myself in English in the fine-grained fashion that I strive to use... :-) Ah, to address the issues of a slow Internet connection that you just told me about, I have a suggestion. There is no need to actually download a Flickr file, as we image reviewers have the right to upload to Commons from an URL in the web. So, you simply need to copy the image URL of the Flickr original (it is to be found on the bottom right by clicking in the arrow there, right-clicking on "original", then choosing "copy image URL to clipboard" or similar) and paste it in the upload form. By that way, you'll bypass the download bottleneck at home. This is actually the way that I'm using exclusively, it's faster and has fewer steps than downloading and reuploading the file, saving bandwidth in the process. Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: That's what I have been doing, and it still is slower with the original than the large version. Elisfkc (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot the loading time of the refreshed Commons page (which makes a new thumbnail, a new preview version, maybe some more scripts run on the server side)... Well, I guess that you could close it before it has finished loading, as there should be no active data transfer from your computer to Commons at this moment, IMO. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No FOP Italy?

Please, see Category:Fiore S. Barbato and (OTRS Ticket:2011111910039525 proves the change of license). @Elitre:--Threecharlie (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: didn't know about that. Thanks. Elisfkc (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, now, however, you must inform @Jcb: which erased the files on your suggestion. I do not want to sound like a threat, but if images are deleted for superficial isn't a good work, so keep this in mind for the future.--Threecharlie (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Why?

The image which you reviewed ia available for distribution here. Plus, it is listed as "Some rights reserved" which means, its okay to upload, as per wikipedia rules. Also, File:Jessica Chastain TIFF 2015.jpg this image has same copyright name but it is being used widely. May I ask you why?Krish! (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!:The difference is that NASA images are in public domain if they are solely created by NASA. This image was not. Also, cc-by-nd is not allowed on Commons (see Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags). Elisfkc (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
May I know why File:Amy Adams and Tim Gunn 2009.jpg this is on commons despite the copyright crying "Reserved"?Krish! (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Krish!: because it's got an OTRS. Elisfkc (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing FlickreviewR tags

This is just a friendly comment Elisfkc, but I don't know why you did this because now other editors don't know that FlickreviewR ever ran on this file unless they review the history. That's another step to do and we really should be as productive as possible with as few mouse clicks as possible especially for those who review a lot of images which you may well do in future. Maybe it is a Flickr file and maybe not but the no-source warning may be enough to stir the uploader. I use the Tools on the right to add no-permission or no-source tag and user page notices and it does not remove the FlickreviewR tag and I think that is just fine. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: My mistake, meant to add {{subst:fns}}. Added now. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Do you use the tools for this or do them manually? Using the tools, many of which are available in the preferences under "Gadgets," is better as it completes the appropriate other notices too. I hope you don't mind if I point out an occasional issue when I see one. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: Manual. I enjoy doing it myself. Not only do I not mind you pointing out an issue, I appreciate and encourage it. Elisfkc (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I just enabled the tool, as I see that it won't take much of the joy out of doing it for me. Elisfkc (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This said, when an image doesn't claim to be using Flickr as a source (i.e., the Flickr review tag was misapplied), can you please remove the Flickr review-related template? It would save others from doing the same work when there are other images to review czar 20:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Yep, just wasn't sure what was the right thing to do then. Elisfkc (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Try to find the source first

I don't think you tried very hard to find a source for File:Rafa Nadal (Spain).jpg. The source gives as "Wikimedia Commons" should have been enough clue that it was extracted from an already uploaded file we had. I looked at Category:Rafael Nadal and then at Category:Rafael Nadal in 2016 to find the source image within a few seconds. After that I fixed the rest, such as the original Flickr source, the extracted from tag, also placed an extracted tag in the original image file. Perhaps thinking more like a detective and not just rushing to the first conclusion. I don't mean to appear overly picky but as you know I pointed out a few issues with your reviewing. Do remember as reviewers we should firstly try to save files not have them deleted unnecessarily, so trying to find the source and then verify if the license is good or bad before doing anything else is IMHO the best approach. Anyway good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Sorry, I was looking more for the Flickr copy of the file. Thanks for finding it. Elisfkc (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Just slow down a bit, look around more and take a bit more care; quantity is not the objective. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Qandeel Baloch Garden.jpg

 
File:Qandeel Baloch Garden.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)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: thanks, but I just uploaded a version to help the Flickr Review bot. Elisfkc (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2016 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Tom Huddlestone 17-07-2015 1.jpg

Hi, can I ask why you over-rid the cropped version I uploaded with the original? The image was intended for use as the infobox image at en:Tom Huddlestone, but it now displays numerous individuals and has therefore lost its functionality. I'm completely at a loss as to why this has been done. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: So that it would pass the Flickr reviewer. I meant to go back and revert it, but I forgot. In the future, use the CropTool after it has passed the Flickr review. Elisfkc (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In the years I've been uploading images from Flickr, I've never experienced any issues with any passing reviews on account of them being crops. Why should this be the case now? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Beats me. I just try to always let the Flick Review bot take care of files. If there is a problem that I can tell it won't be able to pass a file (like the wrong extension) or it hasn't passed on multiple tries, then I manually pass the file review. Elisfkc (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Language templates with no text displayed

Hi Elisfkc. Could you please remove Category:John Kerry from this maintenance category? --Leyo 23:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Leyo:, don't know why that happened with the Hebrew description, but it's fixed. Elisfkc (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
There was a = that caused the error. Fixed now. --Leyo 12:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your mass deletion requests of photos of Kazakhstan

Elisfkc,

Did you checked the date of the buildings before nominating? Some of them are pre-XX century one, sao FOP does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I honestly didn't. I had looked through a few, then realized that the user seemed to be uploading photos without care for rights. I figured all of them were bad. Elisfkc (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Making work for yourself

It's me again because I don't know where your head is at or if you fully understanding the objectives. I also don't want to seem mean or over critical so don't get offended as this post is by way of constructive criticism because I keep seeing improperly or incompletely reviewed files appearing in pages I try to clear.

I saw a few images reappeared in the Category:Recent unfree Flickr images after I had already reviewed them. The speedy tag specifically tells you the image was already reviewed by an admin or reviewer. So when I reviewed the history, I saw that you had uploaded another version of the image, added a new flickr review tag, then FlickreviewR failed the image and it reappeared in the category and another reviewer, actually I think it was a bot, tagged it as incorrectly licensed and another human reviewer needed to tag it as a speedy so it did not hang around the category for a week. i presume that you know a reviewer's job is to either save an image by finding a proper source that is acceptably licensed or fail it and prepare it for an admin to delete. In these cases, you had to find and download an image from flickr, then reupload it manually and add a review tag which the caused other issues mentioned. All of that was completely unnecessary work for yourself and for others including the FlickrreviewrR bot. I reverted all those edits back to where I had originally completed it. It needed no more work. IIRC, I did this for a few images within the last few days.

A few days ago you asked me about a script to find a source for some images and I think they are the ones that are now in the Category:Recent unfree Flickr images with name starting some thing like this: File:105 Gure Bizitza Elkartea uploaded by User:Larraizi. Don't get me wrong, you did well to find the sources but having done so should have just added the source, given it a bad review and tagged it as a speedy and remove the bad flickrreview tag. Again, for many such images you reuploaded a new image, added a flickr review tag and now they linger in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images because FlickrreviewR bot failed them, as you know it would, and now need to be prepared for an admin to delete. If that had been done they would likely be gone already, because speedies get deleted quite quickly. What I see is that you are making a lot of work for yourself when there is other work to do. I don't know if you are using any scripts to assist and automate some of your deletion process but having the "licence +" and "licence -" in your drop down menus gets these jobs done quickly and posts the proper notifications to the user's talk page too. You may want to look at these two js pages of mine User:Ww2censor/common.js and User:Ww2censor/monobook.js if you have not already got these scripts enabled. Sorry to be so longwinded but I don't want to put you off doing this thankless job, just make it easier for you, so you can be more productive.

BTW, the images from User:Larraizi could probably have been nominated or maybe even speedied with a batch task script I was recently told about but I'd need to check that out for the future. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd love to know about the batch task script. Elisfkc (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry that was so long winded. One of the scripts you added is for the batch tasks. It is the last script you added to User:Elisfkc/common.js but I'm totally unsure why you received the error post below this. This page Help:VisualFileChange.js should help you install and use the script. I've only used it for batch deletion nominations but I think it can do much more. No more need to notify the uploader individually for each file - they just get one notice. Maybe you need to add the scripts exactly as on the user's pages and not just copying them from my page but I'm not sure about that. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Elisfkc/common.js

Hi Elisfkc, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Elisfkc/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 34 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 17 character 83: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var searchLR = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{LicenseReview}}')
  2. ISSUE: line 18 character 84: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var searchLR2 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{licenseReview}}')
  3. ISSUE: line 19 character 84: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var searchLR3 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{Licensereview}}')
  4. ISSUE: line 20 character 84: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var searchLR4 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{licensereview}}')
  5. ISSUE: line 22 character 48: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var LRsite = prompt("Link:", "http://")
  6. ISSUE: line 39 character 73: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: .replace(/({{(I|i)ndafotó review}})/g, '{{Indafotó review|site=\[http://indafoto.hu Indafotó\]|user=' + wgUserName + '|date={{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}')
  7. ISSUE: line 39 character 102: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: .replace(/({{(I|i)ndafotó review}})/g, '{{Indafotó review|site=\[http://indafoto.hu Indafotó\]|user=' + wgUserName + '|date={{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}')
  8. ISSUE: line 79 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  9. ISSUE: line 86 character 120: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: case "FR" : document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{{Flickrreview|' + wgUserName + '|{{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}'
  10. ISSUE: line 91 character 123: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: case "PR" : document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{{Panoramioreview|' + wgUserName + '|{{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}'
  11. ISSUE: line 96 character 122: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: case "PICR" : document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{{Picasareview|' + wgUserName + '|{{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}'
  12. ISSUE: line 101 character 122: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: case "IR" : document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{{Ipernityreview|' + wgUserName + '|{{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}'
  13. ISSUE: line 106 character 62: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: case "LR" : var site = prompt("Link:", "http://")
  14. ISSUE: line 107 character 141: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{{LicenseReview|site=' + site + '|user=' + wgUserName + '|date={{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}'
  15. ISSUE: line 133 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  16. ISSUE: line 137 character 86: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var search1 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}}')
  17. ISSUE: line 138 character 86: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var search2 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}}')
  18. ISSUE: line 139 character 95: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var search3 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}')
  19. ISSUE: line 140 character 95: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var search4 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('{{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}')
  20. ISSUE: line 177 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  21. ISSUE: line 180 character 79: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var search5 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('Flickr')
  22. ISSUE: line 181 character 79: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: var search6 = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.indexOf('flickr')
  23. ISSUE: line 187 character 218: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = "{{subst:Uffd|2=ARR}} \n" + document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:Flickr Review Bot.*?}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview.*?}})|({{User:FlickreviewR.*?}})/g, '')
  24. ISSUE: line 194 character 217: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = "{{subst:Uffd|2=NC}} \n" + document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:Flickr Review Bot.*?}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview.*?}})|({{User:FlickreviewR.*?}})/g, '')
  25. ISSUE: line 201 character 217: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = "{{subst:Uffd|2=ND}} \n" + document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:Flickr Review Bot.*?}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview.*?}})|({{User:FlickreviewR.*?}})/g, '')
  26. ISSUE: line 208 character 218: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = "{{subst:Uffd|2=NCD}} \n" + document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:Flickr Review Bot.*?}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview.*?}})|({{User:FlickreviewR.*?}})/g, '')
  27. ISSUE: line 215 character 218: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = "{{subst:Uffd|2=NCS}} \n" + document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:Flickr Review Bot.*?}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview.*?}})|({{User:FlickreviewR.*?}})/g, '')
  28. ISSUE: line 261 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  29. ISSUE: line 286 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  30. ISSUE: line 326 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  31. ISSUE: line 335 character 13: eval can be harmful. - Evidence: eval(functionNameString+"(true)");
  32. ISSUE: line 340 character 29: Script URL. - Evidence: href = "javascript:" + functionNameString + "(true)";
  33. ISSUE: line 361 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: }
  34. ISSUE: line 365 character 15: Use '===' to compare with 'undefined'. - Evidence: if (jQuery.ui == undefined) {

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 01:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

File:115 Gure Bizitza Elkartea eskolak - Gure Bizitza Elkartea Clases.jpg

 
File:115 Gure Bizitza Elkartea eskolak - Gure Bizitza Elkartea Clases.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)‎ | +/−

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ww2censor (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You can ignore or delete this notice. I tried to use the batch task script to tag the images in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images and was successful but as you had uploaded extra images you get a notice too. However, I still had to manually remove the failed FlickreviewR bot's tag to get them out of the category. Maybe I'll try it again sometime and see if that tag can be can removed too but I doubt it. If not, then there is no real difference between using a "licence -" script on each file as opposed to the batch task. Anyway they are now all ready for an admin to delete, so when the links above are red you will know they are gone. Regards Ww2censor (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: not a big deal, I don't mind getting the notice at all. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so no offense was taken, I just don't like to seem highly critical of your actions all the time. So now, you also see, these are already gone after having lingered around for a day or so. I'll let you know if I succeed with some other uses for the batch tasks. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
They are back again, well not actually. I see the uploader has now recreated the deleted pages with just a Flickr link. I've asked the last deleting admin to delete the pages, so we don't have to go through them again. Ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Jcb already took care of it. Elisfkc (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
That was quick work indeed. Ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding license types for Flicr images

Dear Elisfkc,

I have a question regarding Flickr images that are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. I understand that images simply with the license Noncommercial, No derivative works, or All Rights Reserved are inappropriate to upload to Wikimedia Commons.

However, what if the image was licenced under Some Rights Reserved Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic rather than Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (which is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons)?

Sincerely, Listofpeople (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Listofpeople: Great question, thanks for asking. Neither CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 (shorthand for Some Rights Reserved Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic) nor CC-BY-NC-2.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic) are compatible with Commons. This is because they both include the non-commercial part. Basically, the only types of Creative Commons licenses allowed on Commons are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. For more information, check out this chart. Elisfkc (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Elisfkc, I see. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your reply! Sincerely Listofpeople (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File:KC Ballet todd 24 (14506270662).jpg

 
File:KC Ballet todd 24 (14506270662).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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

--sasha (krassotkin) 18:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass upload

IMHO, It is not a good idea mass upload without appropriate naming and categorisation: Category:Media renaming requests needing target. It can be done by a robot, but there are copyright violations. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: Thanks. I usually try to put good names with everything, but I forgot when I did that. I also looked back and realized I have no idea what I would have named them. Elisfkc (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File:KC Ballet todd 80 (14320757858).jpg

 
File:KC Ballet todd 80 (14320757858).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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

--sasha (krassotkin) 19:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Using {{NSFW}} in the File: namespace

It appears that on the 30 April, you single-handedly tagged over 300 files (333 at this point) with the {{NSFW}} template. The usage guidelines for the template very specifically say that the template is not to be used in the File: namespace, ie. is not to be placed on the file description page. I'm trying to understand what prompted you to add that template to all these files — was there for instance a request placed by someone that I simply missed? — and if there is no particular reason, I expect you to either undo your edits yourself or agree that they be undone en masse by another contributor or a bot. I'm pinging Colin and as I know they were previously involved in the deletion discussion for that template and I'd like to see what they think about this. odder (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was long, let's not resurrect the issues of potential censorship. The template has been misused so needs reverting, simple as that. -- (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Odder: They were images that seems NSFW. I must have missed the part that said that the template was not to be used on the file description page. I thought it was going to put them into a category or something like that. I will go back and undo it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Elisfkc (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
They all should be fixed. Elisfkc (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking care of this so quickly, Elisfkc. odder (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File: Balthasar Haket.jpg

Belsazar Hacquet died in 1815. Image File: Balthasar Haket.jpg - a portrait photo in vivo. No reservations are not the source. I thought that the image is in the public domain. ЯГВ

@ЯГВ: I can't really read Ukrainian, but there is nothing that looks like a Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0 License release on the source. Elisfkc (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I user a Ukrainian section of Wikipedia in 2010. In English do not speak. Use an interpreter Google. All images are loaded in Ukrainian storage, only recently poprobuvav in general. If possible, I ask you to make a valid license in the description. If not, I uploaded this image to a Ukrainian section of the license PD-old ({{PD-old}}). With respect, ЯГВ
@ЯГВ:   Done Elisfkc (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I went to your page and learned that you are a student from Kansas, fond of sports, like podoruzhuvaty, cruises. My son studied at the Trade and Economic University, now works on American cruise ships. I am a research associate in the field of cybernetics. ЯГВ
(talk page stalker) While there is no indication on the webpage where the image File:Бальтазар Гакет.jpg came from, it looks like it was copied from a book and may well be old enough but we have no indication of its source or actual age. Perhaps @ЯГВ: can provide more information on this. Personally I would be reluctant to give this a good licence review with the current data and more investigation. Ww2censor (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Belsazar Hacquet died 200 years ago, and his portrait even more. On appearance in the source image shows that it is not quality. In the spring there is no reference to the origin of the portrait photos and no warnings against its use. It is clear that it can not be used for commercial purposes. ЯГВ
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ЯГВ (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just because a person died 200 years ago does not mean the image is 200+ years old; it could be made yesterday. Sorry, but we cannot keep it if, as you say, it cannot be used for commercial purposes because we only accept freely licensed images. The bad quality just means it is bad quality it does not answer any other questions. Ww2censor (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: got it. Thanks for stalking and making sure I don't screw up like this. Elisfkc (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not a screw up maybe just a difficult one. The image is likely old enough but how do we know when there is no verifiable data. We really just don't know enough IMHO to pass this as freely licensed. BTW, I wonder why you are still uploading new copies of some images that FlickreviewR bot has to fail, when instead you should just tag them for deletion as speedys, or provide the correct information if that can be found. Also there is no need to ping me as I have this page on my watch list for now. Anyway, good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
most of the time, it's because the image is just a smaller resolution then the original image. Realized the pining part now. Elisfkc (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive - had access to the computer. Google translator is quite bad. I knew only that I download maybutnnomu in the general repository only your own photos and others in Ukrainian storage. Please forgive taken for your time and thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ЯГВ

File:Laura Bush speaks at Invictus Games Symposium.webm

This needs a source link. Let me know when you've added it, so I can review it. INeverCry 01:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: done. Must have erased the url instead of the old description. Elisfkc (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  Reviewed. INeverCry 02:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Retired Sergeant Aaron Stewart Discusses Recovery.webm

I'm getting a "page not found" message at the provided source link. Can you check on this? Let me know if/when you find a working link. You could also provide an archived link from wayback machine at archive.org if you can't find a working link direct from the source. INeverCry 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they deleted it. Elisfkc (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and it looks like the page wasn't up long enough for wayback to archive it either. I'll have to tag it for deletion. You could try to contact them if you want - they might put it back up or agree to OTRS permission. INeverCry 21:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Not that big a deal to have the video on here in my mind. Thanks though. Elisfkc (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Retired Sergeant Aaron Stewart Discusses Recovery.webm

 
File:Retired Sergeant Aaron Stewart Discusses Recovery.webm 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

INeverCry 21:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Calibri carlito comparison.png

Just seen your tag on this uploaded file - I think this may be a mistake? The image was created by me personally not an hour ago to illustrate a Wikipedia article - it's never been published elsewhere. Blythwood (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. Elisfkc (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand

Really I can't understand how it's possible that you request a permission from me to myself. I took those photos. --Mr. Moonlight (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

They are pictures of other materials. You need permission to do so. Elisfkc (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Bernie videos

Category:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign videos, 2016‎ does not automatically entail Category:Videos of Bernie Sanders. There are videos of the campaign not featuring Sanders at all, so it would include the former and not the latter. The latter is supposed to contain videos in which he appears. czar 06:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

According to COM:OVERCAT, items should not be placed into a category and its parent category. Category:Videos of Bernie Sanders is currently the parent category of Category:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign videos, 2016‎. So, I removed Category:Videos of Bernie Sanders from the files that were in both categories:

(File:Bernie Sanders at Liberty University, September 2015.webm, File:Bernie Sanders addressing overflow crowd at South Bronx rally - arrival and speech - March 31, 2016.webm, File:Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter activists in Seattle, August 8, 2015.webm, File:Killer Mike introduces Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in Orangeburg, South Carolina, February 26, 2016.webm, File:Bernie Brief (3) - Climate Change.webm, File:Bernie Brief (2) - Social Security.webm, File:Bernie Brief (1) - Income Inequality.webm, File:Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign kickoff in Burlington, Vermont, May 2015.webm, File:Bernie Sanders in Baltimore City - Poverty, Urban Neglect, Prison and Police Reform - March 13, 2016.webm, File:Bernie Sanders rally in Madison, Wisconsin, July 2015.webm, File:Bernie Sanders rally in Madison, WI, alternative video, April 2015.webm, & File:Bernie Sanders rally at Seattle Key Arena Seattle, March 20, 2016.webm). Elisfkc (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Elisfkc/Archive 1".