User talk:Husky/Archive1

Image:Johan remkes.jpg

Hi, may I ask you to go back to this photo and add where it is claimed that anybody can use the photo for any purpose? Your claim that Reproduction of images from the government's websites is usally allowed as long as the source is mentioned needs to be backed by a credible source. Thuresson 14:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I removed the "unknown copyright" tag from the photo. Thuresson 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. thanks.Husky 23:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorizing

Hello - thank you for providing images to the wikimedia commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the commons should be useful to all users of wikimedia projects - this is possible only if the images can be found by other people. To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should either place the images on topic pages (galleries) or put the images directly into a category, or do both. Which of those possibilities is preferred is however a matter of debate, see here.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There is a large number of completely unsorted images on the commons right now, see Commons:Really unused. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do! Thank you. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

JP

Afbeeldingen van www.regering.nl kan je niet uploaden; alleen de tekst is vrij verspreidbaar, afbeeldingen niet. 82.210.117.113 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Balkenende nl.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Balkenende nl.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 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 If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in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!

Image:Johan remkes.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Johan remkes.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 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!

Image:Snoopy peanuts figure.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Snoopy peanuts figure.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 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!

--Fb78 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Stone

Hello, I've just noticed that you had nominated my photo (Sharon Stone) to the featured photos. I'm very grateful for the nomination, I've been positively surprised and glad, even if it was voted down.

I have to say that my other Sharon Stone photo is better (the leaning one). I also like my Jancsó portrait, but I'm afraid that not many people know who en:Miklós Jancsó is. And I'm wary of putting my photos to commons in a high definition format (it wasn't uploaded in a lower resolution by mistake), as I would hate if magazines featured it without taking proper notice and paying royalty. Nikita 09:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nikita. I think it was a few months ago that i nominated the photograph, especially to show that Commons has more than photographs of flowers and animals. Unfortunately the majority of people didn't agree :( Husky 10:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion warning

Image:Frank Black WF.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion on its entry.

Edub 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[1] states they are public. Michiel1972 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Web 2.0 graphic

Hey there, I was wondering if I could get the original PSD file for your Web 2.0 graphic. I am a web designer, and I've recently been learning about Web 2.0. I would like to get a look at your PSD file, and see how you went about creating that graphic. Nice work. Thanx! Alex966--www.design-evolved.com 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Joseph beuys signature.jpg

hi, this is hendrike from germany (the german wiki) calling. sorry and pardon me, but i have a little problem with your scan or photography (?) from the signature or drawing of Joseph Beuys because every element of this artist either relates to the german VG Bild-Kunst or the Nachlass of Joseph Beuys and could / might be a copyright infringement. kind regards -- hendrike 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Henrike. Yeah, i was a bit worried about that too. I wasn't quite share if the signature would infringe any kind of copyright law, it seemed to me to be a bit 'on the border', so if you think it should be nominated for deletion, please do so. Husky 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Beerbottle_nieuw_ligt.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Beerbottle_nieuw_ligt.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:VanGogh-still-life-vase with 12 sunflowers.jpg

Hello,

This file is a very low-resolution version, with a ridiculous black border and disgusting colors (I was in the Alte Pinakothek monday and I can confirm that these colors are totally wrong; see my own version). The York image is much better on all these points (better than mine, even if I probably better catch colors). Furthermore, Image:VanGogh-still-life-vase with 12 sunflowers.jpg don't mention its source.

I would say that keeping such a bad/doutfull image on Commons is non-sense. Is there any reason to do so? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. You could delete the image (especially considering there is now even one version more), it's just that i didn't think the reason for deletion should be 'duplicate', because it isn't a duplicate. I couldn't find a tag for simply 'bad quality', so that's why i used 'redundant'. Husky 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All right. So I simply tag the image for speedy deletion. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr reviewer

We hebben geen richtlijnen betrefende het reviewen van zelf geuploade afbeeldingen. Sommigen doen het wel anderen niet. Het is uw eigen keuze. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ik heb even het sjabloon {{Flickrreview}} verandert om de changed parameter toe te voegen. Gebruik {{naam}} om een verrandering aan te geven. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:User trusted

If you like it, feel free to use it .--Vaya 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you. I'll be proud wearing it on my user page. Husky 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Babouins Chissey-sur-Loue.jpg

Hi, you said in this diff that it was not a flickr photo... I don't understand why because if you follow the link you can find exactly the same photo in Flickr, with a back link to Commons as well! Is it just a mistake? Damouns இ 10:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a Flickr photo. However, because you're the same person uploading it to Flickr as here it's not necessary to link back to Flickr. You added the GFDL-license, which is not available on Flickr, and people might get confused when they see that license here. Husky 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bene Ephraim - Beit-Yaakov.jpg

Could you explain me why you decided to destroy an image in licence common creative ? If you not have a good reason, i will re-created it.

First problem, the original photo are here [2], and are under an Attribution 2.0 licence, which is accepted by wkipedia common.

Second problem, you have to let fews days to the contributors to answer you. Your message was posted on february, the 27, and the destruction speedly came.

You are not very serious. Christophe cagé 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Christophe. I nominated the image because it has a screenshot of a copyrighted movie. To upload such an image to Commons you first need to get a permission notice from the maker of the movie, because it's a deriative work. BTW: the image is not 'destroyed' and was not deleted by me but by an administrator, if it happens that you get the permission from the movie maker an administrator can still revive the deleted image. Husky 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal problem. i know it's not the case. But did you read the information on the original photo ? "A Star of David on a wall of a house in the Chebrole village of the Beit Yaakov community - Photo from the film "Legends of the Lost Tribes" courtesy of my dear friend Aran Patinkin who directed this film" + license Attribution 2.0. So, what is the problem ? You don't accept the autorisation of Aran Patinkin ?

And the prob of the time beetween the demand and the destruction is unacceptable. No answer, no explication : no organisation, no respect. It's not you problem, but it's the prob of the administrator.

Christophe cagé 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Christophe. First of all: the image is not 'destroyed', deleted images can always be retrieved without a problem by an administrator. I've read the statement that he is 'a dear friend', but such a statement is not enough for Commons to show that he explicitely allows his work to be licensed under a CC-BY license. To use work from other people than yourself you need a written permission from him that you can e-mail to Commons:OTRS. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Flickr review help

Hi, Husky. Some user from German Wikipedia asked me for help in finding a Admin (or trusted user) that could review two Flickr images that I had uploaded, since they are candidates for featured pictures in the de.wikipedia (woohoo! :) ). The images are Image:Michelle_Alves.jpg and Image:Gisele_Bundchen2.jpg. As I have seen you working on flickr reviews before, I wonder if you would have the time to take a look at these ones.

Thanks in advance. Best regards, --Abu badali 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, User:Dantadd took care of it. --80.146.85.112 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Commons trusted users

Image deletion warning

Category:Commons trusted users 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!

--Lcarsdata 10:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

reviewing flickr images with static links

Regarding this diff, we can now get the original flickr url from the static one by the method described here. Also, on an unrelated note, you might consider taking the trusted userbox off your talk page as it adds your talk page to the trusted users category (in addition to your user page that's already added). Thanks, Yonatanh 04:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Husky ^{talk to me} 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

need an impartial review

Hi Husky. I was contacted to discuss or review Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png, which is currently nominated for deletion. I'm going to express an opinion in the deletion discussion, so I don't want to also flickrreview it as that might be a conflict of interest. The image does need a flickrreview though. Have a look? — coelacan — 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Coelacan. The Creative Commons license is ok, but i doubt the user took the photograph him/herself, it's probably an image found on Google Image or so. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Praha kostel SvVaclava.jpg

Thank you for your particular remarks to my first Featured picture candidate Praha kostel SvVaclava.jpg. I hope it could help me with my next snaps --Packa 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Checkers partsnpieces.jpg

Hi -- I noticed you reviewed the license on Image:Checkers partsnpieces.jpg. It was CC-BY when I originally uploaded the image, but unfortunately it appears that the license has been changed to the non-commercial/no derivs license. Since this is not in use on any project, I don't see a problem with deleting it. Thanks for reviewing the image license. Ptkfgs 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eminem Live.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Eminem Live.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

MECU 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize the problem and the flickr review (which is what I've been doing all day). Unforunately, it doesn't seem clear what to do with images like this: delete them because upon review they aren't free or just trust the uploader in the first place (then why have review?) or.... I think for this image, since it's kinda cruddy anyways (but I agree, better than nothing), we should just delete and wait for another one. --MECU≈talk 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Review Mistake

Hi,

Regarding your review for Badgir.jpg, I believe you have made a mistake in your review; Please check this link to recheck the license of the aforementioned Image (License is CC on Flickr).

Regards, Marmoulak 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Marmoulak. Thanks for the source, i couldn't find it when first reviewing the photograph. Unfortunately, the license is CC-BY-NC-SA (Noncommercial) which isn't allowed on the Commons. Husky ^{talk to me} 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The license is actually available on commons, Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual, and also on Wikipedia, Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual, thanks - Marmoulak 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Flickr

I have started this as a central place to discuss issues with Flickr images. Please take a look. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Husky ^{talk to me} 12:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Mariënburgplein Nijmegen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mariënburgplein Nijmegen.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Mariënburgplein Nijmegen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mariënburgplein Nijmegen.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)