User talk:Lymantria/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Stade de France 2005.jpg

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 06:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

4 Images

Dear Lymantria,

Please feel free to pass or fail these 4 images below. The first two could be passed. I don't know about the third image. The fourth music file is heavily used.

• File:AMF (logo).jpg
• File:Logo FIFUSA.JPG
• File:Medalha de bronze - jogos mundiais 2013.JPG
• File:Fratercula arctica -Skellig Michael, County Kerry, Ireland-8.ogv

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The first two I have doubts about, I started a DR. The third I think is okay and I passed it. The fourth I need more time for, maybe later today, otherwise tomorrow. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I marked the fourth as well. Skellig Michael, I have been there in the early eighties! Nice. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• OK. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Lymantria, user Vahram Mekhitarian uploads pictures with falsifying data, he puts templates that it's his own work or public domain, thus hiding the copyright. In previous times when some of his pictures were nominated for deletion, he removed templates and admins didnt pay attention to it. I have already nominated some of that files for deletion due to copivio, please pay attention to it.Δαβίδ (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

He again and again remove the template, I do not know what to do, please warn him or block.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A problem is that your Deletion Requests are incomplete. Next time you'd better use the "Nominate for deletion" option in the toolbox at the left hand side of this page. But because the requests were incomplete, they were messy and not listed in the list of Deletion requests. Therefore I can understand that Vahram Mekhitarian considered it vandalism. Four of the pages you tried to nominate I have speedy deleted as copyright violations. One not. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean this? I think this is false copyright, because this foto is not from US.

Maybe, but he reverts my other edits too, he adding text into categories, i removing it, but he reverts my edit.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please warn or block that user. He continues edit waring. He reverts all my edits explaining that as IP vandalism.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You could say that maybe the license is incomplete, but being published before 1923 is of importance, because wikimedia sites are published in the USA. You would have an issue if you'd know about the date of death of the author and it would appear to be less than 70 years ago.

I won't warn for edit warring, as you are edit warring yourself as well. If you disagree on the text components of a category, then the first step should be to start a polite discussion among the two of you and maybe others on the category talk page. Second step would be to ask the opinion of a couple respected users with knowledge on the issue. You should keep in mind that a certain amount of background text in a category is not prohibited. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did as you said, but that user still removes the templates.--Δαβίδ (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

IP Vandal abuse your username

See at User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#File:Armenian_Generation_Sign_on_Ararat_Tees.jpg.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see the abuse part. It doesn't help that you acuse a registered user with IP Vandalism. Registered is not IP. Please, try to show some politeness. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What the user vandal You can verify this by looking at the User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#IP vandalism, User_talk:Δαβίδ#You have been blocked for a duration of 3 day, and history of Category:Armenian_Eternity_Sign.

See at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVahram_Mekhitarian&diff=104194033&oldid=104169052.

At 18:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC) the user Δαβίδ added only template "Dont editwar" in your section User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#File:Armenian_Generation_Sign_on_Ararat_Tees.jpg and not create new section.

At 05:15, 13 September 2013 Hazard-Bot added new section "Please do not edit war".

The user Δαβίδ did not create new section, and only added a template "Nowar" in your section, and did not signed the message - as a message to be on your behalf.

It is known that the user 188.115.240.147, 46.241.233.91, Δαβίδ of the Armenian Wikipedia - hy:Մասնակից:David1992, and is engaged only in that in every way prevents the creation of articles on en:User:Vahram_Mekhitarian/Armenian_Eternity_Sign in Commons and English, Russian, Armenian Wikipedias.

Best regards. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The template does create a new section. I hope you were not confused. I have seen what Δαβίδ is up to. I would recommend you to focus on the real issues, and not speaking of IP-vandalism when it is not. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is just a libel. That IP vandal, that abuse log? I dont understand that is your problem. Nominating the file for deletion is not vandalism but removing the templates, i think it is real vandalism.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Rename this Category to Gitxsan

Dear Lymantria,

Is there a reason why the category above is not simply renamed to Gitxsan ? I did not file the renaming request in January but I notice 1. that wikipedia has an article on this indigenous Indians which calles them them the Gitxsan people and secondly I took this photo at the UBC Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver and the online Museum label also called the object below a Gitxsan art work in Canada:

• File:Gitxsan Euro-Canadian pole 2000.jpg

It would clear up any confusion then. This summarizes up the reasons why this cat should be renamed especially when this people call themselves Gitxsan on their own web site. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Lymantria (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

3 Flickrwashes

Dear Lymantria,

This uploaded uploaded 3 flickrwashes today in jpeg format--and they are stated to be so in the flickr source links. The images should be speedily deleted and the uploader should be cautioned that the images were not the flickr account owner's 'own work.' The final image in png format that passed flickr review is most likely a flickrwash too as the photostream shows other types of images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I deleted all four uploads of this user as copyvios and I explained the user. Two of the Flickr accounts I blacklisted. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Unfortunately, in this case, the flickr accounts likely have to be added to added to a blacklist when the flickr account owner's license such images freely. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The third flickr account is somewhat less clear, so I left it. Thanks again. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: If this image is OK, please feel free to pass it.
• File:Rolando (AMF) e Valery (UEFS).jpg

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Lymantria (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You for your help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Anytime. Lymantria (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Ariana Grande, 2013.jpg

Do you think this is the flickr account owner's own work? Some other images by this flickr source are trailers. If you think its a flickrwash, feel free to file a speedydelete. Both images were uploaded on August 25 by this flickr source. The source account has 502 images but does it own the copyright? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leoboudv, The Ariana Grande image above was a clear copyvio from MTV. The source apparently is a magazine, and most images, including the trailer, are "All rights reserved" and hence no problem here. Lymantria (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Its good to know that this problem is resolved but in future a license on another image from this account could be changed to make it free unfortunately. Best Regards and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  I understand your concerns, but I don't think that there is enough evidence to blacklist the entire account as most images seem licensed properly. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's OK. I suppose I was a bit taken aback since I could have passed this image. At first glance it looked OK until I saw the other images on this account's photostream. Hopefully, this issue would occur in future. Presumably, there was a misunderstanding here by the flickr account owner. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Could you please delete this revisision of File:Buzzie Reutimann 1973.jpg while leaving the current revision? Thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Lymantria (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - The Bushranger (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sashina Marina by Slavnov.jpg

I think that there is a possible flickrwash problem with the source flickr account where this image came from. This flickr account has several professional looking images--but it only has 18 images in total. While there is good camera metadata, I'm not sure this is the named author's flickr account with so few images. It could be a flickrwashing account which may have to be blacklisted. (Just wondering)

PS: The uploader's talkpage shows copy vio notice...after copy vio notice. Just to let you know. If this is another copyvio, I don't know action should be considered. Best Regards and Goodnight from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed a tricky case. The other uploads to Flickr are "All rights reserved" and are found in other sites where the same name is used as user name as well. Therefore I would give it the benefit of doubt here. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK then. Thank you for your reasons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Derek Allen Small 320.jpg

Thank you for your feedback on the photo. I've reached out to the creator to try and get the photo under a BY (CC-BY) or BY SA (CC-BY-SA) license. -- Esietukeme (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice, I hope you will succeed. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Lymantria, user Vahram Mekhitaryan consictently adding categories where it is not necessary, upload files with wrong license which are previously deleted. I dont want to revert his edits please warm him about it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not have time to dive into this before the weekend. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

License Review

Another reviewer (Alan) is taking care of the flickr and picasa images now but almost no one marks the license review images since they come from private foreign language sites. Like this image below which is why there is 700+ images in the backlog.

• File:Andrea Voßhoff 2009.jpg

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of this backlog, in the backlog there is an amount of uploads by myself and in the past I have taken care of quite a lot of reviews in this category. The CDU/CSU upload is not a difficult one, the license is clear and consistent with what we see: an MP in Germany for CDU/CSU. I marked it. When I have spare time (rare nowadays as my job has changed an become a lot more busy) I do some markings in this category, but I can't do a substantial part of the 700+. There has been done a good job by somebody as a few weeks ago we passed the 1100-mark. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for your reply. Maybe the reviewer/Admin Alan can mark some of these images if he knew how to handle images from such foreign sites. Sadly, I don't know him at all. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

undo delete

hello Lymantria, could you please undo the delete of File_talk:Introduction_to_Uniform_Resource_Locator.webm I am currently creating a MOOC on Web Science for Wikiversity I created a script so that my editor could work out the video. Now we don't have access to this site and we urgently need the script! Our workflow is to create scripts, do a first draft of the videos and then refine everything. As you can see I am a to wiki commons in creating educational videos and I hope that our workflow can be accepted by the community. Please contact me if you have questions --Renepick (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that the page has been undeleted already. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Madame Chiang Kai-Shek.jpg

If you think that this image is indeed out of copyright, please feel free to pass it. Thank You. I will have my old computer changed very soon and hope I can have a script to pass images on my new computer. All I have is the present flickr script.

• File:Craig Kimbrel on September 14, 2013.jpg

This other photo should be OK, I think even though there is no metadata. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I really dislike the "No known copyright restrictions" and never know well what to do with it. It lacks a lot of clarity. Tbis image clearly is too young to pass PD-1923, so.... I'll give it second thought tomorrow. The baseball crop I marked. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Denniss passed the first image. I usually pass many images of old 1920s-1950's planes from this flickr site since I assume its likely PD-US but for a person, I don't know enough to pass the photo. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither do I. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• If you know a site where I can download either the flickr review or license review script in the future, please give me a link. I was told once that one has to clear the computer cache too with a CTRL button though I don't know about this. I will be (hopefully) using a new computer soon to replace my 2005 computer here which is slowing down. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I use a script by Rillke through User:Lymantria/vector.js. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This DR

Please try to make a comment in this DR and pass the image that I uploaded if possible. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Please mark this image by me if possible. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• If possible, please consider passing this other image I just uploaded in .jpg which I mentioned in this separate DR in 50 minutes time. This uploader uploads many images in png format but no one tells him why jpeg is better. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course there are many cases in which jpeg images aren't better. I put a message on the uplaoder's user talk page. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re PNG

Hi,

Thanks for the information regarding file format. I will make sure that in future I upload images as JPEG when appropriate. Regarding my comment at the deletion review page I should have been clearer, my reply was actually for Leoboudv. I just thought that as they were the reviewer that passed many of my uploads, it would have been better for them to let me know what I was doing wrong to begin with (as you have done), than to let me continue adding files obliviously and then complain about my errors later. Cheers T 88 R (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies. It was pass 12:00 AM in Vancouver and I was tired when I made that comment. But thanks for notifying the uploader. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries :) T 88 R (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Both welcome. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Eustalomyia vittipes, lateral view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very good (with new scope) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chlorops pumilionis, lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Lighting, depth of field, resolution, focus, geocode fine. This image is suitable for mainscope, in my opinion. A subscope is not needed for a mainscope nomination. Please format the scope scope according to the example of Commons:Valued_image_scope#Plants. A comma should be placed before the subscope, if used. No period is placed at the end. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I added comma and period to the scope. It is a bit confusing that one user asks to narrow scopes and you do the opposite. In some cases an image of the dorsal view of similar quality comes available and therefore I do understand the question of narrowing the scope a bit. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support In entomology, the side view is not the view most widely used. It is worth specifying expected lateral to the dorsal view can also be promoted. The binomial name should be in italics. Truly a beautiful photograph..--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC).
  • Of course the binomial name should be in italics, thank you for correcting. Lymantria (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Winthemia variegata, lateral view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Walloon Church of Leeuwarden, church organ..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met.The best in scope. Halavar (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Blick von der Johanniskirche 11.jpg

Dear Lymantria,

I don't know how Commons can keep this old image when this uploader seems to have only 3 images on Commons and this flickr license is unfree...and it never passed flickr review. I ordered a review on his second image which is licensed freely. But the first image above is more heavily used. I guess it may be safer to delete unless you can be certain the uploader is the flickr account owner--or you can contact him although his message not to use his pictures without permission is not very encouraging.

PS: I have my new computer now (cost me $1,000 Cdn including taxes for the desktop with an Intel chip) but for the time being, I'm working off my old mid-2005 computer until I fully switch over my files but I must confess its expensive to change computers every 7.5 to 8 years. My University--University of British Columbia in Vancouver--calls an old computer any computer which is more than 5 years old in courses. Unfortunately, my old computer is now very slow. I wonder when you last changed computers. Pity, I can't save my old E-mails to my new computer though. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I started a DR on the first image - I am really too busy this week to dive into emailing Flickr users. My "new" computer dates from November 2011. Yes, a lot of cost! I managed to put over emails by using Thunderbird portable app on a memory stick. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: My father has a techie set up the new computer and he managed to transfer some of my old computer files to my new computer and also did the same to my E-mail contacts in my new Windows Live E-mail system. But he cannot transfer the E-mails to my new computer. So, I have to either print them out or save them to a USB stick. PS: I apologise on the image above. It may be kept after I had a second look at it but I am not 100% sure. Anyway, I made a response here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for contacting the flickr account owner and resolving the DR. Its good to know the flickr account owner was willing to acknowledge that he was the uploader after all. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• As an aside, I filed this DR although I could be wrong. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That turns out to be a plain copyvio. Speedy deleted. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Wow! I almost passed it for a second there until I noticed the lack of camera metadata and checked further. The flickr account owner intentionally licensed some images as ARR and others freely. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Egypt 1450 BC.svg

Hi Lymantria, I trans this file "File:Egypt 1450 BC.svg" but there is some mistakes and I upload it over the orignal file. can you undo my changes? --Emara (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Dolichopus plumipes, lateral view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucilia coeruleiviridis.jpg

File:Lucilia coeruleiviridis.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucilia eximia.jpg

File:Lucilia eximia.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucilia cluvia.jpg

File:Lucilia cluvia.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Parhelophilus consimilis.jpg

File:Parhelophilus consimilis.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This case

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Please feel free to decide if this image that MPF mentions can be passed or if there are FOP problems. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This DR

I believe this image can be closed as keep even if most of the deer is cropped out. The main object is the museum. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about it. It seems the Gazelle statue is from the 1890s, but still that is not entirely clear to me, and I lack time to dive deeply into it. I leave it open for another admin to close. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: OK. Thanks for your reply here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• This Photo

On this photo, I marked it on a cc by sa 2.0 generic license but the flickr account owner says on his account profile that his images are licensed as 'cc by sa 3.0 generic'. Perhaps you can resolve this minor discrepancy? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I made it a double license. Lymantria (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• That is what one is supposed to do. OK, Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Undeletions

Will there be more pics available for undeletion from the Dutch National Archives (badminton players like Lily ter Metz, Marloes van Swelm‎‎ or Margot ter Metz for instance)?--Florentyna (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I am currently going through the undeletion request mentioned above in bits and pieces, those are the files in User:Lymantria/Check. I see that the ter Metz girls will eventually pass by, but not a van Swelm. Of course you may upload a picture of hers when it is available. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Both ter Metz images were not available under cc-by-sa. Lymantria (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion requests.2FFiles on User:Lymantria.2FCheck

Hi, maybe you can help here. Apparently it is too much work for admins to check these files again as some have CC licence now. --Sporti (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Lymantria (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. --Sporti (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A Certain Ratio - Press Photo

Thanks for your message

The flickr owner of this image has now changed the license to (CC BY-SA 2): here. But Upload Wizard won't let me re-upload saying: "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you help answer this user's question on uploading images in jpg format?

I don't know why he is having a problem. He always uploads images in png format when the original image at flickr is in jpg format. I just said that in future, he might wish to use jpg but he says that he does not know how to do so. Its a bit strange. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. Now I understand what Matty was trying to do and why it didn't work out. I was a bit confused. Best Regards and Goodnight from Metro Vancouver where its 1:17 AM, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Have a good nights rest! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:April-25-2013-two-victims-amid-the-rubble-of-a-garment-factory-building-collapse-in-savar-near-dhbangladesh.jpg

I hope that this image can be deleted as a flickrwash. The uploader did not remove my copyvio tag but I notice he typed in a flickrpass. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fastily already deleted it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing this. Sadly User INeverCry gave his his duties as an Admin and a CheckUser in early October which means that Commons has only 6 CU's which is not a good thing after the well publicized Wikipedia sockpuppet scandal. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a great loss that INeverCry has stopped. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Haematopota italica, lateral view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Thor-The Dark World cast.jpg

If you think that this is the flickr account owner's own work, please feel free to mark this image. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I understand. I was just a bit concerned here since one would have to trust the original flickr account owner. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Simon Whaley 1.png

Thanks, I will soon start re-uploading the files in .jpg format. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Will the images need another flickr review once uploaded as .jpgs? I ask as I can think of at least one image I uploaded that has since had its licence changed to one non-Wiki friendly. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a review. But if you post the image name here, and the .png file, I will take care of that. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, when uploading the images as JPGs there seems to be a slight increase in blurriness; e.g. PNG and JPG. Is this to be expected or is there a way of retaining the original image quality? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

When .jpg is the original higher quality with .png is unlikely. If .png is the original format, then there is always some loss with converting to .png. It is then best to have both versions kept, the .png as "archival version". See for instance File:Apteropeda_orbiculata_(Marsham,_1802).png and File:Apteropeda orbiculata (Marsham, 1802).jpg. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The original file format is .jpg; if I crop them and save them directly as .jpg, would the same loss of quality as .png to .jpg still occur? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cropping may cause quality loss depending on software, but it shouln't become better by transforming to .png. You may consider using User:Cropbot for lossless cropping. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, so if I save the images hosted on Commons that are currently .pngs into .jpg format, they won't be of less quality than If I crop them from the original .jps photos? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed that should be the case. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

hello!

i am deeply sorry for being sooo absent-minded... could you please undelete the files from here? i have explained the reason here (me being an uploader and sergento being the author). the author asked me to add the license proof, but i have completele forgotten... due to some real life issues. i shall be very grateful. and as soon as you undelete them, i will add the license --アンタナナ 10:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I restored a couple, but I will be very busy for the rest of today. So I will have to continue some day later. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you very much! i have added the license to the ones you had restored --アンタナナ 11:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that Ahonc has finished my job. Thanks for that. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Flickrreview Category Question

I notice the flickr review bot has not marked images in 4 full days since November 2 here Should we mark a few images in this case since we are trusted? I have marked just a few images by 1 uploader whose work is trusted because I think he shouldn't wait this long. But the backlog is over 380 images now...so I don't know about other uploaders. Just wondering. Any views?

• This is another image by a different uploader that I trust and he always has the right license and yet I haven't marked this person's images. Hopefully the bot will be functional soon.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I expect the bot to be up and running again some day soon. The bot owner is silent and may be a week off on vacation? Of course you may manually pass some images, but there is no real hurry. FlickrReviewR also checks if the images has the highest resolution. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment: The flickr review backlog is now 399 so I will mark a few images by uploaders that I trust. Hopefully, the reviewbot gets active soon. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! JurgenNL (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lymantria (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Flickr human Review

If you have some time this Sunday, please feel free to mark some images in this category. Its not very good if just one person (ie. me) marks all the images sadly. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Thor 2 cropped.png

I noticed you reviewed 2 of the photos I uploaded of Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth from the Thor 2 premiere, if you could, would you review File:Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Thor 2 cropped.png as I had it reviewed by another editor who then changed the source of it and made it under an invalid license. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Sadly, the editor that changed the source the first time undid your revision again and changed the source back. I undid that because I find it absurd that he finds it ok to change my original source and claim false license when I know better than to add a ARR photo. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Colonel Harland Sanders in character.jpg

Please feel free to deal with the matter above. Afterwards, do you have any suggestion about reducing the chance of people on Wikipedia possibly nominating the above image for deletion on Commons? It was moved to Commons by me and Admin Dianaa on Wikipedia kept the earlier copies of the images--for insurance. I already added a link to an earlier DR on the image's talkpage at wikipedia. Stefan2/Stefan4 said its copyright is secure. That was why I moved it here. Presumably what I typed on the talkpage is sufficient but I don't know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• PS: I don't know if this ad can be passed or if it is copyrighted? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The upload from en-wiki seems secure to me. The ad is a border case, but I would say it is copyrighted. Kind regard, Lymantria (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment on the second image. I'll tag it for speedy deletion. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For uploading all those nice images of insects an butterfly's. Natuur12 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Natuur12! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Derivative images or Free images

Dear Lymantria,

Are these images below OK for Commons or are they copyrighted?

• File:^Lambertz325 Bloggerevent - Flickr - tm-md (30).jpg
• File:^Lambertz325 Bloggerevent - Flickr - tm-md (31).jpg
• File:Burg Falkenstein im Harz - Flickr - tm-md (23).jpg
• File:Burg Falkenstein im Harz - Flickr - tm-md (26).jpg
• File:Burg Falkenstein im Harz - Flickr - tm-md (6).jpg

They were uploaded by a bot so if they are unfree derivative images just file a speedy delete on them. The same bot is flooding the flickr human review category with other images unfortunately. But we 'humans' have only so much time to mark images.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this is nonfree content. Thanks for mentioning. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You. I thought they might be free for a moment. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This DR

Can you give an opinion if the image in this DR can be kept or not under German FOP? I don't know the answer.

Secondly, perhaps the image below should be deleted. I tagged it 1 or 2 days ago.

• File:Escultura de sant Josepmaria a Barcelona.jpg

What a surprise. The image doesn't exist on the original flickrlink anymore. I'm sure it was taken from here originally. He/She uploaded a new image with the metadata in his/her name although I don't know if its the uploader's own work. Perhaps you do. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think indeed the image is covered by FoP in Germany. The sant Josepmaria images I deleted. I didn't find the original at the photostream of the Flickr account you mentioned. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK Thank you for your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Fairphone.jpg

Hoi, je het dit bestand genomineerd als 'no source', maar de bron is wel vermeld. Ik heb het bestand ook daadwerkelijk aangetroffen op de gelinkte pagina. Jcb (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Da's vreemd?? Ik kijk nu weer en nog steeds zie ik de foto niet.... Groet, Lymantria (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hij stond eerder in de doordraaiende afbeelding, maar nu moet je doorklikken op 'flyer' om hem te zien. Jcb (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, maar daar staat nu niet meer de CC-melding bij. Maar als jij hem in de doordraaiende afb. hebt gezien is het okay. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This DR

This image here is likely a flickrwash. Unfortunately, the flickr account owner placed the source account under the adult section of flickr which means one has to sign in to see it...which I doubt is an accident. Feel free to make a comment in the DR if you wish. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• PS: Feel free to mark this image if you can:
• File:IMGP8418_Jacoby_Ellsbury_and_Dustin_Pedroia.jpg

Finally, it looks like Admin NeverCry is back. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, The flickr image might be a lucky shot. Why the account holder hid his images in the adult section I don't know. But low resolution... Let's see what the deciding admin will say. I marked the second image. Indeed, INEverCry is quite active! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for marking that image. As for the DR, it might be a lucky shot but if you log in on flickr and see the image, it seems really suspicious because there are 1-2 derivative images, and then there are normal street images and finally 1 single image here with no camera metadata. I don't know...as the output doesn't appear consistent. (My 2008 flickr account has 160 images but at least its not 10) That is why I asked for your input. Of course, if you have the time, you can check if the image appears on other sites. Thank You and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I tried to find it on other sites but unsuccessfully so. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Review image request

Hey, could you please review this image >>. I wasn't too sure on the copyright but it seemed alright seeing as how the author was ABC Disney. Thanks! Lady Lotus (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Miley Cyrus 2013 American Music Awards.jpg

I see that this has been done by someone else already... Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Consider marking these images at License Review?

Here are some images I saw in License Review. Would you consider marking the first six by High Contrast?

• File:Slovak International Air Fest 2012 - AFRC -17.JPG
• File:Slovak International Air Fest 2012 - AFRC -18.jpg
• File:Slovak International Air Fest 2012 - AFRC -19.jpg
• File:Slovak International Air Fest 2012 - AFRC -06.jpg
• File:Slovak International Air Fest 2012 - AFRC -14.JPG
• File:Slovak International Air Fest 2012 - AFRC -16.JPG

How would you mark the other image below? I find it strange that someone would place a high resolution image on a royalty free site.

• File:Tockus erythrorhynchus Samburu National Reserve.jpg I gather you have to type a special pass and link it to the website. Its your decision of course.

This tombstone is likely PD but who took the picture? Who owns the copyright? A very tricky problem indeed. The License review category has the most diverse websites and images.

• File:Tombstone of William Rogers, located in the old cemetery at Cane Ridge Meeting House near Paris, Kentucky.jpg

• These images says the license is attribution, so does one mark it:
• File:Sulphur Bath. Tbilisi.jpg
• File:Varbola maalinna värav 2008.jpg

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• PS: Someone has marked High Contrast's images & the National Reserve bird but the image of the tombstone and the sulphur bath is a problem. What does one do? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the tombstone is okay, as the website has a general notice that the material is free to reuse. I marked it. The nagi.ee images I have seen a lot. They use cc-like license names, without actually linking to the cc-licenses. "Attribution" can therefore be licensed as the uploader did, but I would always include the link to the author in the license - I corrected that and marked the images. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. I am very happy to see that the new license reviewers JurgenNL and Natuur12, fellow countrymen, have drasticly reduced the number of images in LicenseReview. Good job of them and a good support of your good work!
•  Comment: Thank You. I marked a few images with license review on Sunday (about 6) and the license was clearly stated to be cc by. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Uranophora leucotelus.JPG

Hoi Lymantria, ik zag tijdens het reviewen deze afbeelding van je voorbij komen. Bij de toestemming heb je ingevuld dat er "No rights reserved" zijn, maar bij de bron kan ik dit vinden. Kijk ik ergens overheen? Groet, JurgenNL (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dat is jammer. In het half jaar dat hij in review heeft gestaan is hij kennelijk verwijderd. Ik heb hem als "missing source" verwijderd. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Zonde... Dank voor je reactie JurgenNL (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Inderdaad zonde, maar dankzij het markeerwerk van jou en Natuur12 heb ik er vertrouwen in dat dit soort situaties niet zo heel vaak hoeven voor te komen. Groeten, Lymantria (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Final images

I marked 7 images at license review today but perhaps you know how to mark these ones. The third one is not at the link and is from 2009 although the metadata says it is a USAF photo. The fourth and final one might have to be tagged as no source....as the given source has expired.

• File:U. S. Marine searching Iraqi woman at control point outside Fallujah.jpg
• File:Ukrainian GAZ-66 in 2011.jpg
• File:Wasserfall SAM.jpg
• File:Soviet intelligence gathering trawler Gidrofon, a photo from aboard USS Lipan (1).jpg

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You can mark the images like the first two just as you do with other LicenseReviews. The third one is clearly PD, in such cases I use {{PDr}} instead, PDr may be used for the first two as well. The fourth I managed to track back through the Wayback Machine - see the new links. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. Thank you. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in dry dock view from dock 2013.JPG

Sorry about this one but what the uploader says about the above image source seems right--that its a US Navy photo. Unfortunately, the camera EXIF says its '©2013NewportNewsShipbuilding'. Only an Admin should mark this high resolution image when such contradictory copyright information is given sadly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Thank you for noticing this. It seems a photograph published by but not taken by US Navy. But the license only covers images taken by US federal government employees. I'll give it a second thought later, but this seems not right to me. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• I guess that other reviewers like me were scared off by this problem from marking it. If there is a problem, it may be safer to delete, I suppose...but I am not an expert here. Goodnight as it is 1:25 AM right now sadly. PS: The license review cat is less than 100 images today which is almost amazing. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • True! Sleep well! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:BNSF 2276 at Seattle SODO (Public Domain).jpg

In this image, the flickr account owner licenses this image (and some of his other images, I notice) on a cc by 2.0 license but he states in a statement that he releases it on a pd-license. So, I don't know, how it should be marked. As for the Gerald Ford ship image above, someone marked it but I don't know if it is a US government image or not. But you might. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• • In this image the situation is clear that the author declares the image to be in the public domain. But I would always choose to double-license it, as a cc-by-2.0 was also given at flickr. Therefore I have marked it with double license. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for resolving the double license problem. I have voted to delete in the DR you created of the Gerald Ford ship. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung#Krabbe auf Teneriffa

Hi Lymantria. I mentioned two of your photographs. Please have a look. --Leyo 17:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to notify the photographer, Sandra Brennand. --Leyo 10:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I did. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Leyo 13:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Saigon City Hall (Hotel de Ville) in 1962 - Tòa Đô Chánh Saigon (Ủy ban Nhân dân TPHCM) tại năm 1962.jpg

If this image is the flickr account owner's work, please feel free to pass it. If not, please consider a DR. The flickr source names a photographer. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking action. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• If this account above is freely licensing a lot of copyrighted and out of copyright images--as seems likely from its photostream, perhaps it should be put on a blacklist. Because only an expert can tell which image is PD or not. I notice some are from LIFE magazine, too. I don't know what is the appropriate action though. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: As an aside, I don't doubt that all this user's Uploads from his flickr account are 'own work' but do they need to subject to a flickrreview--since the license on flickr is different than that on Commons? The flickr license is 'cc by generic' but the flickr bot likely cannot read a flickrlink with a https address like this Anyway, I suppose a copyright owner can license images from CC BY on his flickr account to CC BY SA on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the user to the blacklist. Concerning the uploads with different Flickr and commons licenses: this is not a big problem. But it is of course the best choice to be as complete as possible and thus to add the flickr-license like this. Lymantria (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, I am working today and managed to mark only 1 image for this user's Uploads Hopefully one of your countryman such as JurgenNL can flickrpass the other images...if he has time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I saw that Flickrreviewbot can read https: links, so I added Flickrreview-requests botwise and think the issue will be resolved in an hour or so. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• The flickr review bot marked all the images. I did not know that the flickr bot could read https links or that you operate your own bot but thanks for your kind help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:Sphex flavipennis 2.jpg

PS: This is a great picture but the scientist who created this insect's name should have had a 'less imaginative mind.' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• • HAHA, Perhaps the scientific name refers to the other gender. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)