User talk:MGA73/Archive 15

File:Michael_1988_by_himself.jpg

File:Michael_1988_by_himself.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.

 

High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to a DR. It seems to link to Flickr and possibly the image that is mentioned as the source. --MGA73 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Zero_7.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Zero_7.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Justass (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! --MGA73 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Two_Hapkido_practitioners_performing_techniques_in_a_black_belt_examination.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Two_Hapkido_practitioners_performing_techniques_in_a_black_belt_examination.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Justass (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Please look at my message here about whether the OTRS permission applies to all images from Chris & Steve's account uploaded by Blofeld...and make a reply to the captain's talk page. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploading to commons

All right yeah I knew it could be done and I knew commons was better for some reason like how you can categorize photos but I mean are they really more likely to get seen and used if they are there; cause I mean I browsed through and it seemed like there were sooooo many unused and random pictures that it was kind of surplus; it seems like every image uploaded straight to a project gets used because it was uploaded for a reason. 74.46.10.106 05:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Whoops en:User:Daniel Christensen

Yes images are often better categorized on Commons and easier to find. But they can also be used outside Wikipedia so they can be used on webpages and newspapers without you can see it. On Commons some images are uploaded because they are wanted for some articlen on a Wikipedia and others are just uploaded because photographer thinks it is a good/usefull image. --MGA73 (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:JohnPatterson.jpg

Please decide whether to upload the original image from flickr and then passing it...or deleting the flickr link to this image...which is not from the flickr account. I have no idea where it comes and no trusted user or Admin is brave enough to mark it. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Sherry Glaser.jpg

File:Sherry Glaser.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 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!

There is also this DR. I hope you can fix the first (Patterson) image above and then make a comment in this DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Hi MGA73, would you rename this file. I think it's preferable to do so before it's the POTD. -- User:Docu at 19:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you update it here too, it's already protected. -- User:Docu at 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All right what's going on here...

I can't add the English links to this image: File:RCA Dimensia Digital Command Center remote control.JPG. The words GO AWAY when I add the : inside the brackets I did [[en: and it went AWAY COMPLETELY. I will not use commons this way! Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I add my links; the entire thing disappears when I add the en: thing. If I don't it's of course a red link. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture name change

Hi, you recently changed File:Adm2.jpg to File:Admiral David Farragut (1801–1870) - collodion, LC-BH82-4054 restored.jpg with the comment "change meaningless". Would you please contact me in future before changing the filenames of my uploads? I have a recordkeeping system that appends numbers and letters to the ends of filenames according to their progress. Restoration is not a binary on/off toggle; many of the completed restorations have the number 2 appended the end of the filename, with the version number numerically prior to that uploaded as a pre-histogram version also uploaded so that--per our mission as a wiki--meaningful reedits can be performed by other editors. It is by no means necessary to include the lifespan, medium, and catalog number within the filename itself. That is what file descriptions are for. But it is quite meaningful for Commons purposes to keep the appended restoration number. Some uploads have a higher number than two due to collaborative work between editors (trading files offsite with sequential increments as the work progresses) or other factors specific to a particular restoration. It would be much better to inquire what meaning might be present, rather than acting upon a presumption that no meaning exists. If you don't object I'd like to revert that filename change. Durova (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if "Adm2" is the file name according to your personal convention (appending numbers and letters to the ends of filenames), you should still attempt to pick a meaningful name to start with. "Ad" by itself isn't. In the rare cases where renames are needed, we attempt to make them as descriptive as possible. -- User:Docu at 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A concurrent discussion is underway at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day#File_renames. As mentioned there, Adm is a standard abbreviation for admiral. That particular restoration has taken two years to reach the main page (for unknown reasons). You'll notice that my more recent uploads contain fuller names. Nonetheless, no attempt was made to contact me or inquire what the meaning might be--I'm not hard to find and have four other POTDs running this month which all use the same appended filename system. If one really attempts to make names "as descriptive as possible", doesn't it stand to reason that a fair first measure is to ask? Anyway, I have proposed a compromise at POTD talk which let's hope is acceptable to everyone. Durova (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Durova. I'm sorry that you do not like the new name. I left a response on Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day#File_renames. --MGA73 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:MMA.png

I trust uploader and English wiki Admin East718 here who has done much OTRS work on English wikipedia...if you want to pass it. The flickr account owner, I notice, also licenses his other pictures as cc by sa'. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too. But perhaps the captain could ask the Flickr user to change license. If that does not work we could start a DR and vote keep and hope that others support that view. --MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Help from your bot

Can you please order your bot to do a flickr review for flickr images uploaded by this user who uploads images with the right license but 1. does not order a flickrreview and 2. does not add categories oftentimes. I don't know why he doesn't know about {{Flickrreview}} either. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• As an aside, as for picasa review here, I doubt images with names like 'Blue spotted butterfly', 'Bolton Abbey' or 'Brazil nut' need to be reviewed as they are surely the uploader's own work. This File:Haw Phra Kaew.jpg is surely own work too. I marked a few picasa images today....but it is too many. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at that users uploads later. Should be easy to fix :-) I left the user a note.

I really did not know we had that review category. I think we should link from one to the others or find an other way to make sure, that someone is looking at all relevant categories. Feel free to add more links on the Flickr-category. --MGA73 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: Surely this other image is own work too...like the first one I mentioned above:
• File:Princess juliana international airport approach.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My bot found around 13 images that should have flickrreview. Lets hope most of them pass.

I will ask the bot operater if the bot could also review images from picasa. That would be easier. If not we just have to make sure that there is more than 1 user that reviews images. The latest image could be reviewed even if it is own work. The license on picasa is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. So I would just review it to avoid any problems later. --MGA73 (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there is a bot that does the job. Wonder if it works as good as flickr review bot... Will try to find out. --MGA73 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks. By the way, the picasa review bot has already marked those picasa image category and they need human review. This is another image which is definitely 'own work' that was already reviewed by the picasa bot...but not passed by it. Good night from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the bot is still in test fase. Once it has a bot flag it will probabably help clear the backlog :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help me delete two uploads

The last two uploads, which you left messages on my talk page, were a horrible mistake! Although I've uploaded and placed about 300 photos from Commons to en.Wikipedia, es.Wikipedia, pt.Wikipedia, etc, these two are my first real blunders. Can you tell me how to place a speedy delete on the pages? I'm afraid that even over the last few years I still don't know how to delete them myself. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You can not delete images yourself unless you are an administrator. Just add {{Speedy|reason}} on the image page and then they will be deleted. I deleted the two images for you not :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

lakes of Wales

Hi MGA73, would you delete the empty categories in Category:Other speedy deletions. They are part of a series made to categorize these lakes. I probably wont be needing these for the remaining images and, if Geograph didn't have an image, it's unlikely we will be getting one soon either. If you don't have a script to do it, let me know, I will try to find another way. -- User:Docu at 09:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But I noticed that there is 112 images left in Category:Lakes of Wales. Perhaps we should wait a moment and try to categorize these images first. After that it should not be a problem to delete the still empty ones. --MGA73 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I used search to look for the category names: without result. The 112 are of other lakes (or of the same lake with another name, or unlabeled). I will create categories manually for these as/when needed. -- User:Docu at 10:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will nuke them :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better. -- User:Docu at 10:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the lakes could be in the relevant counties? --MGA73 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently someone is trying to do this. Personally, I'm already happy if the images of the same lake are in the same category. Sometimes the upload distributed them easily among 4-5 categories ;) -- User:Docu at 10:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA72, would you do the same for a series of lochs of Scotland, currently in Category:Other speedy deletions? -- User:Docu at 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some bug makes a few (non empty) categories with a single quote in thei name appear there too. Please skip those. -- User:Docu at 21:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- User:Docu at 21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Oth001.jpg

Is this image in the public domain or not? It is a picture of a 3D statue. The English translation appears to say it came from the St. Petersburg collection of books from the late 19th to early 20th century but I can't be sure. Anyhow, there is a replacement photo here: File:Otone - foto di euthman.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm on vacation right now but could'nt stay away :-) Well the statue is PD-old as far as I can tell. But the photo is only free if the photographer gave permission or died more than 70 years ago. Perhaps someone know more. So I do not think it should be speedied but nominated via a regular DR. Will you nominate? --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll let this one alone though it would be nice if a clear book source was given. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Villevalimhmarch.jpg

Hi, you approved the flickr license but I nominated it for deletion as flickr washing. It's a promo shot and the other contributions by the user (including an album cover) are promo/copyrighted material as well. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Super. Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Madfotos / Cyclonebill

Hej MGA, kan jeg få dig til at tilføje Category:Photos by cyclonebill på de ca. 1019 filer her [1]?

Tillægsspørgsmål: Jeg vil gerne have en liste over alle Wikipedia-artikler, der bruger cyclonebills fotografier. Ved du om der findes et tool til det? Mange tak! Nillerdk (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hej Nillerdk! Min bot er igang med at sætte kategorien på. Jeg tror nok vi plejer at skjule "kilde-kategorier". Jeg kan ikke lige komme på, at der skulle være et tool til det, men jeg kan prøve at spørge lidt rundt. --MGA73 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Multichill vidste lige hvor vi skulle lede http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Photos_by_cyclonebill&use_globalusage=1&show_details=1 --MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Multichill/PBB Image citation

It's a start. What do you think? I still have to figure out categories. Multichill (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good :-) Will be nice to have the images transferred. --MGA73 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anglesey

FYI Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2010/03/Category:Isle_of_Anglesey. Looks easy to resolve, but I think he would also like to have the problem mentioned here addressed. -- User:Docu at 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:TAB-71 during Romanian Revolution of 1989.jpg

Dear MGA73,

If this is the flickr owner's photo, please pass it. If not mark it as a flickrwash. This has been sitting in human review for several days now. I don't speak German.

• As for this picasa photo: File:Jennette McCurdy.JPG perhaps you should consider passing or failing it also? It has a long file history. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

First image has been reviewed by an other user. Tineye only gave one hit (a thumb). So I let it be for now. The second one might have a permission. I asked that the mail is send to OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, someone has now marked it which is good. I don't know about the second one and don't know the uploader. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS in Bulgarian

Hello MGA73,

I am ready to help you, but I did not understand everything in your message: which image are you talking about ? You can answer here. I will remove your message from the French Wikipedia and place it on Commons - don't get offended ;-)

Best regards,

--Moumine (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much. That is good news. And I will of cours not get offendet - I was just desperately looking for some help and list on meta linked to French Wikipedia.

I hope the permission is valid for this image File:Bardarski geran 6.jpg and all the others from the same source [2]. You may want to read the message here also (same as this user User talk:Martyr). If it is not valid it would be nice if you could either ask the photographer or inform Martyr what is missing. --MGA73 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mohammed Al-Awad.jpg

Is it working correctly now ?Abodi009

Thank you for this information(talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. And yes it is good now. The plan is that the bot should do the job during upload if you press the link in the template :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hjælp til vores skånske ven

Hej MGA73! Tak for hjælpen sidst med madfotoerne. Kan du ikke gendanne filerne på User_talk:Awayanoder så vil jeg hjælpe ham med at vælge en licens. Nillerdk (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Så har jeg gennemgået dem. En (File:MS StellaScarlett LargestFerryEverOnAnyRouteOfØresund.PNG) var vist en copyvio (Starbord side of "MS Stella Scarlett" screenshot from a scanned postal card at http://www.faktaomfartyg.se/stella_scarlett_1974.htm where it states (in swedish) "Vykort från Micke Asklanders samling" - wich translated gets "(Common) postalcard from Micke), 3 var duplikerede filer og 1 manglede licens. Sidstnævnte er nu gendannet File:BallerupKommune.JPG --MGA73 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, tak. De 3 dupletter har han nok paa et tidspunkt uploadet igen. Jeg troede at de var gaaet tabt pga manglende kendskab til Commons. Jeg aendrer Ballerup-svaret til PD-ineligible, idet jeg naeppe tror at svaret har vaerkshoejde. Nillerdk (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ja han har garanteret uploaded igen. Så det var kun en enkelt, der manglede :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kan du give User talk:Heaven&Earth samme tur? Der er med stor sandsynlighed tale om egenkreationer. Heaven&Earth er en kunstner med en blog her http://ihanne.wordpress.com. Især den slettede Artmoney-fil interesserer mig, da jeg lige har forbedret da:Artmoney. Nillerdk (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sådan! Der er lidt at kigge på nu [3] :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeg har skrevet en kort besked på brugerens diskussionsside. Du er velkommen til at kommentere eller sende brugeren en mail :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploading from Flickr

Hi. Thanks for your msg about uploading images from Flickr. I have clicked the link that should remove the token template before but each time I do it, it brings me back to the uploading page as if I have to start uploading it all over again. If I am not mistaken, of the 20-odd times I have uploaded pictures from Flickr, only once has the token link worked. This is why I upload the pictures manually but leave the token template for independent verification. If it is better for me to remove the token template, I shall proceed to do so next time. Tks. slleong (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not the same user but belong to the same team.

It should work if you click before the file is uploaded (if the same person prepare the upload and click the link). If something goes wrong you can try to save the page again and click the link (just make sure to do at least one edit on the file page). If it will not work and you have to upload it manually just remember to request a flickrreview by adding "{{Flickrreview}}". Then the bot or an administrator will verify the license and then image "is safe" if Flickr user changes the license. Lets hope you have better luck in the future :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Captain-tucker/Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR

Thanks for the conversion to tables. I hope you had some automated method of doing the conversion? --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The least I could do :-) Well I copied it to Word and did some search and replace. Problem is that order of text was different so I did not bother to try with my bot. It took 15 minutes or so :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Marco_Luque.jpg

File:Marco_Luque.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 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!

High Contrast (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Deleted. I cleared Category:Image pages created for Flickr upload bot without files and did not notice the description. --MGA73 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with File:Bushmaster_long.jpg

Hi! I can't understand where is the problem with that file... the description is the same of Bushmaster normal, which is passed... --Bonty (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The passed file (File:Bushmaster_normal.jpg) has an excact match on source. The problem is that there is no image on source that match File:Bushmaster_long.jpg so therefore we could not pass that file. I looked around and I think I found the source here http://picasaweb.google.com/flackez/GunWeapons#5426520128822256930. --MGA73 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your link is correct... I've already substituted it. Now is everything ok? Sorry for my mistake... ah, just another thing: please, answer in my talk page!! Bye --Bonty (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you changed the link before me... well done! --Bonty (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok see your talk page for answer then. --MGA73 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eheheheh, in it. wiki we usually leave comments in the others user pages... anyway, this is not a problem. Bye --Bonty (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tristan da Cunha4.jpg, File:Tristan da Cunha3.jpg and File:Tristan da Cunha5.jpg

I finally received a response the the flickr author of File:Tristan da Cunha3.jpg and File:Tristan da Cunha5.jpg saying that he would not remove the NC license from any of his photos. Now File:Tristan da Cunha4.jpg and an OTRS ticket, you had mentioned on my talk page [4] that this was not the best permission and that you would ask someone else about it. Could the permission on File:Tristan da Cunha4.jpg be valid for the other 2 images or should I just DR them as the permission notes in File:Tristan da Cunha3.jpg and File:Tristan da Cunha5.jpg just give permission for Wikipedia? Here was their response:

Dear Captain Tucker,
Unfortunately I am unwilling to give free commercial license for my images. This is particularly so with Tristan as an anniversary of the volcano
eruption & subsequent evacuation will occur this year.
I have sold some of my better quality images at full price through Getty Images and would prefer commercial operations to have to approach me
individually. My experience is that there are major profitable companies looking for free images from people who don't realise the commercial
value of their images. I do find this fairly reprehensible behaviour from commercial buyers who should have more respect for photographers.
I'm sorry if you will have to remove them from Wikipedia as there are so few pictures around of Tristan and many people have enjoyed having
access to them.  

--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented on your talkpage. --MGA73 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: file history

File:And.jpg has got a black and white image in the file history. It might need removing from the history, because it might be vandalism or a mistake. Does this file name need protecting? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and errors can happen anywhere so I do not think that we need to protect the name. By the way in Danish "And" is a "Duck" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the black and white image in the history need removing? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted it. I had to check uploaders history first. If history was ok we could have moved that to another name. --MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

image rights

next to permission on the image i included this link which i thought was the permission. please advise. Wiki ian 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The problem with the license Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic is the "Noncommercial-No Derivative Works". That license is not free enough for Commons. You can read more here COM:L#Acceptable_licenses. The Flickr user has to change license to cc-by-2.0 or cc-by-sa-2.0 or send a permission before we can keep the image. --MGA73 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, I find the licenses a bit complicated at times. Maybe I should stick to the Wikipedia side of the fence :) I've also added File:Qantas hbt domestic.jpg. Can you please verify this image is ok to use? Cheers Wiki ian 10:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You have to learn when you try something new :-) Sadly the other image is also not ok. It is Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Do you want me to delete the files or will you contact the Flickr user?

You can find help uploading from Flickr here but there are also tools that can help you during upload. They will tell you if license is not ok. You can use the tool mentioned here User:Flominator/Flinfo or you can use one of the tools mentioned here Commons:Flickr_files#Tools. --MGA73 (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)