User talk:MGA73/Archive 27

File:Maria gabriela 2 - ven a bailar tour.JPG

I typed in a possible copyvio based on the uploader's history but the uploader removed the tag. Do you wish to read my note in the file's history? This Common's uploader was banned for 2 weeks prior. Do you have a solution? I don't think I can trust her based on her history and she is using her flickr account. Plus the image has no metadata. I cannot say if it is truly own work. It may be or may not be but her history creates many doubts. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I took it to a DR and asked uploader to upload the original including metadata. That should be easy if it really IS own work ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: It was a reasonable decision on your part and based on how the DR ended, it was indeed a flickrwash. MartinH seems to have detected it immediatedly. A reasonable conclusion to the DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gofio_with_milk.jpg

File:Gofio_with_milk.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!

92.225.216.104 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:1mardiv defbn insig.svg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1mardiv defbn insig.svg, 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion that might interest you

Hi MGA73,

I guess the discussion on 'Commons:Administrators' noticeboard' on Euro coins blanket copyright violation might interest you. Best regards --Robby (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Whitey Ford.jpg

Should this image I tagged be deleted and something done with the flickr account? Maybe the flickr account could be 'blacklisted.' (Not the Commons uploader. I trust it is an honest mistake on his part.) Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this duplicate:

• File:Nerone Ceccarelli.jpg

I tagged it a few days ago. The other image is higher resolution. Same uploader. Maybe the low resolution image could be deleted...BUT the high resolution image renamed to Nerone Ceccarelli.jpg? Just an idea. Then it could still be used in an existing wiki article. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the dupe. As for the other one it should also be deleted. I need an ID to add it to the "bad list" - I'll ask Martin H. how to find it. --MGA73 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for acting on the dupe. As for the Ford image it has to be deleted too...but that flickr account must be added to the list of suspicious or bad flickr accounts because the flickr account owner does so much flickrwashing. I think the Commons account owner made an honest error. He didn't intentionally mean to upload a flickrwash. Hopefully Martin H can do something to that image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• This cannot be kept either. Fair use image:
• File:Hole November1991.png

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• <Also>: Someone replied to your question to MartinH here on the Whitey Ford source flickr account.

• PS: I passed an image and included a statement here on why I passed it. If you disagree, pls. revert my flickrpass and ask the uploader for OTRS permission. Its not a big deal to me. It appears that Sean Ellis is a company owner and that he can license his images as he chooses. But I could be wrong that he owns the rights. This is a difficult case and the ARR watermark doesn't help matters. I'm uneasy passing this file. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed and deleted the photo and added the ID to the black list.

The Flickr pass is ok. Personally I pass files even if i doubt it is own work. Just to make sure we have a proof of the license in case the file is kept in a DR and the license is changed on Flickr. I think your argument is good. If someone disagree they can start a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: OK. Thank you for your opinion here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg Kirchberg 3.jpg

Maybe its time that this photo be deleted since there are no objections. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Methan_lb_2d.png

File:Methan_lb_2d.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this 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!

Leyo 14:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Flickr - nicogenin - 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) (92).jpg

New Admin Lymantria ordered a flickr review on this 2009 image and when the bot found there was no image on the link, he placed an npd tag on it. But I checked the file history and found that Tabercil or someone named Zil apparently flickrpassed it on December 24 or 25, 2009--the exact day is confusing. The person who passed it is called "Zil." I thought he was Tabercil and so, I asked him and gave him other evidence of images he passed with the 'Zil' name from the same flickr account but Tabercil maintains that he is not Zil at all. Maybe Zil is another person? My question is should this image be left as is and deleted in a few days or can it be passed by another Admin like you citing the evidence I gave here ? I asked Tabercil previously and he maintained he was not Zil but I gave a link to the flickr account owner's collection of pictures from this 2009 event all still licensed 'cc by sa generic.' Tabercil refuses to act; I notice the flickr owner (N. Genin) uploaded new photos after he flickrmailed Genin and Genin did not seem to respond to Tabercil's message on the above picture. So, I'm guessing, its either hidden or deleted by Genin.

I don't know why Tabercil says he is not Zil unless either Tabercil is NOT Zil or Tabercil is scared. So, I don't know who made an edit dated December 24/25, 2009 flickrpassing the image under the Zil name now under npd...and the only reason it doesn't appear is because there was no closing bracket. Regards, --Leoboudv 02:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: The only other possibility I can think of is that the uploader is typing in a fake flickrpass but this uploader's work seems trustworthy, I think. So, its confusing to me that Commons may lose a good picture over a photo which or may not have been passed genuinely. Puzzled from Canada, --Leoboudv 07:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The file was uploaded by User:Boing-boing and if you check this page you will see "Bot to upload pictures from flickr. Check with User:Zil.". So I think that the file was uploaded by User:Zil with the use of a bot.

I do not think that User:Tabercil is User:Zil. Tabercil just added the Flickr id [1]. Please note that the text "{{flickrreview|Zil|2009-12-{{subst:CURRENTDAY2" was there both before and after User:Tabercil edited the page. The problem was the missing "}}".

So the right thing is to tell Zil about the problem. Zil should check the uploads of User:Boing-boing to see if there are other files with a missing review.

Anyway I do not know how the bot works and if the bot makes sure that the license is correct. --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank You. I will contact Zil then to try to clear up this mess. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Zil confirms that the license was correct and has told Lymantria who placed the npd tag the same thing. He passed the image. It should be resolved now. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This DR

The uploader has asked me if I recall the flickr url for this long deleted image. I don't remember as this was in 2009. Can you give me a link to the original flickr image? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure... Here it is http://www.flickr.com/photos/criminale/97544351/ :-) (still unfree). --MGA73 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank You. I remember the image but not the source. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Category name

I am trying to find what the name of a category should be. The bird park's website in in Russian, and I can not determine with certainty what the name of Category:Park of birds in Russia should be. I have tried webpage language translators and it appears to say that the bird park is called "Sparrows", but I would like to know if a Russian spearker would confirm what the translation in English is. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

It was last November 2010 when you advised a user about edit summaries; see your edits on his talk page here and here. I think that the user has not been writing enough edit summaries recently including categories where he added move templates. I have started a discussion about the users recent edit summaries on his talk page; see User_talk:Dysmorodrepanis#Warning_about_your_edit_summaries. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I commented on the talk page. I think you should avoid to use the word "warning". Even if it is a good idea to use edit summaries adding warnings to other users may just make them angry and less willing to follow the request. In this case the user started to point to your mistakes. That could of course be relevant but it seems to me that the discussion is about to get into a fight. That will do us no good so perhaps if you would think about what Dysmorodrepanis said about your categorization then Dysmorodrepanis would also be willing to think about what you said. --MGA73 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be grateful for you observations on what User Dysmorodrepanis said on a talk page here on 2 May 2011. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment. --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Holy-door.jpg

File:Holy-door.jpg is probably a speedy. Please check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AHoly-door.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the dor is a work of art? --MGA73 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was not clear whether en:User:Softchewy = "Paul Bruder" and therefore the file has been deleted at en.wp. Thanks for the clarification. -- Common Good (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oki. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos about dog devouring human meat

Well, I wish to upload a historical picture that shows body-eaten after the execution in 1911. What kind of rule should I follow non-prevention Speedy deletion?--俠刀行 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you add a good description, a category and perhaps also use it in an article. Any way it should not be a speedy deletion just because it is "not nice". --MGA73 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. So now I may have a way of hidden image that prevents somebody becomes fear when they click my uploads. I guess you're telling me?--俠刀行 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been a discussion about "ugly" files and if we should do something so users have to be active to see the files but so far no solution has been found. Truth can be "ugly" some times. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Feel free to mark a few of these images if you can. It seems like no one else but me has marked flickr images in the past 2 days. Strange. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed some and tagged a few others. I also nuked some copyvios. --MGA73 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ormsby-Laughlin Textile Companies Mill May 11.jpg

I'm confused. The page for File:Ormsby-Laughlin Textile Companies Mill May 11.jpg is correctly linked to http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/5686353409/ --Pubdog (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be :-) The reason can be found in this edit [2]. The link was wrong when i added the notice but another user was later able to find the correct file and changed the link. Everything is ok now. --MGA73 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:37thtw.gif

File:37thtw.gif 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!

Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hersheys Bar with Chocolate Bloom.jpg or File:Beychevelle.jpg

Are these 2 photos copyrightable or would you pass them? It shows part of the Hershey's packaged logo again and a wine label. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Secondly, this image below comes from a flickr account that is full of flickrwashes and this is the uploader's first picture here. Its hard to imagine the flickr owner owns the rights seeing the 1967 date of the picture....or that any valid OTRS permission is possible:
• File:KatherineRossinTheGraduate.jpg

• PS: Can you place a temporary (1 or 2 week) block on this user. He keeps uploading copy vios and has had some new images deleted or facing DRs for obvious copy vios which waste other people's time like this classic case. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

First file looks ok. I nominated the second one for deletion. Third file was allready deleted. As for the user it looks like the uploads started after the notices on the talk page. I deleted one of the files and will look at the user again tomorrow to see if there is a responce. If any new copyvios is uploaded I will block. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for your comments and for deleting the clear flickrwash. I hope the uploader stops his actions but perhaps a warning here would have been better. Just to stop his/her activity. But we'll see if it works soon. Cheers from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep uploader uploaded a few new copyvios and is now blocked. --MGA73 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Salimsulaiman.jpg

You made a mistake with the nomination of this image. The url for this clearly shows that it is from parties/events section of images of IndiaFM, which are free licensed per {{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}}. -- Legolas ^{from Mirkwood} 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed. But as you can see on the DR the problem is that half of the photo is a poster (the background). That makes it a derivative work. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask for blocking of brutal picture

Please limit this one File:Beheaded revolutionists in Wuchang.jpg, start function of stopping ability to click, we have to take some system that protect teenagers not to see it. At least let it safe. It's your call.--俠刀行 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We have no "block" at the moment even if there has been some discussion about brutal and sexual images. So there is really not much I can do about it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that discussion and searching is unavailable.--俠刀行 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bruno Mars In Hamburg Germany .jpg

The same uploader I discussed above uploaded this image and claimed it as his work today on May 17. I think he has to be warned or blocked temporarily now sadly. Can he really have access to a singer backstage? For a high resolution image, there is no metadata and his upload history is poor. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe this image can be speedied below rather than tagged as npd?:
• File:The Smeezingtons At The 53rd Annual Grammy Awards - Arrivals.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes should be blocked and Martin H did it allready. --MGA73 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, he did not learn from his mistakes. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Sprinkles Cupcakes mix.jpg & File:HTC HD7 (smartphone).jpg

Is the first image copyrightable? I don't know the answer and De Minimis doesn't apply. If it is, then please feel free to flickrpass it. Please consider flickrpassing the second photo...since its utilitarian, I believe. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:JSB BYU FirstVision.jpg
• As for this photo, I can't tell if it passes US FOP laws as there is no date for its erection. But it looks fairly modern. Maybe you should decide here as an Admin. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you. I thought the first image might have been copyrighted but the rules here are vague unlike utilitarians objects such as cars, trucks, planes or phones. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is ok because there is not much creativity there. It is just some text. --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Torso of Pedubast I by Michael Martin.jpg

Dear Michael/MGA73,

Personally I don't know how OTRS works sometimes. I upload this image with an OTRS pending tag and within a few hours, trusted user Neozoon sends me a message to my talk page warning me this image file may be speedily deleted. This may not even allow OTRS volunteers to check "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" for the permission message which I had sent within 13-14 minutes or so after uploading the image here. I hope you can remedy this situation with an OTRS ticket before someone deletes this image next when I already sent the OTRS permission sadly. I think I sent the message at 20:10 or 20:11 on May 21, 2011 for the Pedubast I photo. The flickrowner specifically said "Attribution Creative Commons Generic" for the image on his flickr link. But somehow I feel less trusted suddenly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Michael,

Thank you for locating the permission E-mail message I sent and archiving it in an OTRS ticket for this picture. I had sent in the message on 1 PM local PST or California time as Vancouver, Canada and California are in the same time zone but it looks like there are no OTRS volunteers in North America except MBisanz. I'm sorry I had to contact you by flickrmail but I was very scared! As for the message, Admin MBisanz warned me long ago not to say to the flickrowner that he/she allows an image to be used only on wikipedia because wikipedia cannot control where it is used. Instead the flickrowner must say he or she licenses picture X on the flickrlink Y on a "cc by generic" or "cc by sa generic" license...and that is what I did. I was very careful here. To be extra careful, I even used the word copyright free so Mr. Martin knew the implications of what I was saying and he thanked me for this message in another E-mail and had no problems having his photo used in Pedubast I's wiki article which I will soon do. I will see if I can find a link to the license version you referenced. Thank You for your all your kind help. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply from vi.wikipedia

Hello, please check vi:Wikipedia:Robot/Xin phép#MGA73bot. :) --minhhuy*= (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:YosriCakeraOptik.jpg

File:YosriCakeraOptik.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!

MGA73 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:YosriCongkakPlastik.jpg

File:YosriCongkakPlastik.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!

MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:YosriRM1T1990.jpg

File:YosriRM1T1990.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!

MGA73 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

4 images

• File:NORAD Jet Fighters Santa 2008 W.jpg
• File:Tim-dickinson-rolling-stone-2009-by-neeta-lind-cc-by-2.0.jpg
• File:D.C. United Hall of Tradition.jpg
• File:Bilkent symphony 1.jpg

Would you mark and pass all or some of these images? In the first NORAD image, the flickr source account only has 20 images on it. Maybe the image is still OK as a US Government work which would be PD? The second image is the only contribution by 1 uploader. I don't know if the posters in the third image has FOP issues. Finally, the fourth image is the only image on the flickr account: it may be a genuine image or a flickrwash. Its hard to say. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the first one. No link so no proof. Santa is not the work of NORAD. As for the FOP I see no problem because there is really nothing more than a little text. The 2 x "only one contribution" I found no hits on tiney so I do not think we have a reason to suspect Flickwash. --MGA73 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: The NORAD-NATO flickr link was interesting. I also thought it was an official US Government web site until I saw it had only 20 images. Maybe it was created by a collector of such images but without a genuine source, its no proof. Thanks for telling me that having 1 image on a flickr account is not always evidence of flickrwashing. Other Admins usually tend to nominate them for deletion because of this suspicion. I use TinEye too on some images and find nothing but I notice Martin H. can find another copyrighted source for them somewhere sometimes. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:LuPone and Burke.jpg

What would you do with this photo? The photographer is stated to be a man: 'Rob Rich © 2011.' But the source flickr account, Vivanista has many social contacts and is run by a woman; it is apparently a charitable organisation. If it can be kept, maybe a higher resolution photo can be used.

• Can you also close this DR by me? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

First file: I would start a DR and tell why I think the file should be deleted. Or perhaps contact the Flickr user. Second file: Kept. --MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for closing the DR. As for the image, I see that Admin MartinH has made many edits to the image, uploaded the maximum resolution photo and made a note to the author's identity and how one can contact him. Since he definitely know about OTRS permission and I assume would have read the Vivanista web site, I'll defer to MartinH's judgment and let the picture pass. Perhaps the author donated the photo to Vivanista as Vivanista is a charitable group. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DohaTowersWestBay.jpg

File:DohaTowersWestBay.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!

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right. --MGA73 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

At least 1 person agrees...:)..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these three images copyright problems?

Hi, Re:

• File:Philippine Eagle.jpg
• File:Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi).jpg
• File:Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi)2.jpg

We have been discussing the wiki article on this eagle on en wiki WP:Birds. Use of these three images look like copyright violations on Commons to me. I would be grateful if you would help to tidy-up and delete these images, if you think they do not have an appropriate copyright on Commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted at once... --MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:

• File:PagasaPhilippineEagle.JPG

I have been informed on en wiki that this image was uploaded to en wiki by the same person as the three files above. It was also uploaded by the same Flickr user as the images above; see Flickr. We do not know where this image came from originally, but we suspect that it has been Commons:License laundering. If there is doubt about the suitability of its licence for use on Commons, I think it should be deleted. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update: now deleted (I do not know who deleted it). Snowmanradio (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• (show/hide) 20:32, 7 June 2011 MGA73 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:PagasaPhilippineEagle.JPG" ‎ (The other uploads from that Flickr account was copyvios. Tineye gave 1 hit) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)

I just forgot to leave a note here :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yesterday, I noticed that the same image is on en wiki at en:File:PagasaPhilippineEagle.JPG. Do you have a remit to edit or comment over their. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)