Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

File:Nathalie Collin.jpg

Hello,

You've just deleted the picture I uploaded. I've got the rights on this picture. She is a French business woman . Could you please indicate me how I can do ? What categories should I mention so that the profile could be totally completed ?

Thanks for your help.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephpuchois (talk • contribs) 10:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)
@Stephpuchois: The photographer was Martin Alazard, who would almost certainly be the copyright holder. Please read COM:OTRS and have Martin Alazard confirm the license by following the instructions there. Storkk (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


SLKozhin Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Slkozhin

Hello Stokk. Why delete? I'm Uploaded my images! I have several times did request for acceptance files COM:OTRS. to e-mails permissions-ru@wikimedia.org, but received no response. Please help us to confirm the files! --SLKozhin (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! It's because we are not sure you (the Wikimedia user) are the actual artist. I've replied at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Slkozhin. Please keep the discussion there, and not here so that it is centralized in one place. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


File:Joelpelletier2014.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

<forwarded email containing phone numbers, address and email addresses redacted>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2016‎ 2602:306:c54b:ac30:9497:5dd2:4637:5cbe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 April (UTC)
Please do not paste emails containing third party contact information onto a public wiki. You appear to have been given promotional rights to use their copyrighted information. We only accept media that anybody can use for any purpose. Please ask OG photography to follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, for convenience and the avoidance of ambiguity, we have a standard email template they can use at COM:CONSENT. Note that the email should come directly from them, rather than being forwarded through you. Storkk (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


File:Siege of Bihka (1592).jpg

Hi, Storkk. I have an OTRS ticket on this file from someone claiming to be the author. I'm not an admin, so I can't view the deleted file. Could I ask you to have a quick look at it to see if the claim of authorship is plausible? Thanks! --Rrburke (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: It is this file... original description called it "An anonymous modern representation...". A cursory search doesn't find anything it's obviously derivative of (but my internet is acting up at the moment, so it really was cursory). Storkk (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Just a Quick Thanks

Hey Storkk,

Even though it didn't up winning featured picture status, I just wanted to thank you for nominating the picture of the W Hotel I uploaded. I really appreciate it. The page that picture is from is the only one I've ever made from scratch (so far, at least), so its nice to see something cool coming from it.

Thanks again,

Harris

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrboe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 February 2016‎ (UTC)
@Hrboe: Thanks for your contributions! They make Commons and Wikipedia a better place. Storkk (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Question on deleted files

The owner of this photo(who I know) asked for this digital ghost to be removed as well: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blood_Orange_Picture.jpg Thank you for removing the image promptly.

–Jacob

Babpacih (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you mean remove the deletion log, the only people who can do that are COM:oversighters, but that is only used in specific circumstances (e.g. to protect privacy) which don't apply here. Storkk (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

  Currently not Administrator on own devices so cannot gain access to any apps or mail services Crazylady505 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not completely sure what your message meant, though - if you have a request, could you please try rephrasing? Best regards, Storkk (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ticket 2015122510005621

Hi, Storkk. I'm trying to work through this ticket and the five other related ones the sender has open. He refers to earlier emails sent by the copyright holders and I note you refer to "the original emails", but I can't find any of the tickets being talked about. When you have a chance, could you give me some hints about how to find these earlier emails? I've done keyword searches on all the named photographers as well as on the file names, but so far no luck. Rrburke (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you try searching without accents? Ticket:2015120810018891 seems to be the first one. Storkk (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
OTRS searching is exceptionally painful at the moment, and I don't have a huge amount of spare time today. Ticket:2015120810024589 is another... Storkk (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'll keep trying. --Rrburke (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rrburke: I think you can assume that there was a flurry of tickets and then some time later one person inquiring about them as a group. Those tickets that were approved will have been dealt with... but there may have been an email or two that the group ticket assumed was sent that wasn't. Storkk (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Trooper Fred Potts 01.jpg

Thanks for fixing this -- I was called to breakfast after I closed the UnDr but before I saved the file update.

I'm not sure about {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. There's no evidence this was published before 1923 in the USA or anywhere else for that matter. I think its probably PD-US because it wasn't published until recently, either here or at The Berkshire Yeomanry Museum and therefore it is PD in the USA because the USA is pma 70 for works first published after 2002. I would use {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  Done Fair point, thanks! Storkk (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Further Question

<To keep the discussion in one place, I have moved your comment. Please reply there in the future. Storkk (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


Re:Special:Diff/191726242/191757284

Well, according to one of the pages were the image is found [1], it comes from the Lobrary of Congress, but I still finding it in the LOC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


"Pending" status

Hi, Storkk. One of the options at the top of an OTRS ticket is to set a ticket's status to "pending": when is this used? Is it when the agent is awaiting a response? I have several tickets that have been awaiting responses for some time, and am wondering whether to change them to pending status. Does the ticket stay locked when its status is changed to pending? --Rrburke (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: As briefly alluded to in otrswiki:Help:FAQ, tickets awaiting responses should usually be left closed successful. I remember seeing this discussed numerous times also, but my search-fu is failing me... and after reading those discussions (wishing I could find links...), I've pretty much stopped using pending at all. The only times I use pending are if I really want to prod a submitter (say for an exceptional image that seems likely to pan out if I nudge) or, as very occasionally happens, there is some concrete date associated with it (e.g. a response comes to the effect of "Please remind me when I'm back from my safari on the XXth"). I believe tickets remain locked when pending. As I'm a relatively recent volunteer myself, it may be better to bring this up again at the otrswiki:Café. Storkk (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


File:Linn Meyers.jpg

Hi, Storkk. Is this deleted pic a portrait of a person or a picture of a painting? Pardon the alliteration. --Rrburke (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: It's a smaller version of http://www.nationaldrawinginvitational.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/LinnMeyersatWork-crop.jpg ... so it's a picture of a person who is painting. The photographer is a Lee Stalsworth, according to the IPTC tag on the larger version (stripped from our copy), so two permissions are likely needed. Storkk (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Untitled.2C_2015.2C_ink_on_mylar.2C_75x53.22.jpg

Hi, Storkk. Thanks for all that. Would you consider emailing me copies of File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg, File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010.jpg, File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg and File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg? Or is that not kosher? I'm planning to send them to the artist so that she in turn can contact the photographers to request permission. --Rrburke (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Even if the files are likely OK, I'm not super comfortable emailing files that have been deleted on copyright grounds. However, in line with the undeletion policy, I have temporarily undeleted them to allow for discussion. This lasts a maximum of 30 days, but hopefully can be sorted out sooner. Storkk (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Rrburke (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:Battleground mentality

First, thanks for the feedback.

No excuses for my behaviour, but currentyly I'm in some predurein my real life. As I promised previously, I'll try to stay mellow and less aggresive, since I'm better for now. Y love my volunteering and I'll still do the best as I can do. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016030410018448

Hi, Storkk. This uploader, the subject of the image, asserts that the photographer transferred its copyright to him by oral contract. The image appears to have been taken in Sweden, which permits oral assignment of copyright. Do you think I need to ask for confirmation from the photographer of the transfer, or should I just go ahead and approve the ticket? --Rrburke (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: I would require a confirmation from the photographer. Much of the time (I'd guess around 50%) in my experience, when somebody claims to have been assigned the copyright, it eventually comes out that they have something like "publicity rights" to the photo and they have misunderstood... so they can usually use it for e.g. facebook, but others cannot modify it or use it in commercial product. Storkk (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:User translationadmin/text/species

Perhaps MediaWiki recognizes this page as "translated page" and therefore an ordinary admin cannot delete it. He/she must be also member of "translation administrators" group: Commons:Translation administrators. See also Commons:Translation administrators/Policy. --jdx Re: 20:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had surmised that. If we have decided that regular admins shouldn't have translation admin rights automatically (unlike rollback or whatever), I'm not going to grant myself those rights even if that would be within policy, without understanding why those rights are not automatic. No doubt a translation admin will close it in due course. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion burp

Hiya Storkk: Could you review Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump 6522122.jpg? I think there was a deletion burp while you were doing it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ellin Beltz! I treated it like a {{Duplicate}} and redirected... I was of two minds about it, but redirects are cheap. Storkk (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Aha! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (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:
Category:Carol Greider.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.


Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:GoogleConferenceDoodle.jpg

Hello,

If you get the time, wondering if you could take a look at this undeletion request for the file that you deleted as part of a mass request on April 25. Thanks. Crumpled Fire (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crumpled Fire: Thank you for notifying me, I have replied on the request. I will be travelling for a few days, so will probably not be able to follow it. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Che Guevara.jpg

Could you, please, add an appropriate "Undelete" category to this DR? Roeading your commont, I can't guess which country you considered to be the "country of origin" for this work (US, Cuba or Switzerland)? Also, the FAQ you pointed contradicts your claim that an extempt from removal may apply: " Basically a work is exempt from renewal requirements if all of the following conditions apply: [...] The work was first published abroad,[...]"

Note, that even if the photo is (obviously is!) copyrighted in Switherland and the whole EU, it does not mean it is not free in Commons. Ankry (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ankry: You are correct, I misread the FAQ. The is a US work in terms of copyright, since the location of first publication is the applicable criterion. I will spend some more time searching for renewals, but I find copyright.gov a difficult interface to use properly. It would be nice if there were analogous PDFs available post-1978. UPenn's site suggests Look issues were renewed starting 1937, so that might have to be the rationale instead. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ankry: If I can convince myself that I am using copyright.gov correctly (e.g. by finding a single periodical renewal in the early nineties), I will revert my close, restore the file, and convert my rationale into a comment... Storkk (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oryza sativa - Kerala 3.jpg

OK, let's talk here.

I changed the "author" and "source" of the file, to save it from deletion. I already sent the Declaration of consent for all enquiries to my sister, Emőke. Now we must wait a while. DenesFeri (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you really not understand that if you say you are the author and you know you are not the author, that is called lying? Obviously you did it to save the file from deletion, that's what I said too. Storkk (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eileen827.jpg

Where does the information in the UK copyright tag come from? The file information page does not indicate who the artist is. It's possible that it's written in the fine print on the picture, but the text is not possible to read given the low resolution. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Another one is Commons:Deletion requests/File:CoxBox1874.jpg. The file information page doesn't reveal who the artist is, although it might be visible in the fine print which is too small to be read on the Commons file. The only names I can find on Commons are the names of an actor and a composer, but there is no indication that one of them made the artwork of this illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: For the first, the information came from the Wikipedia page. I used the later of the two deathdates, which also happened to be that of the composer of the sheet music to which this is the cover, but neglected to update the Author field in the description. It is possible that the artist's deathdate is technically required, but that would be a harsh standard of evidence for a pre-1923 file, given those we have kept in the past. On the other hand, it seems that this was actually published in the US (see a larger version here, where "M. Whitmark & SonsM. Witmark & Sons", a New York publisher, is legible -- and that also appears to be the publisher of our version)... perhaps this should be reverted to just PD-US-1923.
For the second, Arthur Sullivan died in 1900, but conceivably the libretto author would be joint copyright holder, and he died in 1917. Again I used the later of the two. I also neglected to update the author field for this file. I think this happened because the nomination rationale was license based, so I just clicked on Edit Section after ascertaining the likely correct license, and didn't double check that the Information template was OK. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The only death years I can find are death years of composers, but we are not using any part of a musical composition, so the death years of the composers are irrelevant. The only death years we need are the death years of the artists, which are probably not the same as the death years of the composers.
This link contains a five-page document. The first page appears to be unsigned (so the artist is probably anonymous) and the source country for this page is possibly the United States. This information is not visible on Commons. The linked page mentions two named people (Victor Herbert and Henry Blossom), but they only created pages 2-5, so their death years are only relevant when using pages 2-5, not when using page 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I do understand what you are saying. However, I'm not sure it's worth investing much more time into investigating a 1) Pre-1923 US work 2) an illustration from 1874. While I generally give my cutoff for safe assumption of 70 years pma to be the mid-1860s, in reality it's more nuanced and that figure includes works that an apprentice may have created... I don't think that's likely in this case, so 1874 seems a reasonable assumption. Feel free to re-nominate for deletion if you disagree, but if you use the {{Fact}} tag, please consider actually explaining the dispute on the talk page as indicated by the tag. Storkk (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I must have overlooked the year of creation. I assume that almost all artists die within 70 years from creation of their illustrations, so if the illustration is from 1874, then it seems safe to assume that the artist, whoever he was, has been dead for at least 70 years. As the other illustration is from the United States, that one has been solved too as it is not necessary to know the death year of artists of United States works published before 1978. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks, and have a good one. Storkk (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


HH Damals – Karl Sieveking.jpg

Refering to your Deletion of the picture you remarked: per nomination. Anonymous is not "Unknown" - here there is even a watermark!. That's nonsens. If you take a look at this Paper Lübeckische Anzeigen you'll find out, that the watermark is the ne of the paper and not the one of the Photograph. If this satisfies you, please put the picture back with an pd-old. The paper stops in the End of 1934 and its chief has died 27.01.1939. But the watermark imho only says who had the right to publish the picture. The one who had the (C) is still unknown.--1970gemini 11:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said, "unknown" ≠ "anonymous". For a work to be anonymous, it had to be intentionally anonymous. Is there any evidence that was the case here? Storkk (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Da bin ich mir nicht sicher, um die unsicherheit zu minimieren, wäre ich dir dankbar, wenn du es noch einmal aud deutsch wiederholen könntest.--1970gemini 13:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ich kann es probieren: Unbekannt heisst nicht Anonym. Für ein Foto (oder ein anderes Werk) anonym zu sein, ich glaub das der Fotograf (oder Autor) muss anonym bleiben wollen. Dass wir sein identität einfach nicht wissen heisst nicht dass er anonym ist. Storkk (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ich habe einmal den Duden online befragt. LINK: http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/anonym
Der Duden nennt mir zu diesem Wort als Synonym: •anonymisch, nicht namentlich genannt, ohne Absender/Namen/Namensnennung, unbekannt, ungenannt; (bildungssprachlich) inkognito
Das war imho hier der Fall. Der Fotograph ist nicht namentlich genannt gewesen und in Folge dessen unbekannt. Ergo habe ich alles mir Mgliche getan um den Autor ausfindig zu machen. Da dies nicht von Erfolg gekrönt war, ist er anonym. In wie weit ist meine Denkweise verkehrt?--1970gemini 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The synonyms that your dictionary gives are not particularly relevant. What matters is that in the EU, copyright lasts until 70 years after death, however the wish to remain anonymous is respected and therefore if and only if the author wished to remain anonymous, then copyright expires 70 years after publication. Please see de:Anonymes_Werk_(Urheberrecht)#Rechtslage_in_Deutschland and more specifically de:Anonymes_Werk_(Urheberrecht)#Fr.C3.BChere_Rechtslage_in_Deutschland_.2F_.C3.9Cbergangsrecht for explanation in German, with examples. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to file a request in whatever language you wish at COM:REFUND. Storkk (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Files to delete

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Sterz

Why are you deleting my pictures? Sterz (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Because they are copyright violations. You have uploaded pictures that you claim are Public Domain - however you present no evidence for that. Photographs from most of Europe are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Storkk (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There are mostly from people whi are killed in WW II and some other pictures are even my own work...!!!! Why are you doing this. This is violation! Sterz (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It is the photographer's death that counts. You have presented precisely zero evidence that the photographers have been dead for 70 years. Storkk (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do I need to be dead to add my own pictures? You deleted already two times my own pictures. What can I do to stop your violation? Sterz (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No. But for the reasons stated, I believe there is significant doubt that it actually is your picture. It is not permitted to re-upload files that have been deleted after a deletion request, and any files re-uploaded may be speedily deleted (see COM:CSD#G4). I have looked them over again and do not believe I have made an error, so I will not overturn my decision, but I will respect any other admin's decision. There is no point in continuing this discussion here. If you disagree with one or more of these deletions, please create a request at COM:REFUND. Storkk (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done, but I do not understand that you are causing so much trouble. Your suspicion is baseless and without arguments. You only provide your colleagues and me extra work and exasperation. I will be as persistent as you are Sterz (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Storkk, could you take a look at the latest version of Special:Undelete/File:Cabane_des_Evadés.jpg. On my talk page I had some further discussion with Sterz and told him ways to disprove my/our doubts. The latest version show the original (non-digital) image and the sample of the whole film (don't know the name but you'll see) which seems quite the strong indication that this file is indeed own work and given those new insight I would be in favor of restoring (I'd say minus the last version as it has quite some personal images on there as well). How do you think about this? Basvb (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: I now believe this file is probably OK too, but I really think this verification needs to be archived via COM:OTRS. I have tried to explain this at Ellin Beltz's talk page. Storkk (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm personally normally of the opinion that if permission can be verified via Commons/directly that is OK or even preferable. Is it an idea/ok if I submit the evidence to OTRS myself (download from here) and handle and provide the ticket on the restored file? Basvb (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: I disagree - what if the admin who has checked it leaves? What if our standards of evidence change in the future? IMO one of the main benefits of OTRS is to act as an archival system for exactly this sort of thing, so that it can be checked independently in the future by impartial agents. The alternative would seem to be a note on the file talk page referencing a deleted version of the image. I guess that's better than nothing, but it seems to be a roundabout way of archiving permission when we have OTRS in place. I don't think you should email OTRS yourself with the image, since OTRS strongly prefers to have contact information for the author.... so if the user no longer wishes to participate, then I would suggest the File talk page route (possibly with a {{subst:lrw}} or something) is the only avenue left. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zion_Lutheran_Church,_Rockwell,_NC.jpg

Hi this is Jeanette Victoria here is a link to my photo on Flickr you and view the exif data there. I did in deed take the shot https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeanettevictoria/7493865294/in/album-72157628223096621/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanette Victoria (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 June 2016‎ (UTC+1)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
@Jeanette Victoria: Please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm your authorship and the license. Storkk (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion of files as OTRS agent request

Normally, in my opinion they should be undeleted, we have to trust OTRS agents. Next time I will keep an eye of the same agent. But if this kind of problems repeated by the same user it is better to address the issue to OTRS admins. Just a thought. -- Geagea (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would normally agree... but I do think that undeletion requests should be checked by the undeleting admin too. It is strange that there is no documented procedure (that I could find) to recall OTRS agents. Storkk (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:AisaIjiriOfficial.jpeg is provided by AisaIjiri herself.

AisaIjiriOfficial.jpeg that you deleted is provided by AisaIjiri herself, by e-mail to me directly.

And the owner of that jpeg is Aisa Ijiri herself, so there is not any problem to use.

Can you cancel your deletion?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.27.117 (talk • contribs)
Permission needs to be verified by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Note that the copyright of a photograph is almost always held by the photographer, not the subject, so unless you can demonstrate that the photographer sold the subject the photo, we will need the photographer to confirm the free license to COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request overlooked

Can you have a quick look at this Deletion request, it’s regarding the same photographer as this one, which officiated over last week. - Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Storkk (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


User:RedHorse1122

I have just noticed that recently you have blocked this user. I am writing to inform you that he is also known as RedHorse1122 and RedHorse112. --jdx Re: 02:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. RedHorse112's only edits were in May, so I won't block at this time (blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive)... if there are any more abusive edits, please let me or COM:ANU know. Thanks! Storkk (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Not so well. :-) I meant RedHorse1022 and RedHorse112. --jdx Re: 09:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
That changes things I think. Indef blocked 1022, and will indef block all accounts at the next infraction. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


Re:Please double-check your license confirmations

Thanks for your notice. Checking the tickets:

  • Leonard Lorenz-related files, I forgot to update the license. License corrected.
  • Ticket 2016050910010335, same as above. License corrected.
  • Ticket 2016050810010104, again.
  • Ticket 2016050910011656, once again.
  • Ticket 2016041510015348, well, there is already wide concensus in the IRC, and several users who I talked agree that these boxarts lacks of a (at least vesible) copyright notice (and I never seen a copyright notice in cereal boxarts). As you know, the fact that the customer indicated CC-BY-SA is irrelevant while these well-known boxarts was published by General Mills much before 1978 (unless you really don't know the Wheaties and who was Edward Antoine Bellande).
  • Ticket 2016043010008471, what file, File:Fabio-Mancini.png or File:Giorgio-armani-and-fabio.jpg? In both files, Fabio Mancini confirmed that them are self-portraits. Anyway, I'll ask again who is the photographer (despiste I already asked that previously).
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: that's why I'm asking you to double-check. IMO it's a high mistake rate, so please be more careful. We'd both be happier if I didn't feel like I have to check up on your edits for correctness. Regarding the cereal boxes, I would be curious what the white small lettering underneath the motto was... it sure looks like it could be a copyright notice. In any case, I don't see what the relevance of the ticket:2016041510015348 is on File:Wheaties_4,_Edward_A_Bellande.jpg - it's the wrong ticket number, maybe? Regarding ticket:2016043010008471, could you point me to where exactly the claim of self-portrait is (an email number in the ticket)? Storkk (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You right with File:Wheaties_4,_Edward_A_Bellande.jpg, worng ticket and corrected. And about the portraits of Fabio Mancini, I sended other message again to confirm the photographer. I'll try to reduce the rate of mistakes. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, check these uploads

All are copyvio. And, check these too, please. I'm not sure about them. Thanks in advance.--Fixertool (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done in the future please consider COM:VFC to do this yourself. Storkk (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip and for your time. At this very momment I'm on a hurry. May you check new uploads from the same user, please? Most of them are copyvio again. Thank you a lot.--Fixertool (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I am travelling at the moment with poor internet. I see that Y.haruo has tagged most of them as lacking a credible source. Storkk (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Melissa Menago's photo by Alan

Hi, if I get permission from Alan for the Melissa Menago photo after he reads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS, am I allowed to post it? In addition, how can I prove his permission to you?

Thank you in advance.

Best, Albert

No. The photographer should confirm the license directly to us by emailing us the template at COM:CONSENT. Storkk (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
They should reference "File:Melissa With Her Guitar.jpg", after which they will get a reply with a ticket number. Once the ticket has been processed, an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. This may take a few weeks. Storkk (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuscrito Gobernadorjpg.jpg

Thanks for closing the DR as kept. But, I should remember you that the Federal Copyright Law of Mexico indicates explicitely that the Legislative texts are also exempt of copyright:

Artículo 14.- No son objeto de la protección como derecho de autor a que se refiere esta Ley:

VIII. Los textos legislativos, reglamentarios, administrativos o judiciales, así como sus traducciones
oficiales. En caso de ser publicados, deberán apegarse al texto oficial y no conferirán derecho
exclusivo de edición;

Sin embargo, serán objeto de protección las concordancias, interpretaciones, estudios
comparativos, anotaciones, comentarios y demás trabajos similares que entrañen, por parte de su
autor, la creación de una obra original;

--Amitie 10g (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: you should be aware that it is not possible for anybody to know all of the laws in each language for every country. For that reason, we try to have templates that should be clear and should be verifiable for every jurisdiction. {{PD-MX-exempt}} does not reflect the text you quote... please attempt to seek consensus for your interpretation at COM:VPC, so that the template can be amended. Storkk (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Is true that is not possible to everyone to know the all laws, but the template effectively says "or legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial texts, as well as their official translations." in the english translation (are you confused it with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}? it only mentions the paragraph VII but not the VIII... and thinking better, I see {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} redundant to {{PD-MX-exempt}}, since both invokes the same Law and invokes basically the same). Therefore, I'll start a discussion in the Village Pump to ask if {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} is eligible to be merged into {{PD-MX-exempt}} to avoid further confussion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I apologize, I misread PD-MX-exempt, and have struck that comment on the DR. However it is not entirely clear that this would be covered as a legislative text (it might be), but it is certain that it is PD-old-100-1923, so I think that is the better PD tag in any case. Storkk (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by LxAndrew

I do not agree with many results here, but I can make nothing. I ask you to answer me one question - why you have removed it? - (File:В центральном парке Красноярска (10).JPG, File:В центральном парке Красноярска (11).JPG) I wrote there, that it is a natural stone, it not a work of art. If you do not trust me you ask Russian-speaking administrators. They will confirm it to you. LxAndrew 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@LxAndrew: what you claim are "ancient petroglyphs" are actually carved cartoons of people buying and worshipping bottles of booze. Your claim that they are ancient would appear to reflect either negligence or dishonesty on your part. Storkk (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo Saimir Pirgu

Dear Storkk, in the meanwhile Saimir Pirgu's photo that I asked to be deleted a few months ago has been removed from Flickr. This is the photo I'm talking about: http://images.google.de/imgres?https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_Pirgu_Saimir_-0193_(18980868565)_(cropped).jpg#/media/File:2015_Pirgu_Saimir_-0193_(18980868565)_(cropped).jpg As you can see it is not online on Flickr anymore: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vipevents/18980868565/ I hope that under these new circumstances you will reconsider the decision not to delete the photo. I think it has to be deleted if it is not available on Flickr anymore. I've uploaded a new photo of him in the meanwhile that can be used instead of the old one then. I'm just waiting for the photographer to send a declaration that it may be used.

Best regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin222 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lohengrin222: Creative Commons-issued licenses are irrevocable (see [2]), so unless there is evidence that the person who uploaded it to Flickr was not the copyright holder (and thus violated copyright by uploading it to Flickr), this is a clear keep. Storkk (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:YeY Logo.jpg,File:NEWSROOM.jpg,

I will response your response ---User:Partpart1. What are you doing, more than it does me, more than it does me, the removal of all i upload my picture with permisson is contrary to the rule of wikimedia about Commons:Assume good faith to me ,i'am a newcomers 3 weeks ago and i response to why are you disgrace my upload picture even though it's have a permission to owner,i you didn't explain it to me them i will request to wikimedia to blocking you to make deleting request even editing a article. please gave me a reason until 13:00, 01 August 2016 (UTC), I will waiting to your response. Regards with king (User talk:Partpart1))(talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have responded at Commons:Deletion requests/File:YeY Logo.jpg, I don't know how to be clearer on what you need to do, so I will likely not respond again... but if you need to reply, please keep it there while the deletion discussion is open (or raise a COM:REFUND request after it has closed), to keep the discussion centralized. Please write in your own language, because you are liable to cause offense by continuing to write in English; the above could be interpreted as a threat, or ultimatum or otherwise poor attitude. Storkk (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


Need Help II

Hello,

Sorry for bothering you on your Talk page but I asked something on the OTRS noticeboard regarding the Ticket:2016043010008471 and I haven't received a reply even though it has been many days. I am a bit worried because everyone else seems to have had a reply in their sections. Anyway, I am writing to you here because I would like to know whether you received the emails from the photographers and whether their response is ok. If something is amiss I would like to know it so as to do something about it. Is there anything else I can do for the undeletion of the files? Sorry for being persistent but I think it is better to strike while the iron is hot, otherwise this effort would be a waste. . . I understand that you are busy and perhaps you did not have time to check the email correspondence. I am not asking for the files to be reinstated immediately, I am simply asking to know whether the emails sent by the photographers are ok so as to set into motion the undeletion procedure. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: There is, at this moment, a backlog on the OTRS queues of 15 days. The emails from the photographers arrived approximately 2 weeks ago, so please have a little patience. I realize this is unsatisfactory, but there's not much more you can do to further the process along at this time. Storkk (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you very much for your quick response. I completely understand that you need time to go through the permissions of the files uploaded on Wikimedia. I just wanted a confirmation that you received the emails and that the responses from the photographers are acceptable for a valid OTRS ticket. I will leave the rest up to the OTRS volunteers. However, if you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be more than glad to help any way I can. Best, Irene000 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In the ticket, I can confirm that there are emails from two new people who claim to be the photographers, yes. The ticket's acceptance will depend on whether the agent feels that they can link those email addresses to the actual photographers. This is normally more of a problem with gmail or hotmail addresses, and these aren't, so I don't think there will be too much of a problem there, but I cannot speak for the agent who will pick up the ticket. The previous agent who was dealing with this ticket is no longer an OTRS agent, which also explains the additional delay you are experiencing. What this means is that it has gone back into the queue so that another agent can pick it up. Storkk (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Storkk , your explanation makes sense. When I first created the section in the OTRS noticeboard I was totally unaware of what was happening and why. This is because while we had an email correspondence nobody sent an email informing us that additional permission from the copyright holders was needed until the files were deleted. You kindly explained to me what further action is needed and why. So, I guessed that the reason neither the subject nor I were informed about this beforehand was due to the fact that the previous agent was very busy and perhaps forgot about it. However, I see that the reason now is because the previous agent is no longer an agent. . . In any case, I agree with you that it won't be a problem for the agent who will pick it up to verify the photographers' identities. One of these (street photographer) stated that he is available for further information. I believe it is the same with the professional photographer. We will wait then until everything is sorted out. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request and ticket (File:Alexander_Hart.jpg)

Hi! Maybe you're offline? Ticket should be viewable for you now. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully me transferring the ticket to the permissions-commons queue hasn't put the handling of it on hold for 15 days (apparent backlog of queue). That was not my intention. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Paracel63: I received your ping previously, I have just been extremely busy. A straightforward ticket would normally be dealt with much quicker: the backlog is emblematic of tickets that tend to languish for various reasons of complexity or confusion. This is not the most straightforward of tickets, however, since 1) the originating address is a mail.ru one that will have to be linked to the photographer in some way 2) there is a prominent background which may make the photograph a derivative of work that the correspondent is not the copyright holder of. I may be able to take this up over the weekend or next week. Storkk (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi and many thanks for the followup. Yes, I noticed the background. And possibly the id of the photographer will have to be checked better. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Jeffrey Robinson.jpg

Greetings! It looks like you handled an OTRS request on File:Jeffrey Robinson.jpg but had a problem with either the license terms or the sender's email address. Could you clarify that please: is it an insufficient license, or is it an identity verification issue?

I've been in communication with a party to the image upload at en:User talk:C.Fred#Your question about the photo of me used on Wiki's Jeffrey Robinson page, if you want to review the discussion there. Please ping me if you reply on Commons, or you can use my en.wiki User talk page, or my email address is available via en.wiki. (It might be through Commons also, the way user accounts are merged.) C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your enwiki page. If you need anything further, I will see pings there. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


File:Casually dressed little girls imitating the dreaded terrorist group boko haram.jpg

Could you please say how my argument taken from COM:NOTUSED, i.e. that "an image does not magically become useful by arguing that "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X", where X happens to be the subject of the file," did not apply in this discussion? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 11:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: clearly, this is a judgment call, but I find the potential educational use of both of those photos to be relatively clear. This is nothing like the example given to illustrate that quote in the very next paragraph, and while I agree that the example isn't intended to be exhaustive, I don't think this is a clear candidate for deletion on scope grounds. If the children were identifiable, that would be a different reason for deletion, but they are not. Storkk (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, and how's it not "like" those examples? --Mhhossein talk 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In many ways, but possibly the most salient is that in each example given, there would be nothing to distinguish a:
  • random blurred photo from any other blurred photo
  • random person snapsot from any other random person
  • random low-quality pornographic shot from any other amateur "dick pic"
There is no flood of "Boko Haram"-affected children's life in Nigeria pictures that we need to curtail. These children are not notable in and of themselves, but the phenomenon the pictures claim to depict is likely encyclopedically relevant. Storkk (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Storkk/Archive 2".