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.

Talk pageArchive 1Archive 2Archive 3




You've tagged two photos uploaded by me: Image:Rosiska.jpg and Image:Estacaoteresina.jpg. I added the requested information, but I'm not sure if it's correct by now (I first thought that by filling the required fields in Upload Wizard it would be ok). Could you please check that for me?

Thanks, Marcosfaria70 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. You messed up the licence by removing the template brackets but I have added it again properly and given them a good review. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Alex Parker 2013.jpg

Is this website (which has always been linked on the File's page) not enough evidence for permission? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That is probably ok though unconventional in its prose, so I have given it a good review. Ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Library of Birmingham Pictures

Could you re-review the photos of the Library of Birmingham you reviewed yesterday; I have added the accurate Flickr source. Thank you. Bs0u10e01

Thank you for adding the proper source links to the Flickr images, but you have failed to revise the copyright of the image to a licence that we accept which is the main problem. The Wikipmedia Commons does not accept Creative Commons licences with the non-derivative or non-commercial restrictions. If you want to revise those licences on Flickr to freer licences, let me know, so I can review them again, because then we may be able to keep the image but as they stand they will be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


File:Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Thor 2 cropped.png

You just recently reviewed the image File:Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Thor 2 cropped.png, but why would you change the source? That's exactly where I found it and the author of the pictures put it up that way with the license to modify (as in crop) Lady Lotus (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the high resolution file that you downloaded is NOT freely licenced. It has a false source. It is impossible for you to obtain such a high resolution from the low resolution file that you claim is the source for the image. The source I added is the proper source for image that was downloaded and is an "all rights reserved" copyrighted image. So if you dispute that, I will just nominate it for deletion in the usual way as opposed to giving it a bad flickr review. This is not the only image that you claim came form that low resolution source and I gave some other images a bad review also. Please do not upload images with a false source like this one. Ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It wasnt a low resolution, did you even look at the original image? It makes that entire strip of photos bigger. Thus NOT coming from a false source. Look again. Lady Lotus (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the bigger version, now tell me that's low resolution. Seeing as how I was the one that cropped the pictures, THIS is the where I got it from WHICH has the sharealike license. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Lady Lotus. The photograph strip was released under cc-by-sa at a width of 400px. I don't see the problem with the original being released under a more strict license at higher resolution. That does not overrule the release of the strip. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's better and all looks good now. Sorry for the bother but we do try to find the proper copyright status of images where possible. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay, sorry for the miscommunication lol Lady Lotus (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

file from flickr

Hello, I can't find the right source for File:Heike Beier 1.jpg Zorro2212 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You improperly tagged an image that I reviewed two years ago on the day it was uploaded. At that time the licence for the linked source page was available and it was correct as reviewed. Flickr users do remove and unlink images which is why they are generally reviewed around the time they are uploaded. Please be more careful and look at the history. Ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Ww2censor,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Image problems

It's old history. Photographer Photo died File:Mil Mi-2 pilotuje major Fabík.jpg

It's old history. Photographer Photo died File:Prvy let na Poľane pod Muráňom.jpg

Photo from the Internet.I do not know the author's address [[:File:Fiesler-Storch-001750-FC.jpg

It's old history. Photographer Photo died File:Prvá záchranná akcia Horskej služby v Tatrách.jpg

The photograph is from my private archive. Author of my father. Died. File:Dolný Smokovec Šrobárov ústav 1938 - archív Pavol Svetoň.JPG Tatransky (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor @

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know that I can contribute much, as I have no idea about the Arabic language except when I might find a better image as replacement or some such edit but so far I only did one. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
For What? --DjAvrilPerry90 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Benning Race Track photo

Hi, I had the photo referenced incorrectly. Although it also appears in the news article website, it was sourced from the library of Congress, which is unrestricted. It is also older than 1920 so it doesn't matter anyway. I have uploaded a new photo File:Benning Race Track in Washington, D.C..jpg for your review. Thanks, --Braniffair (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. You could have just uploaded it under the same name, per the deletion log info. Also, I don't see any evidence that this is a US government image. Where did you get that info from to add the {{PD-USGov}} template? {{PD-1923}} would seem more appropriate. You should also add the {{LOC-image}} template to the image with the appropriate details. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty much a novice at this - especially licensing. Thanks for the tips!

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Ww2censor,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

File:Carly Rose Sonenclar at the BlissBall.jpg

Hi Ww2censor! Could you please check Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carly Rose Sonenclar at the BlissBall.jpg? Gunnex (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain this edit of yours? It's rather strange that the FR-bot found this image to be ARR at 19:51 and you found it CC-BY-SA at 21:28 the same day. And 2 days later it's again ARR. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag removal

Whooops, what a shame! I'm sorry, yes it was a mistake, of course. Removing the {{Check categories}} tag I've also inadvertently blanked the "int:license" section. Sorry for problem, thanks for your edits. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Prow Avenue North 504, Furniture Factory SA.jpg

When marking duplicates ...

When marking duplicates would you please be able to append the tag, and leave the body information. It allows better and easier processing if the old information is still available. Thanks. (Hi btw)  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As those duplicates have been deleted I cannot see what you are referring to. AFAIR I just added the "dupe" tag with the name of the other file and removed the Category:Media without a license: needs history check category to show that the history had been reviewed. Can you be more specific? Ww2censor (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that being the case it sounds like there was no {{Information}} and I jumped to a conclusion. Often get that template deleted and it is a nuisance. Sorry to have bothered you, wasn't trying to make a fuss about it, just asking. Thanks for the tagging.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed some of the files in the category are missing everything, but I try not to remove anything that should remain. Some files have nothing or some editors have made bad edits thereby hiding the copyright tag. It's a very variable feast. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Image missing licence

Thank you. Corrected Kroton (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Ja jestem autorem zdjęcia. Qpczik (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Greetings censor, that's one of the pics I tried to delete because I uploaded by mistake. Get rid by all means.Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:Moronvilliers1.jpg and the other two I nominated. If no one contests them they will go but you can always add your comments at: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moronvilliers1.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:CG London Feb.jpg

You marked this as "no source". However, it does have a source: (i.e. flickrphoto:12317470573). Please do a reverse lookup using the "flickrphoto" interwiki prefix before tagging files as unsourced. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I did quite a long search for this image but never heard of "flickrphoto" previously. Thanks for that pointer; very useful to know. Even after 7 years I can learn something new! However the "no source" tag is not just for no source but also for images that are: missing essential source information and having done an extensive Flickr search, I determined that it was missing essential source information. Anyway, in the end it was an "All right reserved" image, so it has been deleted. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was an "all rights reserved" image, so no big issue here, but it's good to know of the "flickrphoto" interwiki prefix for other images.
I don't think that "no source" is a suitable tag when the uploader leaves an incomplete source. The uploader might think that he has left a complete source and won't know how to fix it. I think it is better to use a normal deletion discussion in such cases as this allows you to type a specific message to the uploader about the problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that is one way to look at it. Perhaps someone, or a bot could determine how many such incomplete Flickr source links there are and maybe even fix them. This search currently lists just 232 instances which could be done manually given a bit of time. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've sometimes seen User:FlickreviewR accepting links directly to the image and reviewing such images, but it doesn't always work. See for example File:SOL maggiore accordo barrè.jpg where the bot identified the file. Maybe the bot code could be improved to accept more links direcly to the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I just removed the staticfarm link on that particular image but there was also a proper Flickr link, so the review would have used that one. That was not a good example. Ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI

I'm doubting my judgement after chatting with a German-speaking OTRS agent, so I've (re-)opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:150years-Austrian-stamps.jpg to ask for more input. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Postal reform advert

Hello: From where did you get this, a newspaper? File:UPP POreg handbill 1840jan7.png

--Gonzaloluengo (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly. I have a pretty large philatelic library and I think it was in a book. I would have to search for it. Why do you need to know? Ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Ww2censor,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Postal reform/price advert

Hello again: I would like to know from where you took the advert for the prices reform as I want to frame it putting a reference about the origin (where it was published). Please try to find it someday. --Gonzaloluengo (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As I already replied, now archived, I don't recall but will notify you if I find it. Ww2censor (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Holger Glinicki.jpg

Matthew has changed the Flickr licence for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So it's all good now. Ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Bug side.jpg

  Fixed by Jarekt (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

CC license

Hi Ww2censor, I see you nominated both of these recent flickr additions for speedy deletion: File:Upper_big_branch_mine_memorial.jpg and File:Upper_big_branch_mine_2.jpg

I found both images by searching flickr for images only uploaded using a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) license. Since use on wikipedia is non-commercial, and since I haven't altered the photographs, and since they are attributed, I don't understand your speedy deletion nomination. Please explain on my talk page, or here, or both. -Darouet (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Slowly, by reading your actual speedy deletion nomination text, I am beginning to understand the differences between various CC licenses. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to pounce on your revert so quickly. Copyright is a complicated issue and unfortunately we do not accept any non-commercial or non-derivative licence limitations, only truly free images are acceptable. While wikipedia is non-commercial, the foundation policy is for free content so that anyone can use it for anything, even though we don't. This section may help you understand the differences around the Creative Commons licences we accept and don't accept. Good luck hunting for images. Ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Dear Ww2censor, I have left you a talkback message on my discussion page, but since I am a new user, leaving it here as well. Image owner has been informed to change license, please do not delete the image! License change will be prompt! Thank you. Fatie 34

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatie 34 (talk • contribs)

00:23, 20 April 2014‎

The image was already deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gunthert.jpg. Unless you can provide verification of the licence from the copyright holder it will remain deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent tags

Notices you have created have been converted to DRs. Please add a clearer justification as to why you believe deletion would be within policy. (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated both deletion nomination pages. To me a source url that arrives at a "page not found" Flickr page is effectively no source and will be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my photo?

About the flickr photo I uploaded, I have permission granted from the original owner to upload the photo to wikimedia/wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianzrul (talk • contribs)

19:12, 7 June 2014

I presume you are referring to File:Volvo B9TL at Tampines.jpg which has alreaady been deleted but it can be restored. If the original owner is also the copyright holder they will need to verify that permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS which only the copyright holder can give. On the other hand they could change the Flickr licence to a free one that we accept (no non-commercial or non-derivative restrictions) but they do, please let someone know so that we can review it again. Either route will work. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. Could you please check if the licenses of the pictures which this editor recently uploaded unto Wikimedia Commons are valid and in order? Thank you. 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Alexz Johnson IMG 6974.jpg

I uploaded this file, which it shows on Flickr, that it is allowed for use. Yet it was tagged as that the copyright given was not supported; did I press and/or do something wrong? I even matched up the "icon/logo" that matched the commons during the upload.AND it turns out it was just deleted. Never mind then. Livelikemusic (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the licence (cc-by-nc-nd-2.0) for the Flickr image is not allowed here because the licence is one with a non-commercial non-derivative limitation. We only accept images that are freely licence, so permission for commercial use and modifications are a required feature. This page lists all the free copyright tags that we allow. In fact all of the images mentioned on your talk page were not freely licenced. You need to be quite careful with such copyright issues. In future ask is you are in doubt. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That's why I asked before I attempted to either potentially re-upload, or find anyone one for her. I understand now. Like I said, they were my first uploads. But thankfully I think I am finding my ropes around. Thanks again! Livelikemusic (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem. As I said, ask if you need advise in future until you get to know things better. Cheers. Ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're aware

File:Boldandbeautifullogo2014.jpg has false copyright; the uploader is NOT the creator of the work, and has continued to impersonate the series for which is does belong to. Livelikemusic (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Finest Selection- The Greatest Hits 2014-07-17 11-07.jpg another image claimed to be their own work, which it is not. Livelikemusic (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Bananeraie dans la plaine de l'Arcahaie.jpg

Bonjour, Hello,

La photo Bananeraie dans la plaine de l'Arcahaie.jpg : "Licence creative commons" = (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). La licence est OK. Auteur : Ambassade de France en Haïti Ambafranceht. Parigot (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not accept non-commercial "NC" or non-derivative "ND" licence restrictions, so the licence is not ok. See the list at the bottom of this section of Commons:L#Well-known licenses. Ww2censor (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I speak a little english. Look at this licence Creative commons inside Commons:L#Well-known licenses. It is like = (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Merci. Parigot (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Je suis désolé, mais nous n'acceptons pas la licence Creative Commons avec "Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale" (NC). "CC BY-SA 2.0" est bon mais pas cette licence "CC BY-NC-SA 2.0". Merci Ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

fucking idiot! whats the matter with you! thats my firm and thats my logo! i didn't put someones logo on my wiki page! why the fuck did you delete it! are you the fucking owner of that logo? or just tell me if i fucking used your logo!? this is just bullshit!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

16:30, 27 July 2014

Politeness might get you somewhere but rudeness will not and with details I might be able to advise you appropriately. Exactly what are you talking about? What wiki page are you calling "my wiki Page"? If you own a company and its logo, and would like to use it on a webpage about your company, if it is notable enough to justify an article, you need to verify that you are releasing the logo under a free licence with the OTRS Team. That means that anyone can use it for anything including commercial use. Ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, you recently added three pictures ([1], [2], [3]) that I uploaded for speedy deletion due to incorrect license. I understand this, however I'm in contact with the author and I have requested him to change the licenses on Flickr. All I ask is a little patience, the licenses will be changed shortly. Azeri (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Azeri: His statement on Flickr that the images can be used on Wikipedia is not clear enough for us. We require the image to be freely licence, i.e., non-commercial and non-derivative restriction are not permitted. He can either change the Flickr licence of the images or contact the OTRS Team. The procedure he must follow is found at COM:OTRS. He can do either and then all will be well. If the images are deleted before he verifies his permission, the image can be restored by the OTRS Team. Thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand, I already asked the author to change the license. Im sure it will be adjusted within a day. Azeri (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If that happens, the images can be restored. Just ask the deleting editor or the OTRS team. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and I just wanted to let you know that the licenses have been changed to CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic ([4], [5], [6]) I also left a message on Fastily's discussion board(the user who deleted the images) [7]. Azeri (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  Done: All reviewed favourably now. Ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Triumph Dolomite Saloon 1938 R (8308099273).jpg

IDF Flickr pictures

Please do not delete Israel Defense Forces Flickr's pictures. As you were told and other WikiCommons admins were informed, the Hebrew Chapter of Wikipedia Foundation is now in negotiations with the IDF Spokesperson Unit to solve this issue. There will be a meeting on this issue, but it was postponed due to the war that Israel is involved in. Please be patient. MathKnight (Talk) 17:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are way too many claims that permission will come, but it does not, and without some sort of statement or an {{OTRS pending}}, they will be marked for deletion based on their current copyright licences at the Flickr source. If they are deleted and permission happens, then an admin will restore them for you. Ww2censor (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Images uploaded before Dec 2011 are free based on a This release. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images taken by Israel Defense Force for context. Thanks! matanya talk 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Matanya: @MathKnight: The images I tagged are clearly not freely licenced now and there is no evidence these fall under the free licence from 2011. In fact, in reference to the link you pointed to, it appears they have revised their licencing since then, so you know well that unless there is verification of the free licence for the current images, they will be tagged and deleted, even though some older images, in 2011, were freely licenced and will remain here. If someone can persuade the Irsaeli Army to provide the OTRS team with a confirmation that all their images are freely licenced, then, of course, we can keep them but someone will have to negotiate that. I don't see how anyone can claim that the old free licence from 3 years ago in one Twitter post can apply to any new images that were more recently uploaded to Flickr and then uploaded here, unless there is an actual blanket OTRS ticket for their images. The free licence from 2011 claim can only apply to those images that were clearly released under a free licence at the time they were reviewed. We need verifcation that all future images are freely licence and I doubt the OTRS team will accept the Twitter post applies to current images. Also don't forget that copyright owners can change their licences on Flickr whenever they want, which is why we review images, by FlickreviewR or manually, as soon as possible after they have been uploaded from Flickr and other sources. Such images as were uploaded with a free licence remain free here, even if the image on Flickr now shows a restrictive licence. So unless I see some evidence that current Israeli Army images from Flickr that have restrictive licences will be tagged appropriately.
As an example File:Flickr - Israel-Defense-Forces - 6th-Brigade Reserve-Unit-D9-bulldozer.jpg was uploaded in April 2014 but no review was done, so it was recently tagged by "Flock" as needing a review and FlickreviewR 2 failed it, so requested a human review which I did yesterday and I saw that it not freely licenced. Perhaps it was freely licenced at the time it was uploaded but there is no evidence of that and as we know it is best not to review our own uploads. Besides which if the image is a faithful original from Flickr, and not a cropped or modified image, it will usually be automatically reveiwed quite quickly after upload and usually well before a licence change at Flickr. Prove me wrong and I will happily not tag such images but when they are marked from human review someone will have to look at them. Ww2censor (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree to every word you have said here. My only request was not blindly delete files without a file-by-file review. Thank you fir your help. matanya talk 05:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not an admin so you will know that I cannot delete any files. Human review is just for such cases when individual review is warranted. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Тэмтрүүлийн төгөл тогтуун салхинд чичрэх нь.jpg

Flickr files

Indeed, I totaly misunderstood about the license :( could you please check the last files I uploaded? I don't have how to reach the author by now so it's ok to speedy delete. Thanks a lot.Dianakc (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dianakc: Thanks for asking. Unfortunately I'm sorry to tell you that none of the images you uploaded today have acceptable licence for us, so I have tagged them for deletion. Please be more careful when choosing images to upload. Just make sure they are freely licenced without any non-commercial or non-derivative restrictions. Don't give up trying to find great images for uploading here. You can always try asking the author on Flickr by sending them a FlickrMail but by past experience you should be patient as I once waited a year for a favourable reply and some users never respond. You can try searching the first (Attribution License) and last (Attribution-ShareAlike License) categories from this Flickr page for acceptably licenced images. There are several Begonia images there. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

File:Morbid Anatomy Museum.jpg

Hello, What's going on with File:Morbid Anatomy Museum.jpg? The photo was uploaded to Flickr here: Morbid Anatomy Museum

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlVieri (talk • contribs)

00:07, 27 August 2014‎

  • @AlVieri: A, until now you never provided the url source so we could check the copyright status for the image, and B, the image was released under a non-commercial licence which we do not accept, so it was deleted. When you upload images you must provide the source; stating "Flickr" is just not enough. Copyright restrictions, such as non-commercial and non-derivative, are not allowed and will be deleted. We take copyright status very seriously, so please remember that we are all volunteers here, so anything you can do to reduce our investigation of images for missing details is appreciated. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ww2censor: Thank you for taking copyright status very seriously, so do I; and thank you for your volunteer efforts. I am also a volunteer. But you could have simply followed the link in the description of the file to find it on Flickr or you could have followed the link I provided above to find the file on Flickr and check permissions there. Thanks again for all of your contributions to this site. AlVieri (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@AlVieri: I'm not going to argue with you but I will reiterate the point that there was no url at the image file that I could follow. The source still just says "Flickr", otherwise I could have checked it and would not have put a no source tag on the image. In fact I spent quite some time looking for the file on Flickr. I always follow the urls when they are provided but either way, unfortunately, the image is not acceptable under the current restrictive licence. If you can persude the Flickr user to change the licence, we can then use the image, or you could ask a local wikipedian to take a photo for you. And now, even though you provided the url for the image to me, you still have not added it to the image so anyone else reviewing the image still cannot find the image unless they happen on this discussion. The onus is on you, the uploader, to provide all the necessary information to allow the image status to be verified. Ww2censor (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, did you design the album cover File:Jazz at the Pawnshop.jpg or just take a photo of the album? You claim it is your own work. If it is not your own design then it is a derivative work and copyright to someone else. Ww2censor (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears you really don't understand or want to understand the advise I have given you. I also see that you removed the no-permission tag from the image. I placed that there because the image is not freely licenced. It is not up to you to remove such tags; that is the responsibility of the closing administrator. So now I have again tagged the iamge as a clear copyright violation beceuase we don't accept the current Flickr licence and that is not the licence you added to the image. You placed a {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} tag on the image and that is plainly false. As I already told you we not accept any non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions. Please stop trying to keep - all the advise you need is above. Ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)



Don't you see cc-by icon? ( )

Please see the small cc-by icon ( ) at the right bottom of the posted article.--Fetx2002 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties of war?

Hi User:Ww2censor - I'm curious if wikimedia commons has any policy on uploading (sometimes graphic) photographs of casualties of war, assuming that the photos can be uploaded legally? I'm thinking about using U.S. soldiers' photographs from Iraq. I'm surprised I haven't found more however and so I wonder if we have policies against this… -Darouet (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet: Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been away. This is not an issue I am familar with.You would be best asking at the Village Pump but Category:War casualties seems to contains several such graphic images. Ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Edinburgh post office

Hi! Many thanks for uploading the Edinburgh Post Office image, and starting the book category.

One little thing though: for images from the BL Flickr release, please do use the ingestion template at Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection#Image_descriptions -- this sets up a number of tracking categories, and also a link-back template to the Flickr page, which is really important for tracking which images have been uploaded. (It leaves the description blank, so that could be copy-and-pasted).

When the BL's Ben O'Steen has a bit more time, he's offered to add a prominent link on the Flickr page for every image that has an 'improved' version on WikiCommons. But the template needs to be there for me to harvest the Flickr identifiers to give him.

Also it would be great if you could add the {{BL1million bookcat}} template to the top of the book category, which again provides a useful linkback, so people can see where they can find additional similar images, that they might want to upload as well.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jheald: I've added the book cat to the category but I am not sure I have added the ingestion template properly, so maybe you can check it because this was my first upload from the BL books. Ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)



@Ww2censor:, you can delete File:Procente-prezidentiale-2014-judete-turul-1.jpg ‎. It wasn't anyway the file I wanted to upload. I've just uploaded the right file under the name: File:Rezultate pe judete turul1 2014 prezidentiale.png . Pleas check. I hope I didn't do anything wrong, I'm actually a beginner at uploading images.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchGabriel33 (talk • contribs)

00:38, 10 November 2014‎

Thanks for asking but unfortunately I suspect you found these images online and you did not create them. The Flickr uploader only has the two images and there is no evidnece he owns the copyright. On that basis I have nominated them both for deletion. We take copyright status and sourcing very seriously. If you did not take the photos yourself and they are copyright to someone else, please don't upload them unless you have permission of the copyright holder. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page on the enwiki even though not everything applies here. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You are right, I did find these images online, but they are on Flickr. How should I be able to prove that the person/institute who/which posted them really owns them? Anyway, taking into the consideration the nature of the image which is public data provided of official websites (, is it so hard to believe that someone/some institute just coloured the map of the country according to those numbers and then put the numbers on top? I mean, really, anyone can do that. --ArchGabriel33 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
As I have replied on the deletion nomination, these images look suspicious, so don't take it personally but I have been dealing with image copyright for several years and have a good sense of what is truthful and what is not. You cannot know for sure but can get them to verify their permission by having them contact our OTRS Team. If the data is freely available and so easy for anyone to make an image, go ahead and make one which you can freely licence instead of using one that appear to be a copyright violation. Then we will have no problems with it so long as you provide all the details. Thanks but you don't need to ping me because I watch my own talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Rather than adding {{No permission since}}, it would have been easier all around if you had gone to the source site, where a CC-BY-SA is clearly set forth in the bottom right corner. You're an image reviewer, so you could have added the tag yourself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I missed than one on the source site, otherwise I would have given it a good review. And yes I do check when there is a source listed. Ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Jorge Minissale.jpg

Hey, that such user Ww2 Sensor. I was wondering if you could review this file I uploaded to Commons via Flickr. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriel ricardo morales (talk • contribs)

18:46, 18 November 2014‎

@Adriel ricardo morales: It looks like you uploaded this image to Flickr under a free licence but it appears to be a screenshot which is copyright to the production company and not to you. Sorry, but I have nominated it for deletion. Please stop uploading images for which you fail to add the appropriate needed details, or whose details you don't have. We take copyright status and sourcing very seriously and the images you uploaded appear not to have truthful information. If you did not take the photos yourself and they are copyright to someone else, or you found them on a website and then put them on Flickr, you do not own the copyright and cannot give them a free licence, please don't upload them unless you have the permission of the copyright holder. Ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Photos related to ombres

Hi @Ww2censor:, unfortunately I am a newbie to Wikimedia/Wikipedia and do not know how to provide the link to several photos of ombres that you deleted. I read previous talks you had with other users about the deletion of their content and wonder if you had the same issue with the photos I uploaded? That issue being: the photos originally on Flickr were screenshots or otherwise copied from another source. If they only lacked valid links to the source I am trying to get them temporarily un-deleted so that I can fix them. Thank you. --Zyvzyva (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so as a newbie, I'll explain. First I am not a administrator so I don't delete images, I review them and nominate them for deletion when they lack sufficient information. You as the uploader must provide that information so we can check the source and copyright licence of any image you upload. The source for a Flickr image is the full url of the page you found the image on, such as Try finding any of your images from the Flickr start page. "" as the source is totally unacceptable and it does not make any diffrenece if the image is a screenshot or not if it has been properly licenced by the copyright owner. However, this example url above has an "All right reserved" licence so you would not be allowed to upload it here and if you did it would be deleted. That is just a waste of time all around for you and us. Maybe yours were like that anyway. The licence you provide at upload must be the exact licence the Flickr user used and nothing eles. This is because you do not have any rights over the image, so cannot assign a licence at your whim. Having looked through hundreds of such ombres nail images I could find very few that were freely licenced, most were all rights reserved. Here is one such image: You can always correct the situation for a not deleted image and add the proper source, author and licence after upload but it will be checked out, either by a bot or by a human and if you don't provide sufficient information it will be deleted. If you provide false information you may even be blocked from editing at all. The onus is on you as the uploader to give proper information in the first instance and otherwise you are wasting the time of editors like myself who are all volunteers. The uplad wizard ask for the information but you did not give it. If the deleted image did not have a free licence they will be deleted again, so only upload freely licenced images. You can find the acceptable Creative Commons copyright tags you usually find on Flickr here: COM:TAGS#Free Creative Commons licenses. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Sorry for wasting your and others' time. I look forward to making more productive contributions. Zyvzyva (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Zyvzyva: There is no real problem and sorry for being so long winded about it all. Just ensure you choose free image in future. There are plenty around Flickr and if you start on this page, selecting only the first and last categories you should in general be ok unless the uploader has put up copyright violations there. If you need some more advise or guidance, just ask. BTW, there is no need to ping me on my own talk page; it would be silly if I did not have it on my watchlist but I will ping you because you may not have my talk page on your watchlist. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition

  1. File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg - (1)
  2. File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg - (2)

Both requests were shifted to standard deletion requests. This is a quick note to let you know about that. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)--Benzoyl (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I saw that. Ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rodrigo y Gabriela en Acceso Total.jpg

File:Rodrigo y Gabriela en Acceso Total.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.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Becoming admin

Dear Ww2censor,

Ever tought about becoming an admin? As you know we always need more admins and you would be a great candidate. You do a good job, you know a lot about copyrighte etc etc. So, what do you think? You wan't to go to RFA? If you wan't I'll nominate you. You would be a great asset to the admin-team.

Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but no thanks. I don't have the time or energy and have refused previously. Ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons request for deletion 2014/12/01 reference 1.220 Files uploaded by Rnieders (talk · contribs)

Hello Ww2censor, in a recent deletion request, you indicated that for now you will assume fair use of the images I uploaded, but then all my images were again questioned. I have tried to answer the doubts of the administrator. Since she doubts any statement I make, I asked her to read the Wall Street Journal pubslsished August 1, 2001, 13 years ago and can be accessed by the link ["California Aviation Alliance">{{cite news|last1=Millman|first1=Joe|title=San Diego Airport May Cross Border|url=]. The Wall Street Journal article makes clear both my work and the fact that I created the project/concept of the Tijuana Cross-border terminal. With regards of having GAP send an email, GAP did not exist until 1999 and most of the images in question were created before that and GAP actually canceled the project in 2001, at which point I went directly to ASA, Mexico's airport authority to refloat the project. I tried to explain all this, but again, if some one would please read the Wall Street Journal linked to this message it would clear up a lot of the doubts expressed by Ellin Beltz. She also made reference to Stefan2, the pictures he requested be deleted under fair use, I agreed with him and then I REQUESTED they be deleted, there should be a record of that on Wikipedia. I then uploaded onto commons ONLY the images I created, produced and own and as you will note, Stefan2 did not oppose those images. The Tijuana cross-border article was then nominated for DYK and was reviewed by many and no one commented on the images. These images were not created for hire, were not paid for by others. I can understand misunderstandings and that is why I simply asked that someone read the Wall Street Journal article written 13 years ago. The is a credible source. I also worked with the San Diego Union Tribune as a Mexico source (Diane Linquist) for more than a decade, as well as Channel 10 ABC News in San Diego. I offered to meet with Keizers who created the Tijuana cross-border terminal article and lives near San Diego to satisfy any dounts. Could you please clarify if the images will be deleted? I would appreciate to know if they are since one image has already been deleted, the File:Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana Cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg and there is no question I own that as it was part of a letter of intent for the acquisition of the Martinez Ranch in 1990, 24 years ago, yet it was deleted. I would appreciate if you could mediate this process. Rnieders (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rnieders: There really is no need to go into your long winded duplication of details most of which I have already read. I have already supported you at the deletion nomination page and have it on my watch list, so I can see what is going on. I don't mediate and there is no such process here. The nomination page is where everything is laid out amd it will be assessed by an adminstrator who makes a decision based on the arguments. If the images are deleted you can ask for them to be undeleted at: Commons:Undeletion requests. Ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


File:Fountain Court, Temple, London-45357396.jpg

Hi there! Sorry for this upload. My mistake. It was an older photo in an album where the more recent pictures by the same uploader were all cc-by-2.0. Learned something today. Cheers --Judithcomm (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Judithcomm: No real harm done but thanks for the post. One just needs to be quite observant of each and every licence, and even then some Flickr users upload copyright images which editors then upload here thinking they are good but are not. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rnieders, all files deleted

As of December 20, all the files were deleted, this was the correspondence involved: airport diagrams Hi Jim: This nomination has been going on a long time. I really don't care if you bust my chops and keep all of them, or see what I do in the images and delete them; but could you make a decision on this just so we can close this old page? Thank you so much for all your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Deleted: I think that the entire discussion below misses an important point -- we do not know who User:Rnieders actually is. These have had enough public exposure so that it is clear to me that they require OTRS licenses, probably from several different parties. Several also fail [[COM:ADVERT]. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I contacted Jameslwoodward, he suggested OTRS but claims that will probably not solve the problem as to ownership due to Com:advert, do not understand how this passed DYK and two months after the review and nomination process all the images are deleted which makes the Wikipedia article confusing. Rnieders (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a admin, so cannot assist you in getting the image undeleted. Perhaps you can go to Commons:Undeletion requests but I doubt the result will be any different. You need to prove who owns the copyright beyond any doubt and that is what seems to be the main issue. I did my bit is trying to help you but that is all I can do. Good luck. @Rnieders: Ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Jameslwoodward did give some advice which I appreciated and I will go through the OTRS process. Again, thank you for the time you took in looking at this. All the best Rnieders (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He has given you some good advise, so I hope it works out for you. Ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

File Wappen von Türkoğlu

Dear Ww2censor. You sent me a message, that my file Datei:Wappen der Stadt Türkoğlu will be deleted in a few days because of missing the source. The source is the city of Türkoğlu, in Turkish "Türkoğlu Belediyesi". I used the same license as the file "Datei:Antalya buyuksehir logo.png". But why was my file deleted and this one isn't? The same happens to many Turkish coats of arms, like Adana, Ankara or Izmir. I'm the opinion, the file must not be deletet according to Adana or Antalya. I had the same discussion with EugeneZelenko, he first deleted the file and than he brought in back (see also "view history"). The Turkish Consulate in Nuremberg also told, there´s no problem using coats of arms of Turkish cities, if it is in a non-commercial use like in wikipedia. Please delete your warning sign. Thank you. Maidir chineál agus Merry Nollag!--Christian1311 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So, let's put that in perspective. First, your link to the file above is no good. I assume your complaint is about File:Wappen von Türkoğlu.tiff, so assuming that is the case, you have to provide a verifiable copyright licence. Looking at EugeneZelenko's talk page, I see he restored the image BUT he also specifically wrote: I restored file, but you still need to specify proper license tag but you never bothered to do that, so for that reason I tagged it for deletion. You still need to do that, plus you need to give a proper source of where you got it, Who in the city provided the image? Unfortunately even though the Turkish Consulate says we can use it for non-commercial reasons, Wikipedia does not accept images with non-commercial restrictions. See the first paragraph of COM:L. All images must be freely licenced. If the consulate will offer us the image under a free licence they can email their permission to our OTRS Team and they will deal with the verification process. Did the image itself come from a website, was it scanned from a book, or were you sent the file by someone? Other stuff exists is not a justification for keeping any image; each one exists in its own right and must be fully justified with a source, creator and licence. See: COM:L#License information. While I let you know that a deletion of a file you uploaded was nominated for deletion, you can edit your own talk page as you wish but you may not remove the deletion notice on the image page. That will be done by the closing admin. Good luck. @Christian1311: Ww2censor (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Къоьвзанан Іам (файл ковна).jpg

Fixed. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I refined the details. Ww2censor (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I see that you are interested in stamps. Are you interested in setting up a WikiProject Stamps to tidy up all of stamp related pages? Alan Liefting (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There are already four Philately WikiProjects that I know of in English, French, Italian and Russian. Or do you mean starting a new project here? Several members of those project also contibute and organise philatelic stuff here. BTW, it depends on where you are coming from whether you think Stamps or Philately are the primary topic. IMHO they should both be equal to assist editors finding stuff but nowadays for collectors stamps are part of philately, but philately is not only about stamps, it encompasses rates, routes, systems, history, etc. the Stamps category is listed under Philately and visa versa. I also see that @Philafrenzy: has also reverted you removal, so there is more than just me with the same concept. People looking for postal history items, such as Category:Covers of the Soviet Union, 1984 would be more likely to browse the later and not the former because they are not necessarily looking for stamps. Look at this Category:Files using Template:Philately which appears to mostly comprise stamps. What exactly are you suggesting? Ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Headshot Jason Saul.png

I placed the correct file link on the deletion talk page. I am not sure if it is broken or what, but I can click on the link and it goes directly to the image. If you could please verify again I would appreciate it. If there is still something additional I need to do, please let me know. Thanks for your consideration. --Birdneys (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh now the link works but it did not when I reviewed it earlier. One upload to Flickr smacks of Flickrwashing, so I don't believe the licence is proper. The copyright owner needs to follows the procedure found at COM:OTRS. Ww2censor (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I see your point and also see that the photo was deleted. I don't want to cause any problems for Wikipedia so I went ahead and uploaded a photo that I own the copyright to. It's not that good, but I can use it until I get the owner of the other image to send a permission statement. Thanks again. --Birdneys (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

2.0 / 2.5


Please pay attention to the version of the license when you review licenses. You reviewed this image although the license on Flickr is CC-BY 2.0 and not CC-BY 2.5. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, your right. I missed that. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Ww2censor. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)



Photo deletion?

Hi, You've deleted two of photos I uploaded to commons, even though they had only some rights reserved (it required attribution and non-commercial use), is there something I don't understand regarding licences? Mrwho00tm (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mrwho00tm: I am not an admin, so I do not delete image, I just review them. These two images were, as noted in the deletion notices on your talk page, not licenced freely. We do not accept images with non-commercial or non-derivative restrictions and yours had non-commercial licences, as you state above, which is why they were deleted. The free creative commons licences we allow are listed at COM:L#Free Creative Commons licenses. You just need to be a little more careful when choosing images to upload. You may find it useful to start at this Flick page: and only search the first and last licences; we don't accept any of the others. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifyingMrwho00tm (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem, ask if you have any copyright issues you are unsure about and I'll try to help. Ww2censor (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

O'Connor vía pública.png

I don't know why that image has to be removed. I mean, it's an ad of the album El tiempo es tan pequeño, that was released more than ten years ago, in 2004.

Salute! Feche96 (discusión)

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Argentina copyright extends for 70 years pma, so the advertising poster, in your photo, is a copyright work and your photo is what is known as a derivative work of that poster. This applies to many 2D and 3D art and photos depending on the country. You need the permission of the copyright holder of the poster in order to fully freely licence your image even though you have released your photo freely. In other words this image requires two licences, one for the photo which you gave freely and one for the poster, which you do not have. I hope you can understand the problem. Ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg[edit] Also: File:Papa jan at home.jpg File:Portrait of papa jan junior.jpg File:Vanga-the sight of the prophetess.jpg File:The death of titanic.jpg

Hello good sir! I lately saw that my uploads File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg, File:Papa jan at home.jpg, File:Portrait of papa jan junior.jpg, File:Vanga-the sight of the prophetess.jpg and File:The death of titanic.jpg has been deleted cause OTRS missing. Actually I have OTRS here . If i'm misleaded and something is not right, could you advise me what to do? Best regards!

Ivan Gurkov

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan gurkov (talk • contribs)

05:42, 19 April 2015‎

Actually you are wrong. None of the images listed have been deleted (none are redlinks) but have been given a good review by User:Ezarate who happen to also be on the OTRS team, and linked to the permission page noted by you in this post. Usually we ask the copyright holder verify their permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS. BTW, please sign all posts to talk pages, not articles, by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~so we can find you easily. Ww2censor (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlicensed picture

Hi, it was my mistake, can already delete the picture File:Voskresenskaya-boulvard-arkhangelsk-march-2006.jpg

all best, Rakoon (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Fremantle Prison inmates and main front Iwel.tif

File:Fremantle Prison inmates and main front Iwel.tif 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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the editor in this case is a long term photographer in Perth, Western Australia and I and other west australian editors met him at a Fremantle Prison event for wikipedians - as he is not young, please make an effort to be helpful and polite as he has an astonishing resource to provide if he is given a chance. Thanks. [[User:JarrahTree]] (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: I think it would be more constructive to make these comments on the discussion page than here to me. I am not an admin and will not be making the closing decision, so if you only post here they will not see your comments. Ww2censor (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it has been closed - also I have made a comment at the editors talk page, and I think all around it has been clearly established he is not a young editor, and in fact they are his photos - at 40 or 50 years later! cheers [[User:JarrahTree]] (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That does appear to be the case and it looks like he uploaded the image himself. However, his own website information page does have a non-commercial restriction so any new images would really require an OTRS verification they were freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that - will make sure that gets understood! [[User:JarrahTree]] (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Return to the user page of "Ww2censor/Archive2".