User talk:De728631/2017

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.

Deletion request of File:Panissars4.jpg

Hello De728631,

thank you for withdrawing your deletion request. However, I'm sorry to correct you again. The language on that info plate is not Spanish but Catalan, which is spoken on either side of the border. Regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the file File:Pyrotechnic panfilov 28 men.jpg

Hello, all the files in Category:Panfilov's 28 men are part of the same legal case. The author of these photos is this studio. I came to this studio and asked them to publish their photos in their official group in the social network vk.com, here with the phrase Материалы этой страницы доступны на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. You can see this phrase in the description of the photo album and you can see that this vk.com group is mentioned as their official group on their website.

Will it be possible for you to also check other files in the category ? They are used in Russian Wikipedia in the article which I'm nominating to the status of featured article. Katkov Yury (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm currently checking the files from http://28panfilovcev.com/en/photo.php. Thank you for notifying me of this phrase in the VK.com photo album. I'm going to restore this image and the cropped versions. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! What can I do in the description of my files so reduce the amount of accusations in copyright violation? I'm new to Commons and every time I upload a file, somebody deletes it, I explain the situation and they restore the file, and then it happens again with somebody else. Katkov Yury (talk)

I think it was either the page at VK.com that did not yet show the Creative Commons licence when I checked it, or I just didn't see that phrase. So I'd say your descriptions are alright. Please note though that cropping these images will not make you the new author of copyright holder. Copyright for the smaller versions will still be held by the film studio. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, on a second note we do not need smaller versions like File:Pyrotechnic panfilov 28 men cropped.jpg. Wikipedia has a built-in software that creates thumbnails at the size you need them, so we always only keep the files with the largest resolution. Unless you cut away parts of the original image, please don't "shrink" the files. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ah, ok, I didn't know that. I will fix that in the descriptions. Katkov Yury (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please restore File:IAF-F-35I-and-F-16I.jpg

Please restore the photo File:IAF-F-35I-and-F-16I.jpg, an OTRS permission will be added soon (already mailed to Wikipedia OTRS permission team). MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 17:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Also File:IAF-F-35I-and-F-16I--Sufa--cropped.jpg. Permission was sent to the OTRS team. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of Mexico

Yes, I read the talk page. It is not easy to resolve all Mexican copyright rules, but I do my best. It's true that Mexico does not apply the rule post auctoris mortem in many cases (films, music, books, etc.). And, in addition, the law in force on the URAA date was different from the current one. There are many ways that a work enters the public domain (for example, in some cases it is for the death of the author without heirs or not renewing a registry). And a work in the public domain never restores their rights, even if the law changes. I'm still studying all this. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Age of Consent.png

You ruined my colorblindness example :-P —Dispenser (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Oops. I've reverted the change because this is in fact a good example for illustrating problems with colour blindness, and the file itself is actually not used in any WP articles. Just yesterday I came across Vischeck which is another simulator and Daltonizer that can simulate files and entire webpages. Perhaps it should be added to your list of links. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is one of my demonstration images for a JS simulator I wrote and show off to random strangers on my phone. Most images are photos (Traffic lights, Rainbow, autumn leaves) to give people an understanding. It a bit research to find the Delta E 2000 equation so a program can difference between #DBDB00 and #D9D92A (a lot more blue!). I think for color accessibility getting people to review charts in grayscale "laser printer" simulation would elevate things from "5% of readers might have trouble".

I left out Vischeck since its closed source and Coblis is more featureful. —Dispenser (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. You're really doing some good work there. Thumbs up! De728631 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Lizenz

Hallo De728631, vielen Dank für die Hilfe auf User talk:JuTa#Lizenz angegeben. Ich habe die Lizenzen der weiteren Fotos auch geändert. Muss ich das zugleich bei OTRS/Noticeboard#Dutch_check erwähnen?--ManfredFX (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Kein Probelm. Diese OTRS Tickets kann ich leider nicht einsehen, also weiß ich nicht, worum es da im einzelnen geht, aber wenn es sich um die Lizensierung der MSC-Downloads handelt, solltest Du besser auch auf dieses Impressum verweisen. De728631 (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, werde ich erwähnen.--ManfredFX (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

could you please explain...

You made dozens of edits like this one. Did you offer your reasoning for removing images of buoys from the category for buoys anywhere? If so where?

If you move a whole bunch of images from one category to another, in future, I strongly urge you to include a link to the discussion or policy that you think explains your action, in your edit summary.

I don't mean to be insulting, but can I ask you to confirm that you know what a buoy is? Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: What I did is called category diffusion. Files at Commons and Wikipedia should always be in the most specific category of the category tree. E.g. this edit moved the file to Category:Special marks which is member of Category:Navigation buoys which is in turn in the parent category "Buoys". And yes, I do know the different types of buoys because I have a German motorboat licence for maritime and inland waterways. Moreover, such edit do not require a link (and afaik Cat-a-lot doesn't even let you add a summary) because they are covered by one of the basic policies of Commons. Commons:Categories#For more appropriate categorization states that "generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic." De728631 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bilder der securityconference.de

Tach,

bist Du dir sicher das die Bilder unseren Lizenzbestimmungen genügen?

Auf https://www.securityconference.de/en/legal-advice/ steht:

All proprietary and copyrights are reserved. The website’s layout, the photographs, graphics, sound, animations, videos and texts used as well as their arrangement on the website of Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (gemeinnützige) GmbH are protected by copyright. It is not allowed to copy or use the content in other electronic or printed publications without the express consent by Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (gemeinnützige) GmbH, except for the authorized use detailed below. In particular, beyond the authorized use, the content must not be reproduced, disseminated, amended or made available to third parties for commercial purposes.

Von daher wäre eine Freigabe mit Mail an OTRS erforderlich. --2003:4D:2C53:9C29:F840:A16D:E9F3:BD16 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tach auch. Gleich danach kommt ein Abschnitt mit der ausdrücklichen Freigabe der Bilder:

Photographs of the conference which are offered for download may be used free of charge, provided that the name of the photographer is indicated. The pictures are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License. MP3 versions and videos of the speeches offered for download on the website are free of charge.

Daher brauchen wir hier kein OTRS. Das Ganze ist auch schon mit JuTa besprochen worden. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Archimolluscm-de copy.svg

File:Archimolluscm-de copy.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

KDS4444 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots of photos for the license review

Hi, can you please verify the photos of actors from Category:Panfilov's 28 men that I've uploaded? They all are downloaded from the official group of the author - "28 панфиловцев" studio. The license is in the header of the album (CC-BY-SA 3.0) -- Katkov Yury (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done I have reviewed these photos. It should be noted that I couldn't find some of them in the Facebook gallery but the original coloured versions had already been reviewed by INeverCry, so the bw derivates are alright. It's strange, but some photos appear to have been removed from Facebook today. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

indeed. I will contact the studio shortly. Katkov Yury (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done they have recovered the photos and added some more. Katkov Yury (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for contacting the studio about this. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Picture from Mynewsdesk

Hello De728631! I see that you have reviewed the picture of Gellert Tamas [1] and I have to ask you if you are aware of the huge problem that exists with pictures from Mynewsdesk? It has been up for discussion several times here at Commons. The main problem is that pictures receive the CC-license automatically and by default, often without the uploaders understanding and regardless of if the uploader holds the copyright or not. There is a huge risk that the pictures on Mynewsdesk has been re-licensed by people who doesn't hold the copyright and in these cases the license is falsely made. (Mynewsdesk is a site for press-releases, but that a picture is free to use for press-releases doesn't mean it is free to re-license.) In this particular case, the contact person for the upload is not the same as the photographer of the picture - and because of that there is a huge risk that a copyright violation has taken place. If I search the photographers name I cannot find any picture the photographer has put under a CC-license, only copyrighted pictures ([2], [3]). Your opinion would be appreciated. //Vätte (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I replied at the DR. De728631 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

CristianChirita (talk) for your kind support

Mal eine Frage am Rande

Noch mal guten Abend. Im Nachgang zu unserem gestrigen Kategorie-Mammutbaum "Aircraft in flight" hätte ich noch mal eine Frage. Wie ich nun gesehen habe, bist Du auch Admin hier in Commons. Wie wird man das eigentlich? Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: Hallo Uli. Als Administrator kann man sich selbst bewerben, oder, was noch besser ist, man wird von einem befreundeten Admin als Kandidat vorgeschlagen. Danach gibt es ein öffentliches Auswahlverfahren bei dem der Kandidat Fragen zu seiner Erfahrung auf Commons, seiner Herangehensweise bei Problemen und sonstige relevante Fragen beantworten sollte. Letztendlich stimmen dann die anderen Benutzer über den Antrag ab, und bei mindestens 75% positiven Stimmen hat man den Job. Eine Zusammenfassung dazu gibt es hier (leider ist die deutsche Version noch nicht übersetzt). Wenn Du also Admin werden möchtest, solltest Du am besten einen anderen Admin deiner Wahl fragen, mit dem Du bereits erfolgreich zusammen gearbeitet hast. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die guten Informationen! Bin mir aber noch gar nicht sicher, ob ich das wirklich anstreben soll. Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lerwick Harbour

I think most people would expect to find this category under Category:Lerwick rather than where you've moved it. After all, it is a structure built on land for the purpose of sheltering boats, whereas "water transport" implies that it is part of a watercourse or watercraft on a watercourse. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree. A harbour is a piece of infrastructure serving water transport so the latter should be the top category. See also Category:Water transport in Rotterdam which has subcategory for ports and harbours, or Category:Water transport in New Orleans which contains Category:Port of New Orleans‎. So this type of categorizing is not uncommon. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Up to a point. But there are two (at least) purposes to categories- location, and function. In this case its parent location is Lerwick, and its parent function is water transport in Shetland. Those expecting to find it by location might be surprised to not find it under Category:Lerwick. But since my kitchen ceiling has just collapsed, you know, I think I have better things to do right now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

While not directly in category:Lerwick, it's still in subcategory of Lerwick that I think will easily be associated with a harbour. Anyhow, good luck with repairing your kitchen! De728631 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:IMO 8739619

Two names here. Is it the same ship? Otherwise mentioning Category:Agdlek-class (Denmark) in the IMO category is not correct. The yard is mostly mentioned in de IMO category, therefore in de category by name the country of building of the ship is mentioned. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: Yes, it is the same ship, which is why I combined the categories with IMO 8739619 as the top category. According to Shipspotting and Maritime Connector, Juvel II is ex-Agdlek. The design is typically Agdlek-class too, so it is obvious that the former patrol cutter that was sold by the Danish Navy in 2008 and became Juvel II. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

O.K. no problem. Ithought that this class concerns naval ships and after being sold I thought the class is not valid any more. But I can be wrong.--Stunteltje (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The ship class is like a design template, so I would suppose that it always remains valid. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Gina_Raimondo_Official.jpg

You said here that Massachusetts is one of four states that do not claim copyright in their works. I'm a Massachusetts resident and, as you know, active on Commons, and I am unaware of this.

Do you have a cite for it? I note that the Secretary of State's Office has a clear copyright notice at https://www.sec.state.ma.us/sectandc.htm as does the AG's office at http://www.mass.gov/ago/.

Certainly, if you are right, we need a new template to match the others in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Until recently I wasn't aware of this either but then I found {{PD-MAGov}} in that very category. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, right you are, thank you. I note that it is the only template on that page full of PD templates that is not categorized there under the correct letter for the state to which it applies. I used to be pretty good at writing templates, but I can't figure out how to sort it right -- Arkansas, California, and Florida all sort correctly, but I don;t see how they do it.

I think we need to be careful -- this applies only to public records and not to works of the government, hence the copyright notices I cited above. I don't think a photo taken by a state employee would be covered by this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the template code and finally I found the categorisation not in the template proper but in the /doc subpage. So I added a sortkey there which lists the template under "MA" in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). As to the licensing issue, you're of course right. It's not a general waiver of copyright for MA government works, so when this tag is applied we need to check the file content extra carefully. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Donetsk

Hi Are you able to create a variant of DNR flag ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have this type of Cyrillic script needed for the flag, and without it the flag wouldn't just be complete. De728631 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6] et [7]. It is only for the eagle. Another other could add the cyrillic script. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Before I create another flag you should wait for Jameslwoodward's final decision. If he doesn't restore File:New Donetsk Peoples Republic flag.svg you can still list it at Commons:Undeletion requests so the case can be discussed by a broader audience. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The file has been restaured. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Compare original flag[8] with png-version[9] and svg-version[10]. Font size, eagle size and location. Could you create a new svg version based on the png version ? Also, could you create an svg version of the coat of arms ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I cannot recreate the "original" flag because that version is in fact copyrighted. Like coats of arms, only the description would be in the public domain, but the individual depiction is left to the artist who draws the image. And I'm sorry but I don't know how to create an SVG version out of an existing PNG, but we already have File:Coat of Arms of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg. It's a little bit different with a motto and a crown in crest but I think it will do. De728631 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Move a file

Hi Could you move File:The best Note is right here. -GalaxyNote7 -Samsung -SamsungUnpacked.jpg ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

~~I saw that you already uploaded the same image at File:Samsung Galaxy Note7.jpg so I deleted the former. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)~~

Wieralee has already redirected your file. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you delete "File:The best Note is right here. -GalaxyNote7 -Samsung -SamsungUnpacked.jpg" who is a redirection and a wrong name ? You have also delete a file but I have found it here. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This file from Flickr may have a free licence but it looks like the Flickr user is not the original photographer. The same image can be found elsewhere on the net [11] so it's not clear who owns the copyright. As to the redirect, File:The best Note is right here. -GalaxyNote7 -Samsung -SamsungUnpacked.jpg I think this cannot be deleted because it contains the upload log of the original file. While the image was moved to a new name, we have to keep the redirect to preserve the Creative Commons licence. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:20151125 09：48：37 16th Full-meeting of the Foreign and National Defense Committee, Legislative Yuan 立法院外交及國防委員會第16次全體委員會議.png

I'll use the following license for new uploads. In its original meaning (of Chinese), it allows public use and only requires citation for the source while using it.

	The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
	Attribution

中文（繁體）：立法院網站資料開放宣告. 立法院（ly.gov.tw）. Archived from the original on 2017-02-11.：

“

一、授權方式及範圍：
為利各界廣為利用網站資料，立法院全球資訊網（以下簡稱本網站）網站上刊載之所有資料與素材，其得受著作權保護之範圍，以無償、非專屬，得再授權之方式提供公眾使用，使用者得不限時間及地域，重製、改作、編輯、公開傳輸或為其他方式之利用，開發各種產品或服務（簡稱加值衍生物），此一授權行為不會嗣後撤回，使用者亦無須取得本機關之書面或其他方式授權。然使用時，應註明出處。

”

I'll re-upload the file, please don't delete them again.

Howard61313 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The license allows all usage including commercial use, OK? Is there anymore reason to delete it? Howard61313 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not allow commercial use. You provided a link to their copyright policy here which states that "Content or services downloaded or copied by users from the Legislative Yuan Website are for personal use and non-commercial purposes only." De728631 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've check the link, which says a totally different thing from the original language license I gave above. It's called "立法院網站資料開放宣告" (literally " Declaration regarding Open Access to Government Data Online, Legislative Yuan"). I can give you a translation of it later. Howard61313 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you check the archived links? This is from the same video as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:20160504 11：02：31 16th Full-meeting of the Foreign and National Defense Committee, Legislative Yuan 立法院外交及國防委員會第16次全體委員會議.png. At the time this was published, it did not seem to have a free license. If you would like to have these two files restored, please file a request at Commons:Requests for undeletion so other editors can also evaluate this situation. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

LG G6

Hi Android Walpaper is free because Android is a free firmware. Please restaure the file. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out. De728631 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request without argument

Hi For File:Bianca in the city.jpg and File:Bianca Montage.jpg and File:-SM 150710 Bianca 0168 .jpg, @P199: use a not recognized argument. The request should be closed. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Please read COM:SCOPE. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the picture I took myself

Hi! I am the photographer who took this photo and released it to public domain. Please revert the deletion. I don't understand why I should ask someone else who used my own picture I released to public domain for permission to use my own picture I released to public domain on Wikipedia. It is a picture taken from me and shared with the people running that website. Please? -- SSB (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Aktivistin.ch_ZVV_Preisaufschlag_f.C3.BCr_M.C3.A4nner.jpg

Ich habe auf Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests geantwortet. Bitte setze die Diskussion auch dort fort. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help me, copyright issues

Hi,
I posted some images and the files was reviewed by you, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date, along with "License review passed".
However, another user suddenly added speedy deletion in the files.
Could you help me sort it out please.
Thank you I appreciate your help.

File:160414 RC KJY.png
File:2016YN.jpg
File:160911 YN.jpg
File:161001 BOF YK.jpg
File:KIJ ToToGa2.jpg
File:SechsKies SK3.jpg
File:SechsKies SK2.jpg

--Lovelovelove681 (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lovelovelove681: Some of these are no longer speedy deletion candidates but have been nominated for deletion discussions. Please reply at the relevant deletion request pages, e.g. at Commons:Deletion requests/File:160414 RC KJY.png or Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016YN.jpg. For files that have already been deleted, I have now contacted those administrators that performed the deletion. If they won't restore the deleted files, I'm going to list them at Commons:Requests for undeletion. As to the licence review I made, I can only confirm the licence at Tistory but if someone finds out that some Tistory user oploaded foreign content over there which they did not create themselves, then such a licence would have been invalid from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi admin

. I only comment here yesterday about the problem of Lovelovelove681 .. but I didn't know how to use this .. I'm not good at following instructions here when I sign up here .. but can you delete this user I used here . But I only saw what she screenshots in twitter about problem her here .. Then I comment there . And then I click this wikimedia on her twitter. And also this is my YouTube google account (lyfersadat) that I used here to make help her and comment here . Also I don't know how where should I click talk or comment here .. Also I'm nice and friendly but I'm not that much close to Lovelovelove681. And I'm only just helping her . But I'm only given her advice there .. please understand me thank .. . I'm always reading the twitter of her when I saw the newsfeed .. also I'm not good at English also I already said to her that she need explanation. This is only that I can do to help her and I'm sorry I only used my tablet here . thank you .. hope you read this thank you :) Lyfersadat (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm not a korean . Thank you :) . I just only used my account to make sign up here .. thank you :) Lyfersadat (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also in the first place before I sign up here .. I'm always complicated which one should I click in the three edit to create yesterday for comment here to help her here .. but I when I click sign up I used my google account but I had no choice how to create if I have no account here .. also thank you admin :) Hope you reply and read this . Lyfersadat (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also this is my first time to comment here . Thank you .. Lyfersadat (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope you could delete my username here (lyfersadat) . Because I don't know how to delete my username here in wikimedia .. thank you . I'm only comment yesterday to help her problem . Also when I sign up I used my account to make comments here and help her here .But this account I used was my YouTube google account and my android phones .my android phones have a google account too I used the same username but my twitter username are different .. thank you .. sir :) Lyfersadat (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope you reply .. thank you :) . Lyfersadat (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And also I'm not going to comment here anymore after I sign up and help her problem here . because I'm not good at following instructions how to use and click here after I sign up here .Thank you . Hope you reply mr. Wikimedia Admin. :) Lyfersadat (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I forgot if you already delete this user that I used here (Lyfersadat) in Wikimedia .. could you message me on my twitter. Here my twitter account @realtadaslyfer1 .. I always been active in twitter if you have a twitter u can message if you already delete that user I used here in wikimedia .. but I only use my google account on YouTube .. because I'm not going to comment here anymore after I sign here and helping her problem here .. Thank you admin Lyfersadat (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I miss some word here .. because I'm not fluent to speak English . I've been always miss my comment here .. thank you .. I would like to request if you would delete that user I used here in wikimedia.. I already say this to mr. Revi . I request to him this too .. if would you guys delete this user I used here in wikimedia .. thank you . Sorry if always repeat my comment.. thank you .. :) Lyfersadat (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also I already given my twitter username up there .thank you :) Lyfersadat (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for asking .. seem like I talk to mr. Revi now .. so I understand now that we can't delete this user I used here in Wikimedia . thank you .. :) Lyfersadat (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

For technical reasons we cannot delete accounts, but you can just stop using it. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Revi already said that to me .. so I understand now . Thank you for saying this to me .. Lyfersadat (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing Template:PD-Polish

De728631, there are 2 ways of adding categories to templates that have /doc pages: you add it to the template or you add it to the /doc page in such a way that it shows up only in the template. The second one is the preferred way as it allows non-admins to work on categorizing templates. One thing you do not want to do is to mix both systems: adding some categories through template and some through /doc page, the way you did with Template:PD-Polish. That is too confusing for future maintainers. I fixed Template:PD-Polish (moved you category to Template:PD-Polish/doc), can you correct the others in case you added categories to more templates? --Jarekt (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been categorising a lot of these licence tags lately and where I found the categories to be in the /doc page, I placed the new category there. This one seems to be an exception, so thank you for fixing it. As to categorising the /doc pages in general, I think it is a bad idea where the template is not edit-protected. Once the categories are transcluded via the doc page, you are not able to change them with Cat-a-lot, because this tool will only detect the main template pages but doesn't find any categories to remove if that is needed. So I would always recommend to place the category tags on the template page when it is free to edit for anyone. De728631 (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Last time I check, Cat-a-lot was intentionally disabled on template pages because it did not deal properly with <noinclude></noinclude> and <includeonly></includeonly> tags. Did someone fixed it now so it adds categories with those tags correctly? --Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately this issue has not yet been solved. I've had to manually pull the [[Category:]] lines inside the <noinclude></noinclude> tag more than once after using Cat-a-lot on these templates. On the other hand, it does work most of the time, so I have no idea what makes the automated process go wrong sometimes. So while I'm categorising these licence tags, I've resorted to checking the Cat-a-lot result just to be sure. De728631 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

BuNos with squadrons

Hi, I think it is totally useless and misleading to put the aircraft squadron categories to your BuNo-categories, as aircraft are transferred between squadrons quite often. I would put the BuNo-categories ONLY in a category "McDonnell AV-8B Harrier II by registration" and no other category. The BuNo/serial number categories are also problematic from my point of view, if the photo is only categorized in this category. If you are searching for (for example) an AV-8B of VMA-542 it is really a hassle to look through all BuNo-categories. Therefore, I wold recommend to use the BuNo/ s/n- categories only as supplementary categories and leave the photos also in the general categories. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The BuNo/serial numbers don't have to be in a single squadron category but can have more than one squadron "parent", so that is not a problem. And from the point of category diffusion (COM:OVERCAT), the registration number is the most specific category we can have for a single aircraft, so leaving the photos in the squadron category would be a bad idea either. The whole point of having the registration numbers in a squadron category is to diffuse the latter which would otherwise quickly become too crowded to be realistically useful. I'm also not the only one who seems to think along this line. See e.g. Category:ZJ929 (aircraft) which was placed in a squadron parent category from scratch. As to the registration numbers being the only category for a photo, the BuNo/serial number category should always have a parent category that describes the type of aircraft, like Category:AV-8A/C Harrier (US Marine Corps), so there's a generic search path too. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Alexandria Badge.jpg

File:Alexandria Badge.jpg should not be marked for deletion. It clearly states the image is taken from a U.S. government website "https://www.alexandriava.gov/police/info/default.aspx?id=59358" and per wiki standerds found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain

"Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries"

Therefore the image is public domain. DietBlink (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@DietBlink: I'm sorry, but this is only valid for works of the federal government and that of a few select states. Municipal emblems from Virginia are definitely not in the public domain by default. Moreover, you put a Creative Commons licence tag on the file page which is another completely different thing that would require a copyright. If you can provide evidence that the design of this badge was first published before 1923 we could keep it, but it is up to you establish the proper copyright status of a file before you upload it here. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

	Hello, De728631. You have new messages at Kailash29792'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 ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Tasnim News Agency

Seeing as you have done some editing to Commons:Where is the license on various sites?#Tasnim would you just review my recent addition. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thank you for adding this section. It's looking just fine imho. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello De728631, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Hi, Please help reviewed the picture. Appreciate your help.

File:Black Pink on Asia Artist Award 2016.jpg
File:170517 BLACKPINK Performs at Konkuk University. (2).jpg
File:170517 BLACKPINK Performs at Konkuk University.jpg
File:Jennie on Konkuk University in May 2017. (2).jpg
File:Jennie on Konkuk University in May 2017.jpg
File:Jisoo and Lisa on Sungkyul University in May 2017.jpg
File:Jisoo on Sungkyul University in May 2017.jpg
File:Rosé on Sungkyul University in May 2017.jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520.jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (2).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (3).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (4).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (5).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (6).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (7).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (8).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (9).jpg
File:BLACKPINK Performs at Yonsei University. 170520 (10).jpg

Thank you very much.--Amber19950120 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Hi, Please help reviewed the picture. Appreciate your help.

Thank you very much.--Amber19950120 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

World Cup color blindness fix

Color confusion for File:2015 ICC World Cup Participating Nations.png
Normal vision	#FFCC00	#00CC00	dE 34.6
Deuteranopia (1-7%)	#DDDD00	#B1B12A	dE 11.9
(Originally)	#8F8F00	#9A9A51	dE 8.3
Protanopia (1-2%)	#D3D312	#C2C200	dE 4.3

According to my simulator the new colors are better for Deuteranopia (1%)/Deuteranomaly (6%) (Green weak), it's worse for Protanopia (1%) (red weak). I can't tell that UK and America are different colors in the protanopia simulation. And the labels still need updating :-/ —Dispenser (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: You're right, #FFCC00 seems to be the problem here. I've now changed all the colours with a palette from ColorBrewer and uploaded a map version that I tested with Coblis. Except for monocromacy/achromatopsia, this combination is looking quite good to me. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to figure out what to recommend is something I'm working on. Monocromacy (<0.01% pop?) isn't an issue—until it's printed or viewed on a e-ink Kindle. Worse there so many bad implementations for grayscale conversion and image scaling—even our own image scaler knocks dE down from 4.0 to 3.7!

I did several test prints with an HP LaserJet 1012, to find it can only really produce 6 black levels. If it was an SVG, Media Queries could change colors to patterns on grayscale output, but apparently that isn't well supported.

Anyway, thanks for the effort. It'll be another point to add when I resubmit my colorblind IEG grant. —Dispenser (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

LTA UDEL request

I removed another request from that same LTA that tricked me earlier: [12]. I also set a 1-month soft block of 79.17.0.0/17. I doubt we have anyone else on that Rome range editing via IP. I've never seen it in recent changes, so it should be safe. If the IP sock requests keep up from another range, I'll remove this soft block. We'll see. I think I've now wheel-warred with myself! Daphne Lantier 04:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Good job, thanks a lot :) De728631 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: I have just semi-protected the undeletion request because of this. Do you think another range block could help? De728631 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The protection is probably the most effective thing we could do, but he can still get around that by making requests at the talk pages of different admins. I've tried a short soft block of 82.50.0.0/16, but if he has a decent ISP he probably has access to at least 6 different /16 ranges. Daphne Lantier 19:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh, that's why I'm not a fan of rangeblocks anyway. But let's wait and see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion revision request

Please help delete File:Dadao_Station_Nameborad.jpg at 19 January 2017 9:20 revision.

Image file EXIF information contains personal information (location) is the reason, thanks for your help! --SmileYuki (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

GPS data in the EXIF are nothing unusual and I don't see how this is any personal information. The coordinates of the Da Dao station are not a secret either. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the wrong GPS information, not at Dadao Station, the phone is not properly positioned.--SmileYuki (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The locations on this interactive map and at OpenStreetMapt look alright within a reasonable accuracy. Please remember that the locations marked in such maps like the position of Dadao station may also be inacurate, and they only represent a single point while the platform where you were standing is an extended feature and may well be a hundred meters away from the "official" marker for the station. Google Maps, however, does seems to have a problem with displaying a problem. I really don't think this is the fault of the GPS location saved in the EXIF but rather a website-specific problem by Google Maps. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I am talking about the first revision at 09:20 on January 19, 2017. This is the current version is correct coordinates.--SmileYuki (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I have now hidden the first upload revision. I think we cannot really delete it because the upload history needs to remain intact for images that are potentially harmful. Anyhow, the common visitor will no longer see the first version with its faulty GPS data. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Hi, Please help reviewed the picture. Appreciate your help.

File:Blackpink showcases(1).jpg

Thank you very much. Amber19950120 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

COM:UDR

By the way, I noticed that it has canceled my request to restore some deleted files in the past, i would like to ask why? And if it was possible to scan those deleted files since none of them, and i say none of them have signs of violation Of copyright, are not files from copyviol, I would like comons to take my request and analyze, without undoing it, please,,, The files in question are part of this user, blocked for a likely involvement with another user who really uploads possible copyviol Can i ask if commons could take the ia request?

Special:DeletedContributions/Глинистый сланец

WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR THEIR REPRODUCTION, WHICH MOST OF THESE FILES ARE IN GOOD FEDE, since they are portraits of past ages and photographs with postcards from the beginning of the twentieth century, what problem must be resolved on this issue ??? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.244.94.84 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

--95.244.94.84 01:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:

Would not it be good even if the licenses were correct?

Because some of them, I refer to the other socks, have been examined by other directors, finding the correctness on certain files: here And even in here Obviously these are examples, to overwrite that not everything can be called copyviol to delete;) :) --Andrassy66 (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not about copyright. Personally I am opposed to restoring any files added by sockpuppets because that would only reward them for gaming the system, and I think this is within my responsibilities and tasks as an administrator. The deletion requests you mentioned above may show some different opinions but as this particular user is currently flooding the UDR board with requests by his sockpuppets I don't think there is any merit in restoring such files right now. Please free though to add your thoughts in a subsection below the closed undeletion request. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Certain files are Prma Restored, then evaluated, and if the ideas do not comply with the copyright rules, if they delete it, I first noticed that you have restored some of your files, but not so much, because you had done it before If now forbidden to restore it, I would personally prefer the restoration and then the analysis, otherwise you can safely keep the deletion of the following file active :)--Andrassy66 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:File:Raven Banner.svg

I don't know. The .svg file is a tentative to recreate the banner on this coin Penny of Amlaib Cuaran (the face on the right). Because it is almost impossible to distinguish something, I tried to reproduce the raven as this coin Penny of Amlaib Cuaran 2, and knowing that the banner is described as "an eye with a raven inside", like in the Bayeux Tapestry (but made I-II centuries after). What kind of licence do you suggest? --Skyfall (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Skyfall: Well, anything that is not an exact copy of a public-domain work is potentially creative enough for its own copyright. Both the coin and the tapestry are obviously out of copyright but this raven image was created by you based on these two sources – that means it is a new, creative combination made by you as the author. So in this case, you should stick with the GFDL licence but discard the PD bit. Feel free to remove the entire "Licensing" section, so the GFDL template in the summary will then be sufficient. De728631 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request of File:Sarr-Campagne-2017.jpg

At time of the undeletion request, this file was actually deleted.

16:49, 14 August 2017 Natuur12 (talk | contribs) restored page File:Sarr-Campagne-2017.jpg (8 revisions and 1 file) (Overlooked the ticket) (global usage; delinker log)
11:54, 14 August 2017 Natuur12 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sarr-Campagne-2017.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarr-Campagne-2017.jpg) (global usage; delinker log)

Your comment was made on 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC). The procedural closure was therefore inaccurate. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore me. The procedual close reason didn't directly say anything about it being restored, so I was confused. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 17:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi User:De728631
I am a professional local photographer. I have many pictures but 90 % are published before; should i send an Email to host or keep looking for not-published pictures taken by mine?--S.Haboush (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@S.Haboush: Hello there. The images I deleted were published by MTV under a non-free license. Please send an email to confirm your authorship and your permission for a free licence. You can find some instructions and the address at COM:OTRS. Photographs taken by you that have not yet been published anywhere else may be uploaded at any time without further requirements. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not sure about copyright of that pictures you deleted. Now, i prefer to upload non-published files. by the way, thank you for noticing me. --S.Haboush (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Hi, Please help reviewed the picture. Appreciate your help.

File:170826 Lisa at Gimpo International Airport heading to Japan. (2).jpg
File:170826 Lisa at Gimpo International Airport heading to Japan. (3).jpg
File:170826 Lisa at Gimpo International Airport heading to Japan. (4).jpg
File:170826 Lisa at Gimpo International Airport heading to Japan. (5).jpg
File:170826 Lisa at Gimpo International Airport heading to Japan. (6).jpg
File:170826 Rosé at Gimpo International Airport heading to Japan.jpg

Thank you very much. Amber19950120 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!! I love you!!! Amber19950120 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Troubling votes to keep GPL'd works from you

Rant ahead.

I've found your recent votes to keep works licensed under the GNU General Public License (version 2 or any later version) very troubling and/or concerning. I'm upset, and really want to throw this rant in here to get it off my mind. I believe it's good for me to explain why I'm upset.

In the first undeletion request, you've supported undeletion for the original reason that the source was missing. I admit, I may have not tagged it originally with {{No permission since}} but the links provided by the OP should've been studied better: If you’re unclear what your source is, ask yourself What would I use if I wanted to modify it?, the answer is likely to be accepted as source. With no opposition and no source code provided or questioned, it subsequently led to restoration of the file and for a brief amount of time likely violated the GPLv2(+?) license. These issues I fixed today. I've now also asserted the author in good faith to consider moral rights, now aware of the source.

(There's conflicting statements about GPLv2-only and GPLv2+ licenses for that file. I was also not notified on the IP-talk page about the undeletion request, so that made me more upset.)

The second undeletion request is self-explanatory. I've ranted enough there already. Consider reading my rant there too. I argue moving the player character, setting up a scene and getting the right camera angle for a good screenshot can have some creativity in it. But that's not really the main point about the undeletion request, considering the copyright of the underlying work. Incompatible licensing of creative derivative works is secondary to that.

I hope you can understand the GPLv2+ is not a "CC BY-SA" -like license of "fire and forget" type of tagging. There are circumstances which may allow changing the license tag within legal limits and where it may make sense (mostly screenshots below the threshold of originality), but this is not one of them. The complete corresponding source code must also be distributed under GPLv2 or conveyed under GPLv3. If something is missing from the offered corresponding source distribution to reproduce the uploaded work from source, then it's not a way how the copyright holders agreed for redistribution to happen. Whenever I find that, it upsets me too to nominate them for deletion. (But I believe it's the right thing to do.)

Seeing how User:Ankry was perhaps misled by User:Trockennasenaffe in the undeletion request for Xonotic to be under GPLv2-only, subsequently you claimed so too. That made me briefly believe so too – until I checked the sources again (and spent ~1 GB of bandwidth). This misbelief almost made me create a comment about GPLv2's instant termination, with rights reinstated only with written permission of the copyright holders. In misbelief, I questioned myself if you were aware of GPLv2-only license termination being so "unforgiving". I removed that comment before posting it, but wasted my time writing it. I was upset again, but somehow glad at the same time all was not immediately lost after realizing it was GPLv2+ (source)/GPLv3+ (screenshots) because the termination is time-constrained (60 days) and on copyright holder's notice with automatic reinstation. (Somehow I still found a lot of time to write this rant.)

End of rant. End of frustration.

I personally hope you'll study the GPL-licenses and their conditions a bit further and seek to make an improvement for more educated votes. And if I'm wrong, counter-arguments are welcome. And sorry for the rant. (If you have time and interest, perhaps you can help and take a look at my other nominated deletion requests for GPL violations? Would be appreciated.) 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC); edited 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Rant duly noted. First of all, it is neither pbligatory nor customary to inform any editor of an undeletion request when they had tagged a file for deletion. Undeletion requests are a matter of the deleting administrator, the original uploader and the community of editors in the first place. I can understand how you felt ignored in this case but IPs are subject to changing users and we don't have a reliable way of telling if yours is static. So even if the user who filed the undeletion request(s) wanted to leave you a message he couldn't even have been sure to reach the original editor (i.e. you).

As to the GPL licensing, I think you are misinterpreting the need for source code distribution. GPLv2 reads: "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form ... provided ..." (emphasis mine). This clause of the licence deals with distributing the original program or derivative software. Screenshots are neither executables nor object code, so they don't have to be accompanied by the source code. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- From GPLv2 section 1: “Object code” means any non-source form of a work. Sorry, that's how it is... 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  - Apparently we're working with different documents. Your phrase is not in here nor there, so please provide a link to your version of the license. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    - (Edit conflict) Sorry, yes. I was about to edit my comment. It's GPLv3 section 1 I'm talking about. If that answer is not satisfiable regarding GPLv2's choice of words, then I'm not sure how to counter that argument. I'll try.
      GPLv3 clarifies a lot of things in GPLv2. The text of GPLv2 is quite old when Internet distribution was not a norm. In example, GPLv2 talks about a medium customarily used for software interchange, while in GPLv3 this has been clarified to a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange. (e.g. CDs or DVDs).
      The intent is similar in GPLv2: The preamble talks about restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights and For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. A screenshot may be a small part of the program, but even those small pieces (excluding those below the threshold of originality) may fall under the GPL (section 4, possibly). And that brings to preferred form: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. I'm not sure if this is a clear case under the GPLv2.
      And of course, I don't believe PNG screenshots are an original representation or a preferred form of making edits, versus something like "demo" clips you play on the engine. You could replace models or influence the demo (with scripts) to make edits, but can't preferably do that to a media work in a PNG format... 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    - I think in this case, the GPLv2 may be also be a red herring if the "LGPLv3" question is true. And if so, then there should be no ambiguity what the object code is. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion at undeletion request has stalled, at the moment. Do you have more comments to add to it, or would it be appropriate for an administrator to close the undeletion request in two days if no further comments are made? Thanks for the comments and debate again. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  - I don't have anything to add, so let's wait for an administrator to close the thread. De728631 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I like the idea of a Commons conference but I'm afraid I'll be busy organising my new job next year. So I think I won't have time to attend the event. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User's attackings on my OWN pictures

another new user started attacking and nominate deletion of my OWN TAKEN BY MY HAND PICTURES AND UPLOADED HERE, the new one is same with last nomination i mean the File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg. i am really tired of this . --Chyah (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

there is also an interesting undo : https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leyal_Abud&diff=19088016&oldid=19084124. and then, the user started nominate it for deletion, for a file that just was nominated. --Chyah (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear De728631, please review this, Regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sakhalinio: i saw it, this search don't show that the picture is not mine, we just talked about this file before. they reviewed it. this file is taken by mine, and i am the copyright holder and first who published it into net, if every user comes a while and nominate your pictures for deletion, i think, there would be no file in Commons for next year!--Chyah (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Chyah: , your message page full of deletion request, that means this is not my wrong. My advice to you, firstly upload files to commons original size, and than no problem. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sakhalinio: for this pic i uploaded the originall, just search more. i am not a new user dear brother. --Chyah (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I replied at the deletion discussion where I also left you some advice regarding original images vs cropped versions. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg

Hi, I am in no obligation to fix an image description page when I decide to decline speedy deletion. Also I think I do my share in fixing things on this wiki. Jcb (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, but I think we can agree to disagree on this matter. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A Question

Hi User:De728631!

Can we upload from a blogspot that last time used © was in 2012? mean there is no legal copyright holder and they are not updated from 2012 and so, its in public domain.--Chyah (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not in the public domain. Copyright is granted automatically to any author and will last for several decades depending on the country of origin. Please do not upload anything from this blog. De728631 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks for answer. surely i don't upload such files, i just asked. I hope i can find freely files for my interests. --Chyah (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Again

Hello!

can you explain to me what is it link. why i should have daily issues with my files? why ?!--Chyah (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose this was because you used your former user name in the "author" field, i.e. Sonia Sevilla instead of Chyah. It seems that people were too lazy to click the link and check the connection. I have now removed the "missing permission" tag, but for future uploads you might want to add your current user name "Chyah" so as to avoid confusion. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Hi, Please help reviewed the picture. Appreciate your help.

Thank you very much. Amber19950120 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Done You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Sorry to keep bothering you. >"<

File:BLACKPINK at the Korea Music Festival in October 1,2017.png
File:Jisoo at the Korea Music Festival in October 1,2017.jpg
File:Lisa at the Fever Festival in September 30,2017.png
File:Lisa at the Korea Music Festival in October 1,2017.png

Thank you very much. I appreciate your assistance! Amber19950120 (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Germany to be classified

hello. i see you sometime for classified. can you help for this category ? Category:Coats of arms of Germany to be classified. bye --Chatsam (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm going to have a look at this. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Template:ICE-nonartisticphoto

Thank you for correcting this template. I created it with best intentions using my obviously lacking understanding of the legal status of non-artistic photographs. I did not realise Creative Commons 4.0 licenses needed to be explicitly granted. It is my understanding that 50 years after a non-artistic photo has been taken in Iceland it becomes public domain. I was trying to convey that. --Jabbi (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jabbi: Yes, of course these photos become public domain after 50 years. However, your template made it look like all non-artistic photos from Iceland automatically are licensed under a Creative Commons license before their copyright expires. That is not the case, because even non-artistic photographs are copyrighted for 50 years which means that the photographer can grant any type of licence they want, and not just Creative Commons. Additionally though we did already have {{PD-Iceland50}} which has exactly the same purpose. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks for correcting this. --Jabbi (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: File tagging File:Leonardo Domenici daticamera.jpg

I've added the legal notes of the Chamber of deputies. Bye! --NiloGlock (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Front views: stop stop stop !!!

Bitte schau Dir doch erst mal die Category:Airbus A400M front views an, bevor Du hier wild weiter revertierst - und dann bitte alles zurücksetzen, Danke ! --Uli Elch (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ja, habe ich getan. Da sind jede Menge Abbildung drin, die weder das Flugzeug in seiner ganzen Breite von vorne zeigen, noch eine Winkel von Null Grad von vorne einhalten. Solange es also keine eindeutigen Konsens zur Befüllung dieser Kategorie oder aller Unterkategorien von Category:Front views of aircraft gibt, bist du es, der die Revertierungen sein lassen sollte. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, noch mal. "Front views of Airbus A400M" heißt jetzt "Airbus A400M front views", wie man am Weterleitungscharakter sehen kann.

In der Category:Front views of aircraft by type waren vor meinen Verschiebungen die allermeisten Subcategories schön alphabetisch nach Typenbezeichnungen geordnet. Bei einigen allerdings hießen diese vorher "Front views of A400M / ... Boeing C-17 / ... Fairchild A-10 / ... F-22 Raptor", alle auch noch unter "F" wie "front view" einsortiert. Diesen Fehler und Unübersichtlichkeit habe ich behoben, wie Du meinen User contributions von heute 14:32 bis 14:40 entnehmen kannst. Dabei wurden ohne weitere Umsortierung jeweils sämtlich vorher dort eingeordneten Files in die jetzigen sauber alphabetisch benannten sub-cats transferiert.

Am besten lasse ich jetzt die alten Weiterleitungen wie "Front views of Airbus A400M" auf "Airbus A400M front views" einfach löschen, damit die ganze Arbeit nicht umsonst war und jemand die files wieder in das vorherige Chaos-System zurück verschiebt. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: Ok, entschuldige bitte. Diese Verschiebung hatte ich nicht mitbekommen, sondern nur gesehen, dass du eine scheinbar gültige Kategorie entfernt hattest. Ich habe jetzt deine Einstellungen auf den Dateiseiten wieder hergestellt. Abgesehen davon ist die Benennung der Unterkategorien nach Flugzeugtypen als erstem Element sogar sehr sinnvoll, also "Boeing C-17 front views" usw. Bitte weitermachen wie bisher.

De728631 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Entschuldigung angenommen. Ist ja vielleicht auch schon etwas spät, um alles vorher zu lesen (hier = 22:45 LT, weiß nicht wie bei Dir - auch MESZ?)

Habe jetzt gerade gesehen, dass Du hier auch Admin bist. Vielleicht könntest Du meinen speedy deletion request mal anschauen. Im Prinzip fast identisch mit meinem schon erledigten Request aus dem Deletion Log um 19:15. Es ist immer derselbe Hektiker, der wie besessen Kategorien erfindet oder umbenennt wie beim Brötchenbacken und dabei oft völlig den Überblick verliert (abgesehen von gewaltigen Mängeln bei Luftfahrt-Kenntnissen). Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Besten Dank ! --Uli Elch (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Screenshot VLASOV VJA4ESLAV.jpg

You wrote ... Сделано @MasterXOM: although you were clearly not allowed to upload the image again, it is evident now that { {Wikimedia-screenshot} } applies in this case. I have changed the license accordingly and the image can be kept. De728631 (обсуждение) 12:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair! I still did not understand all the subtleties of licensing SCREENSHOTES of Wikipedia, namely, what I did wrong ... (the person who deleted the first time this file wrote this .... Sorry, but the Logo of Windows (bottom left) and the sign of Wikipedia are copyrighted. --Austriantraveler (discussion) 20:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC))

I watched, I watched and did not see LOGOS OF WINDOWS and Wikipedia ....

I'm probably stupid?

Never mind!

Despite this, I am VERY grateful to you for the ADEQUACY understanding of the essence of my violation ...

In a similar situation (in the future), I will simply copy YOUR version of the license for a similar screenshot and "grief will not know" ...

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!MasterXOM (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, you're welcome. I've checked both your uploads and I can't find any logos of Windows and Wikipedia either.

The latter one would have been allowed anyway under the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} licence. Good luck with your editing. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Response

I have redesigned the image File:MetroMapEnlarged.png and There is no copyright infringement. --Kasir (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean with "redesigned"? Did you also create the very first original design of the map? If so, you did not provide enough evidence, otherwise that file wouldn't have been deleted. Again, the first version looked suspiciously like the official release including logos etc. so your redesign would in fact have been a copyright violation. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the Tehran metro map, The version I uploaded is different --Kasir (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid the link doesn't work for me. I will try it again later though. In the meantime you are welcome to list your files at Commons:Requests for undeletion. If they are different from the official version, there's a good chance that the files can be restored. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Say Thanks

I just see your answer Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-11#File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg 3 and that's very mature. Just want to say Thank you.. Firouzyan (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Michael Paxton.jpg and File:MUFI.jpg

Hi De728631,

I noticed that permission for File:Michael Paxton.jpg is still pending, yet Michael Paxton sent permission about this file in an email with [Ticket#2017091810020227]. Could you check that ticket and affirm the permission or direct me to an admin who is capable of doing that?

Also, I no longer want File:MUFI.jpg to be on Wikimedia Commons. I took and uploaded the photo. Could you delete it for me?

Thanks! Michipedian (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michipedian: I'm afraid I cannot check any OTRS tickets. This confidential job is limited to just a few of our volunteers who don't even need to be admins, and I am not one of them. The OTRS email queue has a regular backlog of several weeks, so Michael Paxton image may even get deleted in the meantime because the ticket could not be verified in time. But if that happens, the file will be restored as soon as the OTRS mail gets verified by someone in the team.

As to MUFI.jpg, asking for a deletion of one of your own uploads after ten months is really too much time. We sometimes (!) may delete recently uploaded images upon the uploader's request, but by our standards that time is now over. You released the photograph under an irrevocable licence and it may be useful for educational purposes. Also, the MUFI logo has been released under a free licence, so I'm sorry but: no. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, not a big deal at all. What about exchanging PNGs for JPEGs? I've uploaded a few PNGs without realizing that they lose definition upon resizing. Michipedian (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

PNG vs JPEG is usually irrelevant except when it comes to the quality of thumbnails for complicated images like photographs. If you feel that your PNGs are inferior to a JPEG version, you're welcome to upload a JPEG of the same image as a separate file with the same file name but a different ending (*.jpg). Please see also Commons:File types for more details. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Michipedian (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Christmas card
	Fröhliche Weihnachten! Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:De728631/2017

Deletion request of File:Panissars4.jpg

Deletion of the file File:Pyrotechnic panfilov 28 men.jpg

Please restore File:IAF-F-35I-and-F-16I.jpg

Copyright of Mexico

File:Age of Consent.png

Lizenz

could you please explain...

Bilder der securityconference.de

File:Archimolluscm-de copy.svg

Lots of photos for the license review

Picture from Mynewsdesk

Thank you

Mal eine Frage am Rande

Category:Lerwick Harbour

Category:IMO 8739619

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Gina_Raimondo_Official.jpg

Donetsk

Move a file

File:20151125 09：48：37 16th Full-meeting of the Foreign and National Defense Committee, Legislative Yuan 立法院外交及國防委員會第16次全體委員會議.png

LG G6

Deletion request without argument

Deletion of the picture I took myself

Please help me, copyright issues

Hi admin

Categorizing Template:PD-Polish

BuNos with squadrons

File:Alexandria Badge.jpg

Talkback

Tasnim News Agency

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Please help reviewed the picture

Please help reviewed the picture

World Cup color blindness fix

LTA UDEL request

Deletion revision request

Please help reviewed the picture

COM:UDR

Re:

Re:File:Raven Banner.svg

Undeletion request of File:Sarr-Campagne-2017.jpg

Hi

Please help reviewed the picture

Troubling votes to keep GPL'd works from you

Commons Conference project

User's attackings on my OWN pictures

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg

A Question

Again

Please help reviewed the picture

Please help reviewed the picture

Category:Coats of arms of Germany to be classified

Re: Template:ICE-nonartisticphoto

Re: File tagging File:Leonardo Domenici daticamera.jpg

Front views: stop stop stop !!!

File:Screenshot VLASOV VJA4ESLAV.jpg

Response

Say Thanks

File:Michael Paxton.jpg and File:MUFI.jpg

Happy Holidays

Navigation menu

Search