User talk:Yann/archives 20

Dear Yann, I need a little help. Yesterday I upload a picture (KZ 2014.jpg), what you deleted after a few hours. The copyright of the photo is at the government, what you can use freely. You just need to represent the name of the photographer (i did it). How can I solve the problem?

Thank you for your answer.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal.fr (talk • contribs)

@Jackal.fr: I am not sure who hold the copyright of this picture, but a permission is needed anyway. Which government? You mention that the author is Gergely Botár. Best would be to ask him. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

I didn't migrate my tools to labs (mainly because then I should probably update the library as well…). So not that I know of. Platonides (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Platonides: Do you intend to migrate it later? Your tool is very useful... Regards, Yann (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

You have voted on Commons:Valued image candidates/Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png. The scope is changed again. Wikimedia says: "Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn"."

Therefore, I'm writing to you to let you know that the scope is changed. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

Raising this as an oddity, not expecting any action. I noticed the file version history of File:Stained glass window at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), the weirdness is that the image is 1.71 MB in size, yet the file history displayed on the image page says it was uploaded as a 1.71 Gb file. I'm presuming from the date that this was a bug that has since been fixed, but an interesting example to note.   --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Fæ: Thanks for noticing. I filled a bug: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, Merci d'avoir restauré trois images illustrant cet article, pour lesquelles les consentements avaient été transmis il y a peu ; merci de m'en avoir informée ce matin. Je les ai réinsérées dans l'article. Bien cordialement,--Mocaya (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour,

Je trouve que le cas de ces photos sont limites. Elles ont été prises dans une zone interdite d'accès et sur une propriété privée sans l'accord des propriétaires présentant des risques majeurs pour la sécurité des personnes. Je pense que par mesure de précaution elle ne devraient pas figurer sur l'article car elle incite à pénétrer ILLÉGALEMENT dans des espaces potentiellement dangereux (il y a des blogs pour cela). En tant que créateur des articles en question j'avais fait le choix (éthique, moral) de ne pas y faire figurer d'éléments pouvant conduire les lecteurs à des actes illégaux ou dangereux, mais la personne qui a pris les photos ne semble pas s'en soucier et considère probablement qu'elles officialisent son exploit personnel. Je ne pense pas que WP est vocation à servir de "tableau de chasse" pour les aventuriers des friches industrielles. Un des principes fondateur de wikipedia est le respect de la loi, à défaut de susciter chez ce contributeur un minimum de responsabilité, j'invoque le simple respect de la loi (propriété privée pour le puits de Marais, arrêté municipale de la Ricamarie) pour en demander le retrait. Merci. --KidA42 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@KidA42: Bonjour,

Je ne peux que répéter ce que j'ai déjà dit sur votre page de discussion. Sur Commons, notre seul souci est que les photos soient publiées sous une licence libre ou dans le domaine public, et qu'elles aient un objectif éducatif potentiel, ce qui est le cas ici. Les autres questions sont laissées à la responsabilité du photographe.

Ce qui est inclus dans les articles de Wikipédia est décidé localement sur Wikipédia, pas sur Commons. S'il y a un danger potentiel, je suggère qu'une mention soit ajoutée à l'article de Wikipédia. De toutes façons, cela doit être discuté sur la page de discussion des articles concernés, par sur Commons.

Plus généralement, nous avons de nombreuses photos prises dans des zones interdites, sans l'accord du propriétaire, etc. Ceci n'est pas une raison de suppression sur Commons.

Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear yann I just figured out that you have deleted File:Eclipse_Installation.webm. You stated the file had a copy right violation. I am pretty sure you have been mistaking while doing so. As you can see we uploaded quite a lot videos Category:Videos_for_Web_Science_MOOC_on_Wikiversity which almost all have been created by ourselfs (especially the screen casts) or we have asked the authors for providing proper license. We used these files for the Web Science MOOC on wikiversity. Even if the file had a copyright violation, we would like to upload the File to Wikiversity where a fair use policy exists. In that case please provide me the reason for the copyright violation and please do a temporary undelete so that I can move the file. Thanks a lot for your help --Renepick (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I restored it, and created a DR instead. These were tagged as copyvios because the software is not free. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

for the deletion of Associazione nazionale marinai d'Italia ‎. --F Ceragioli (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi I want to know that what should I do for stop deletion of uploaded images by me ? I want that pic for my page. Can I get that image form other place ? Please guide me. and reply for this NehalDaveND (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@NehalDaveND: Hi,

You need to correct the source, the date and the license for each of your pictures and videos. Do not mark these as your own, as you are not the photographer. Unfortunately, Martin H. is right. Images from LIFE are probably first published in USA, and therefore not OK here.

I will have a look at the Sanskrit Wikipedia, but I am not sure, I can do something. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you review this again, it appears you may be confusing File:Brazil and Croatia match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-12 (02) ball.jpg and File:Brazil and Croatia match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-12 (02).jpg due to the similarity of names, the latter was not part of the DR but was mentioned as the source for the former. LGA _talk^edits 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah yeah, right. Yann (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You've sent me a message about the images that were published on the page of Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco, namely "IPCB - Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco.jpg" and all the pictures on the page referring to Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCB) have been deleted.

The images that have been uploaded were made in our services and I am the responsible for the information office in IPCB (as you can see from my my e-mail, it is gcii@ipcb.pt, so an official e-mail from the organization). I am having some dificulty on understanding why the images violate the copyright since that all of them were made by us, and there is no problem for us that they are used or shared by others (we have them in many social media platforms, suchs as Twitter, linkedIn or Facebook)..

Is it possible to undelete the photos or can I upload them again? I can assure that these images belog to us, were made by our graphic designers and can be used and shared by other without any problem for us!

Hope to hear from you soon!

Roberto Monteiro Communication and Information Office Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcii-ipcb (talk • contribs)

@Gcii-ipcb: Hi,

All images previously published on the Internet needs a formal permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Please note that the license should cover use by anyone including commercial use. Images would be restored after a permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@ Yann Hi again! I've already sent the requested e-mail. If anything else is necessary please let me know. Regards, Roberto

Dear Yann,

I am an employee of AFCONS. I have taken up the responsibility for creating a wiki page for AFCONS. AFCONS has built technically and operationally challenging infrastructure projects in India and Abroad and hence thought it should be present in Wikipedia. I do have permission to use the following images in Wikipedia and I am in the process of getting the free license authorization.

Also there will be multiple images that I will be uploading while creating the page. so is there a possibility that I can take permission for all the images that I will upload now and at later dates now itself? If yes how?

Do let me know if anything else has to be taken care of to upload the images.

Thanks & Regards, Srinivas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanumuri.sri (talk • contribs)

@Kanumuri.sri: Hi,

All images previously published on the Internet needs a formal permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Please note that the license should cover use by anyone including commercial use. Images would be restored after a permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays." Since you participated in the initial discussion, I am notifying you of the follow-up RfC.

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

नमस्कार। मैं एक स्टूअर्ड हूँ। हालही में समुदाय मतैक्य से प्रबंधक और प्रशासक जैसे "उन्नत अधिकारों" को हटाने के सम्बन्ध में एक नई नीति लागू की गई है। इस नीति अनुसार, जिन विकियों पर असक्रियता सम्बन्धी कोई नीति नहीं है, उनपर स्टूअर्ड प्रबंधकों की सक्रियता की जाँच कर रहे हैं।

आप sawiki पर, जहाँ आप एक प्रबंधक हैं, असक्रियता के मानदंडों के अंतर्गत आते हैं (दो वर्ष से अधिक समय से कोई सम्पादन एवं लॉग कार्य नहीं)। चूँकि sawiki पर प्रबंधन अधिकारों की समीक्षा की कोई नीति नहीं है, वैश्विक नीति लागू होती है।

यदि आप अपने अधिकार रखना चाहते हैं तो आप समुदाय को सूचित करें कि आपको स्टूअर्डों ने असक्रियता सम्बंधित ये सूचना भेजी है। आपके समुदाय की चर्चा के बाद, यदि समुदाय चाहता है कि आपके अधिकार आपके पास रहें, तो कृपया स्टूअर्डों से स्टूअर्ड सूचनापट पर संपर्क करें। वहाँ स्थानीय विकि समुदाय की चर्चा का लिंक दें जिसमें समुदाय ने आपके अधिकारों का समर्थन किया हो, और साथ ही इन अधिकारों की आवश्यकता के कारण का विवरण दें।

प्रतिक्रियाओं की जाँच हम स्टूअर्ड करेंगे। यदि लगभग एक महीने के बाद तक भी कोई प्रतिक्रिया नहीं आती है तो हम आपके प्रबंधनीय अधिकार वापिस ले लेंगे। निर्णय में शंका की स्थिति होने पर हम प्रतिक्रियाएँ देखेंगे, निर्णय पुनः स्थानीय विकि समुदाय के चर्चा करने हेतु छोड़ेंगे और समीक्षा करेंगे। यदि आपके कोई भी प्रश्न हैं तो कृपया स्टूअर्ड सूचनापट पर हमसे संपर्क करें।

भवदीय, Rschen7754 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)।Reply

Hi Rs,

I am suprised that you write to me in Hindi. ;o)

Actually I think of resigning my admin rights on the Sanskrit Wikipedia. I helped the creation of the wiki, and I did some patrolling there, but I don't actually speak Sanskrit, and I can't be everywhere. Is your message related to this request, or is it just a coincidence? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am actually working off a list at m:Admin activity review/2013/Data, and using messages that people translated for me. :) If you wish to resign, you can leave a request at m:SRP; you can also reply here or on sawiki, but it might not be noticed for several days. --Rschen7754 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,

the picture of Bella Ratchinskaia is our private picture!!!!! I made it! Sometimes I give it to others, for ballet stages publicity for example, because my mother is a russian ballet choreographer and she is known, but the picture is own picture!!! Please give it back!

Thank you, Daria Rachinskaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia&nous (talk • contribs)

@Aletheia&nous: Hi,

As this picture was previously published elsewhere, we require a formal permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. The picture would be restored after a permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, I appreciate your good work to keep WikiMedia free of copyrighted material, but every media uploaded by NanoBCA is not in violation of copyright laws. Please, there is no need to delete these files. These files were uploaded two days ago by a volunteer writing an article about NanoBCA, but it was a mistake. The volunteer tried to delete the files he uploaded, but there is no "delete" button. So these files were requested to be deleted, so NanoBCA can re-upload them without running into copyright issues. Please, do not further remove files uploaded by NanoBCA. We need those file to complete the article. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NanoBCA (talk • contribs)

@NanoBCA: All files you uploaded need a permission. Please note that this permission should include use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Please do not recreate files which were deleted. Once the permission is received, the files can be undeleted. Please see also Commons:Guidance for paid editors, which might be useful to you. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,

This picture: Bella Ratchinskaia , on Kirov stage, made my father for many - many years, as my mother danced on Kirov stage. I have this picture at home, I scanned it and put it here and also on facebook. Why you deleted it????? I would like to put this picture on Bella Ratchinskaia voice (profile) maybe you can help me? And also other pictures of Bella Ratchinskaia shared on Commons, this pictures are my own, I made it !!!! You can see all of this pictures also on facebook, if you see Bella Ratchinskaia profile.

Thank you and hope on your reasonable response. Daria Rachinskaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia&nous (talk • contribs)

@Aletheia&nous: Hi,

Our policy requires that if a picture was previously published, we need a formal permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,

You mean my father permission? My father died when I was 18 years old, I'm 34 now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia&nous (talk • contribs)

@Aletheia&nous: Then you are the copyright holder. Please add these details in the permission mail. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the original uploader, so I'm not sure I'm the person to add an "Information" template to that file. If I did, I would just put {{Own}} in the source field. If there's a significant problem with {{Blason-fr-en-it}}, it should probably be dealt with centrally... AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Perhelion has started a process to replace Template:Blason-fr-en-it with Template:COAInformation, something which has been discussed off and on since 2007, it seems, but never went through. AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann,

I've just discovered that you have deleted the file, " File:Computer Business Solutions (CBS).jpg" for Copyright violation. This file was the logo for Computer Business Solutions, which is a local company I created a wiki for. They do not have creactive commons licenses.Can you please help me? How can I upload their logo without violating Copyright laws?

Thanks in advance, Evergree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evergreennoto (talk • contribs)

@Evergreennoto: Hi,

We required a permission for logos like this one. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. The file can be undeleted after the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

In your voting here you voted 2* three times and 1* once. You can only give each value star rating one time: 3*, 2*, 1*. You can award 0* as many times as you like. Please can you amend your vote. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Colin: Oops... Ok, corrected. I will remember! Thanks for your message. Yann (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

I want to ask why the photo was deleted?, this photograph is from the official web page in the CV area, to use it when is necessary, they do not mention the author or any detail.

This is the web page to compare it.

http://www.inakietxepare.com/prensa/docs.html

See you.

That's the problem. Any images previously published needs a permission. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add request back to wikimedia commons portrait Cándido Pérez Palma File: Candido_Pérez_Palma.jpg as the photographic portrait was made by me (user) and I also have the permission of Cándido Pérez Palma portrayed add the repository to allow for free use and distribution. When it was marked for deletion were added licenses required for it. Sorry I warned before the librarian to withdraw the request for deletion. I apologize for my English. Thanks.

--Iperezmoro (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Não estou entender esta sua reacção já que nomeadamente as fotografias constantes do Paço de Lanheses e Pelourinho da feira foram tiradas por mim próprio, no local e com uma minha câmara, ainda por cima numa casa que me pertence e à minha família há séculos, assim como no caso da Helena Osório comecei logo por referir que tinha sido retirado da internet e onde. Lourencoalmada (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Lourencoalmada: * Paço e Pelourinho: Já que essas fotos também aparecem em booking.com, pf. confirmar autenticidade via COM:OTRS

• Helena Osório: Pois, foi retirado da internet e por isso apagado do Commons, que é um repositório de material confirmadamente livre de encargos com direitos de autor. Será necessário determinar a situação legal dessa imagem e eventualmente proceder ao seu licenciamento.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 13:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann,

thanks a lot for the message about (File:שלונסקי תמונה 3.jpg) on the page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Lifshits. I found it on the hebrew wikipedia:

"Ha Ya 1938" מאת יעל ויילר ישראל - צילמתי. דרך ויקיפדיה - https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Ha_Ya_1938.jpg#mediaviewer/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Ha_Ya_1938.jpg

Most probably I cited it wrong. Do you know how I could use it? Or isn't it possible to use pictures from the hebrew wikipedia on the german version?

Best,

Sasso Hüßelmann

@Sasso Hüßelmann: Hi,

On the Hebrew WP, this file has a license, but I don't know Hebrew, so I can't say if it is OK for Commons. As you didn't add a license when uploading it to Commons, it was deleted. May be ask one of the admins who knows Hebrew. @Hanay: or @Matanya: ? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Uploaded as File:Ha Ya 1938.jpg. matanya • talk 19:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonsoir
Veuillez débloquer mon compte pour pouvoir continuer mes publication. Hadrajsaid 41.140.101.50 21:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please can you review your closes at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vohra_family.JPG and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bhagwati_Charan_Vohra.jpg.

{{PD-India}} says " Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published" (my emphasis). What am I missing? These things have been routinely deleted when nominated in the past. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Sitush: Please read again. It also says "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation." This is the same as old English law, and probably all English colonies. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that is ambiguous. And you are the first person who has treated the ambiguity in the "keep" sense. Is there any way that we can get this clarified, bearing in mind that if the copyright law pre-dates 2008 then the ambiguity is even greater? - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Sitush: No, this is clear. FYI, I have a confirmation from a professional lawyer. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but I really do not see the clarity. Something enters PD 60 years after first publication but 50 years after creation? If nothing else, that seems back to front because it can't be published before it is created. The only way that the ambiguity might be resolved is if the word "Anonymous" is intended to apply to all of the objects in the sentence but that, too, is ambiguous.

The law changed in 1957, but it is not retroactive. The old law still applies for images created before that date. So images created before 1957 are in the public domain even if unpublished, but images created after 1957 come into the public domain only 60 years after publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911." bit! That sentence is clear, even if the preceding stuff isn't ;) Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

While I'm here, have you any idea what licenses I should use if I upload this from the National Portrait Gallery? I'm aware of {{SourceNPGLondon}}, which I would use for source, and that there is a category for George Charles Beresford but an awful lot of the images in that category don't have a US license and it looks like the UK licenses have changed fairly recently. Thanks, and sorry for mithering you! - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I am happy to help. ;o) {{PD-old-70-1923}} applies. The photographer (George Charles Beresford) died in 1938. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

... and here we go again :( I've often wondered about the US license for UK works and {{PD-old-70-1923}} is an example of the issue. We don't know if the image was ever published or copyrighted in the US, let alone before 1923. This is a very common situation in my (limited) experience here. In this specific case, the image was not available online last year - there was just a placeholder for it - and it is taken directly from a glass negative. 1923 isn't an issue but do we just assume that such things were published/copyrighted in the US when originating from the UK or indeed anywhere outside the US? I think that is what I've mostly been doing with my uploads. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think we most assume that it was published when created. The publication criteria was very low at that time. Even selling a few copies is enough to constitute publication. And unpublished works are in the public domain 70 years after the death of the author anyway. See Commons:Hirtle chart. There was a long debate about a picture of Einstein with a similar situation. It appears it could be in the public domain in the USA for several unreleated reasons, and it was kept. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good stuff, thanks. I've just uploaded the image linked above and added the deathyear parameter to the license. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the file is under UK freedom of panorama. It is the work of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in London Film Museum. See -> Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom. Gniewko, syn rybaka (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done Yann (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, Thanks. Be more carefull next time, please. UK FOP is more broader then FOPs in others countries. Regards Gniewko, syn rybaka (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, I'm sorry to be a nuisance about this. You deleted the above file. It has been suggested I should ask you, as an admin, if you are able to see if the image was at an earlier stage approved by FlickreviewR and the subsequent adventures (discussed here and here) have just obscured that fact. Can you see if that is so (suggested by WW2censor) and then, if it is so, would you please re-instate the image and its approval. Please tell me if I can find info to help you or assist in any other way. Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Eddaido: Hi,

The source ([2]) says "(c) All rights reserved", so we need a permission. Or you could ask the owner to change the license on Flickr. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's true. I can understand its a lot of correspondence for you to wade through and comprehend. You realise that twice its been checked and found to be OK? Then something strange has happened to revert FlickreviewR's decision.

I cannot ask the owner of the copyright to change it Again because it is a confusion entirely at the Commons end and his last email to me said that change was the last time he would do it. To tell the truth I won't miss that image but I would miss the derivative that depends on it. Still, if we have a deadlock I guess it has to go. Dear oh dear, Eddaido (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it was never positively reviewed. I think if the owner doesn't want to give a free license, we can't do much. Beside, it is easily replaceable. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess you mean there is now no record (other than that Flickr2Commons uploaded it) of it being positively reviewed, establishing that was why I wrote to you.

The licence muddle was by Commons. The owner said the second time of flipping the licence would be his last. If you think the image is easily replaceable please tell me how I do that. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Best image uploaded? Hi again Yann. Somewhere in my distressed and puzzled reading of the last few days I found a note that someone or something goes back to Flickr to see if the best possible image has been uploaded. Is this what is going wrong? There is a delay between confirmation that the licence was correct and - perhaps some days later - someone or something going back to Flickr and finding the licence now re-set to All rights reserved? Then reverting the previous approval in Commons!

If this is the cause of my problem why can I not be told of it? Eddaido (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,

you deleted our file. I need to upload it again. I already got the permission from the author. He sent it to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org on the 4.August 2014. Wikipedia makes it honestly super hard to upload our own pictures. I just have to do my job, but it is very confusing. Mybe you can help me? How can I upload the file again??????

Greetings Oskar Matzerath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskar Matzerath (talk • contribs)

@Oskar Matzerath: Hi,

Please do not reupload it. It will be undeleted when the permission is processed. We are all volunteers, and overbooked, so it can take some time. May be you could contact one of the OTRS volunteers speaking German? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

HI,

honestly why you make this so hard? I posted the permissions on the upload site. Where is the problem?? I cannot understand the difficulties! There is nothing wrong with my files. Why I cannot just post them, so my boss is satisfied? What do I have to wait for? With all the linking it is very confusing, writing the right things in the file description. I'm afraid, that I cannot do it right at all ever! There are no german members by the way. But thanks for the qick reply!

Sincerly Oskar Matzerath (talk)

I'm sorry but I haven't understand why the pictures are deleted ... I'll explain the problem: I almost downloaded the images from the official site and I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons absolutely whitout stealth action ...Simply I would understand if I can't do this. So how can I do? Thank you very much and sorry disorder. 08:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour Yann.

Je viens de voir cette DR et je m'en étonne. Il y a déjà quelques temps, j'avais demandé sur le Bistrot si la suppression de la quasi-totalité des fichiers de la Category:Royal de Luxe serait pertinente et tu m'a répondu "Donc les photos ne peuvent être publiées sur Commons, a moins que l’élément soit de minimis par rapport à l'ensemble de la photo". Je suis donc étonné par le motif (DW of a work of art. Not permanently installed.) de ta DR sur cette seule image et pas les 5 autres de la catégorie ou 95% de la catégorie mère. C'est compliqué, ça me dépasse...

Si tu as une explication pas trop compliquée à comprendre, je suis preneur  . Merci. --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 20:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Llann Wé²: Bonjour,

Je suis tombé sur cette image par hasard, je n'ai pas vérifié les autres dans la même catégorie. Ici c'est limite, mais la poupée géante est quand l'élément principal de l'image. Cette image est certainement OK par contre. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merci pour ta réponse. En te voyant évoquer le de minimis, je me suis douté que cette image peut effectivement rester, contrairement aux autres de la catégorie. Y a-t-il des pays où ça passe ? C'est surtout ça que j'aimerais savoir, si ça me prend de vouloir faire un peu de ménage...

Llann Wé²: Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait une grosse différence d'interprétation entre les pays à ce sujet. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Je verrai bien la tournure de cette DR et aviserai mais, en ce moment, je n'ai pas le temps. Merci encore. --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 01:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yann, a message for you at File:Bella Ratchinskaia.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I answered on the user talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yann, I'm leaving this hear because you commented on user_talk:Kenny Boyle's talk page, warning them about copyright violations. The backstory is that this is a sock of a reasonably prolific sockmaster on the English wikipedia, TekkenJinKazama. They were indeffed there earlier this year for copyright violations. As it turned out, they had an earlier account Malqrrishh (talk · contribs) that had multiple blocks on en in 2010 for copyright violations and has been indeffed here for socking (and lots of copyright vio warnings on their talk page). After finding this latest sock had uploaded several files on commons, mostly movie posters and promo shots, I did some checking on some of their other accounts. I found several other files that are almost certainly copyright violations where Jin simply claims the work as their own. An example is File:Danny Chan Kwok Kwan.jpg, uploaded by Pappu Guptah (talk · contribs) who has been blocked on en as a Jin sock. Bluntly, there's no way that's not been done by a professional. I'm going to start going through all of Jin's accounts that I know of, looking for files they've uploaded here that might be problematic. What's the best way for me to handle any that I find? Thanks, and sorry for the trouble getting exported over here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, you don’t like my filenames? (No, I am not joking. This is serious.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tuválkin: It is much more meaningful like this, and actually this is actually the description at the source. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Although it is indeed the original title (which is, by the way, agrammatical and misspelled Maltese), along with «no description yet» — it however is not more meaningful, not in the way a filename is supposed to be: It actually could be the filename of any of the photos in the same topic category, while filenames should be, as a paramout trait, unique. As an admin, you should know this.

As an admin, you should know that contributors such as me, who mostly upload non-own works, put a lot of effort in tedious tasks, making sure all information is accurately copied from the sources, and later checked again for categorization, etc. Almost the only venue for some creativity is the filename — that’s where I chose to put some whim, when I can.

As an admin, you should know that there are millions of filenames in Commons that are equally not “meaningful” but, instead of being the result of individual creativity, they are just serial numbers or UUIDs blindly copied from the original source, stripped of any significance — do you routinely “correct” those, too? As an admin, you are responsible for either mobilize or discourage regular users like me. It is your choice.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tuválkin: Hi,

Sorry, if you are not happy with my rename(s), but I think I am right. The purpose of the name is to describe accurately the document. And yes, I routinely rename files when they are misnamed. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know where you stand on that matter. Want me to suggest some actually misnamed files or you will keep focusing on mine? -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tuválkin: I don't focus on "your" files. I rename them when I come accross them, this time when reviewing files you uploaded from Fotopedia. Actually, if you are not happy, I may stop reviewing these files. There are enough work here to keep me busy. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You cannot be serious: I’m typing into Excel information from the source site, doing some basic fact-checking, selecting a filename (much simpler now, if drier, thanks to you, as I leave unchanged stuff like 01-Stade Olympique (6).jpg instead of, say Stade Olympique Montréal (plafond) 2009.jpg), then every 30-40 images pasting the generated wiki-code into Vicuña for upload. That’s hard work and yet it will allow only a minuscule bit of what’s usable in Fotopedia to be added to Commons. Meanwhile you are just making sure I don’t mess up about licenses, using your admin powers. And now you’re “threatening” me you wont review the licensing of these uploads (in time before Fotopedia shuts down, the 10th) because I dared to question your renaming pinciples?! That’s not what I expected from you (although it is “fastly” dropping to the level of hamfisted incivility many admins display)… -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I cannot let this pass unchecked. You renamed a file uploaded by someone else against the relevant policy: You deemed English better suited than Portuguese to label a file, you removed descriptional information (the number of items), you introduced conjectural information (are they both really eating, or merely holding?), and you introduced a problematic statement (are they really Thai?, and/or: do Thai boys need a special ethnic epithet, unlike “regular” boys?). My file name was perfectly good but you had to go against policy to make it «a bit better». I hope you have a better answer this time than to threaten to stop reviewing the licenses. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tuválkin: Are you joking? Yann (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Tuválkin, but you have a poor understanding of what is a good or bad name. I didn't write that out of my hat, I just copied the description at the source (Thai) and described what the image is sbout. We are not here to be creative about file names. You need separating words if you want a search engine to use them. I don't understand why you want to write it in Portuguese, which is completely irrelevant in this context. The author is not from a Portuguese speaking country, and Portuguese is not spoken in Thailand, therefore a Portuguese name is not appropriate for this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The uploader choses a filename and any renaming of it should follow this strict policy: If you don’t like my filenames but there’s no grounds for renaming based on that policy, back off. That’s what I do for filenames I don’t like. Period.

Since you ask, I can say that I chose Portuguese for this filename (and other languages for other filenames) as a way to create “unusual” / “unexpected” filenames that would less likely be already existing in Commons. That’s one of the ways I try to achieve unique, compact, meaningful filenames with (instead of adding or keeping arbitrary numerals). Yet you talk ex cathedra about my putative «poor understanding» of what a filaname is while revealing your own («search engine to use», really?).

Also problematic is that you confirm and affirm that English is better (more «appropriate») than Portuguese for generic filenames (for what’s worth, there were Portuguese merchants operating in Thailand 200 years before the first English-speaking sailor arrived there, so you’re wrong about this one, even if your basic argument was right). This is not so, per policy: any language is suitable for any filename. (E.g., few months back I had the pleasure of categorizing a set of excellent photos of Lisbon monuments and sights, all filenamed in Russian — I saw no reason to rename them into Portuguese or English, obviously.)

These two specific cases (adding spaces and translation to another language) are explicitly covered in our renaming policy as examples of what should not be done. You’re going against policy and there’s no other way about it.

Your incredibly callous reaction to my complaint (which you seem to have followed up), that you would stop confirming the licenses of these uploads from Fotopedia on a critical deadline, is also tottally unacceptable for an admin. I am truely speechless. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tuválkin: Sorry to disagree, but using Portuguese for Thai related pictures, or Russian for images of Portugal, just because you fancy it, is not appropriate, and I will rename such files, whether you like it or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

As you well know, that goes grossly against policy, both concerning file moving/renaming and concerning giving to English more proeminence than the strictly necessary minimum for communication. Any such rename you undertake will be undone on the spot and that action of yours against established policy will be dully reported. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tuválkin: Please do not use the policy to confuse different issues. These are not your files. You are allowed to copy them to Commons because of the license. If you go to Thailand, you take pictures, and you upload them to Commons, you can choose how you name them (within some reasonable bondary regarding the meaning). It is both a matter of politeness and respect for the author, and accuracy for people looking for such files to give proper names. Just copy the name and/or the description from the source, please do not try to be creative. And please note that a name like "2ThaiBoysEatingIcecream" is seen by search engines as just one meaningless words, not 4 words with a number. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

What should we do with the author/copyright holder metadata on these pictures? I'm just worried in case they're a media timebomb. George8211 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@George8211: What are you worrying exactly about? US law is very clear about this case. There isn't anything that Commons cannot handle about this issue. You should worry about real issues, not this buzz from a guy who looks for more money. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks--wise words. George8211 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann, having read some of the media reports concerning this image, I was intrigued and read through the deletion debates. I was shocked to read some of your own comments, which seem to show scant regard for other people's opinions, calling them 'apprentice laywers' and 'padawan-laywers', and as you just did above in your reply to George8211, actually libel David Slater as 'a guy who looks for more money.' I am suspicious of your true motives in this particular case, and of your ability to fairly adjudicate this deletion discussion, if you are going to be so dismissive of other contributors' views, and of one of the interested parties in the dispute who is not allowed to represent themselves here on Wikipedia. I am making an Appeal request (as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:DEL), asking you to reconsider your decision on the grounds I have set out, which I feel require you to recuse yourself from the discussion and allow other administrators to chair --Ethdhelwen (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann. I'm afraid I cannot see a reason to fully protect File talk:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg. The image page itself, which has seen far more problematic edits in the last hours, is only semi-protected, so I'd say that should suffice for the talk page too, although even that seems a bit extreme for exactly one IP comment you've removed from that talk page. Could you perhaps reconsider your decision? darkweasel94 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann. Please consider unprotecting the page File_talk:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg also. This is a talk page and the reason you give is "unproductive rant", but I can see more rational discussion than rant, and very interesting discussion too. Now it is impossible to respond to points made. Meerta (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry guys, but this is all a monkey business. ;o) We have enough of silly comments on the DR and the talk pages by people who have no understanding of copyright law. Commons is not a forum for such people. You should worry about real issues, not about this buzz by a greedy photographer, who called us Nazi and Communists (at the same time, sic). There is only one reason he makes such a fuss about Commons hosting these images: money! money! money! Regards, Yann (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It may seem like a small issue but it's Wikipedia, a powerful organisation, which surely wants to keep in line with the law and present a reputable image deciding off its own bat what's in copyright or not. This sets a bad precedent and could discourage photographers from getting images in unusual ways. I don't think what he called whoever should come into it. I don't think a lot of people contributing to the discussion understand the ramifications of copyright law in every relevant country. I posted a link on the page about that. I'll take this to the next stage in the process. People should be allowed to discuss freely. Meerta (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Romain Rolland au balcon, Meurisse, 1914.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Christoph Braun (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi yann, the file you have deleted is the pic of indian politician. The photograph itself was taken from the website of the concerned politician. Its public pic. There is no copyright involved. If u want I can add more info in file. please again host the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeevsingh007 (talk • contribs)

@Rajeevsingh007: Hi,

All documents have a copyright by default. Therefore you are not allowed to upload them here unless you have a permission from the photographer. If you have a permission, see the procedure at CO:OTRS for sending it. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Yann:

CO:OTRS this page is in french. give the link to english page. Rajeevsingh007 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Rajeevsingh007: Sorry, one letter missing. ;o) Here COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann, Thank you for your messages about my copyright violations of the uploaded pictures. Sorry did not respond sooner since I just noticed the messages. Honestly I really didn't think it would be a problem for me to upload these pictures to Wikimedia Commons since these pictures were taken by friends of our group and it is solely for supporting the same subject we created in Wikipedia. But I appreciate your friendly reminder and won't do anything until I get your response. Now my concern is if I can be a representative to upload some other pictures taken by my friends with their permission. What kind of proof do you need from me to allow my uploaded pictures stay here safe and sound? Please keep me updated at your convenience. Thanks!

Warm regards, 2004novel, 08/15/2014 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bonsoir Yann, Je ne comprends pas la suppression de la photo représentant Bernard Werber. Il me semble qu’à l’époque de son versement, une autorisation en bonne et due forme avait été envoyée par le photographe Michel Restany à l'équipe OTRS.  : Visiblement, il y a un souci…. Aurais-tu la gentillesse de voir de quoi il en retourne et corriger le tir le cas échéant ?

Merci et cordialement, --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Indian Independence Day at the Red Fort.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Harshanh (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, I am asking you for an opinion about File:Montevideo, MONUMENTO ALLA INDIPENDENZA-restored.png, I am trying to restore it and I like to know your opinion. Regards!!! --Ezarateesteban 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann, Is it possible to eliminate this page [3] completely ? I don't think someone will still edit it. Thanks in any case. Hubert DENIES (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done Yann (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick response, but that page is still there. If complete removal is not possible, please let me know. Then so be it. Much thanks. Hubert DENIES (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Hubert DENIES: That page was deleted. You probably need to clear your cache. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for this information. Hubert DENIES (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, I'm in the copyright minefield again. It is quite common for British institutions to claim copyright on things that seem unlikely to be their own work. Manchester City Council do it for sketches of buildings that were drawn as far back as the 1700s but right now I'm interested in the Commons/WMF view regarding their claim for this photo from 1900. I've no idea when the photographer died but it is an unusual name and I may be able to find a record via FindMyPast/Ancestry.com etc - I'll check that if there is any chance at all that the image would be uploadable here. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Robert Andrew Pattreioux of Manchester, b. 1863 - d. 1938. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Sitush: The photographer died more than 70 years ago, so fine. Please note if the author is unknown, the copyright is counted from the date of creation. See {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you want me to do. I work for the team and am trying to improve out Wikipedia page. These are photos taken by out team photographers, which I have credited, and photos taken by myself. How are photos of our team's players not useable by we, the team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnome8910 (talk • contribs)

@Gnome8910: Hi,

As your images have been published outside Commons before and/or you are not the photographer, we need a formal written permission. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Please do not hesitate to ask if you need more help. Images will be undeleted after the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What actually I did wrong by licensing File:RTL7-2.jpg? I set up that almost same as File:RTL7-1.jpg. LolmenX 19:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@LolmenX: Hi,

This is a derivative work, and too complex to meet {{PD-textlogo}}. And you didn't provide a license. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann. The image i uploaded needed a review File:Mumbai125km3D. Though i uploaded in Flickr today itself but still my work is pending. Thanks I am KVB | talk 14:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mean the copyrighted movie poster that you (and the many other socks of TekkenJinKazama) have been trying to upload contrary to the purpose of commons? The ones where you have been lying about the source and OTRS? That one? Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Karanvir Bohra: Also, would you care to explain this edit, where you marked that image as reviewed but used the name of someone else, someone who is flagged as an image reviewer? Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Taken care off. Blocked him and his uploads are gone. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann. I noticed you had a problem deleting this file because of a backend error. The solution to these problem files is to overwrite the file with a junk file. Once this is done, you can delete the file. Have a look at the file history of this one to see what I did. You can download and use my little junk file in future cases if you want. ;) INeverCry 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Yann.--William Edward Marvolo Reddle (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann, I have uploaded these files on the instructions of Ambassador Arshad Sami Khan's eldest son Mr. Adnan Sami & so I have his instructions hence permission to use the images uploaded. Mr. Adnan Sami is the source who has inherited them from his late father Ambassador Arshad Sami Khan's personal family collections. You may feel free to contact him on his 'verified' Facebook inbox under "ADNAN SAMI" or on email id: <hidden enail> for any clarifications. Thank you. Peter Downings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Downings (talk • contribs)

Answered here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Peter Downings. Yann (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann：

I uploaded a picture of Xunfenggang Deport what it is from the official website of Guangzhou Metro at noon(UTC+8), but you deleted it in the evening(17:35,UTC+8)and said "it has benn marked as a possible copyright violation".

I got this peice of news at about 22:00(UTC+8).Then I looked up some laws of the copyright of pictures in news.

Yes, the picture what I uploaded at noon is a copyright violation picture. Now, I want to ask some questions about the pictures' copuright.

First,must I upload the pictures what made by myself?

Sencond, if I want to use a picture from Wikipedia in Wikipedia, what should I do?

That's all. Thank you! GZMTR Line6 22:30 7 September,2014 (UTC+8)

@GZMTR Line6: Hi,

Yes, you need a permission before uploading pictures made by others, including news agencies. So please only upload images made by yourself unless you have a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

Thanks for pointing out the copyright violations. I was under the impression that any image available on net is not a copyright violation. Anyways, please help with what I should do. I have made both the pages on behalf of Shahrina Ramphaul and as per her instructions. The photos I put are photos from her personal portfolio and she has full authority use it. She herself has given me the photos to be used on the two pages. Now please suggest how do I demonstrate the following two facts: 1) That Shahrina is the authorized holder of these images 2) That she has permitted me to use the images on these pages If possible, please guide me on the step by step procedure as well.

Thanks, Deb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb 2511 (talk • contribs)

@Deb 2511: Hi,

Please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Tell me if you need more help. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:European Central Bank.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've requested to delete all the images that are posted here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hasan Kheireddine. I've posted a reply, and I'll reiterate it here.

All images obtained here, have been originally obtained from the Official Lebanese Army Website (Which belongs to the Ministry of Defence) ^[1] The Lebanese Army reserves the rights to it's content, however permission is not required for educational purposes, or private use (This includes news . See Lebanese Copyright Law, Chapter VI. ^[2] Furthermore, the copyright license posted on the Lebanese Army website has expired in 2013.

I understand if I've made a procedural mistake. If this is the case, kindly postpone deletion and help me file the appropriate information. Thanks, Hasan Kheireddine (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. ↑ http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/en/ranks_orders/badges/?gallery=3#.VA1u72SSw5Q
2. ↑ http://www.economy.gov.lb/public/uploads/files/4600_3516_9524.pdf

Kindly remove your reversal of my edits as my edits remove only photos incorrectly nominated for deletion. The focus of the PD Malaysia infobox is wrong. Public domain applies to the photos and the license granted is appropriate according to Act 20332 13A.

(1) It shall not be an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work or a typeface—

(a) to make an article to the design, or to copy or to reproduce an article made to the design; or

(b) to issue to the public, or include in a film, broadcast or cable programme service, anything the making of which was, by virtue of paragraph (a), not an infringement of that copyright.

(2) In this section—“design” means the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article, other than surface decoration; and “design document” means any record of a design, whether in the form of a drawing, a written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer or otherwise.

This means that photos taken by the government that represent a design are not subject to copyright laws. This constitutes an equivalent of a public domain and therefore the photos should not be listed for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junchuann (talk • contribs)

@Junchuann: Hi,

1. You do not need to write here. Write in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Junchuann‎ instead.

2. It is quite clear that {{PD-Malaysia}} does not apply to these images. It says: Works by the government, governmental organisations and international organisations are subject to copyright for 50 years after publication. Only texts of laws, judicial opinions, and government reports are exempted. These are not designs, they are pictures of military equipment.

3. Do not remove warnings from file pages. They will be removed by the admin closing the DR (not me).

4. You still need to add a link to the source of your images. Ex.: the source of File:06 Darussalam of RBN.JPG is probably [4].

Regards, Yann (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to review the file deletions i had proposed, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Egypt, 600 B.C..png. for some reason, other editors had kept them, which doesnt make sense considering the content.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Kindly explain why you have deleted my entire "collection" despite the fact that I have stated that I have permission for most of the photos and the fact that I have told all copyright holders to send an email to COM:OTRS. Most copyright holders have told me that they have sent an email to COM:OTRS and I have reflected that to you. Also, you have ignored my argument that the copyright laws of Malaysia allow for many of the photos to be used without any proper counter-argument or reason to prove otherwise. Another point is that many photos were proven to be released by the US government so unless you are saying that the US public domain is bullshit, I don't see why you should be agreeing with the user FMDS4 that "Entire "collection" appears to be unfree". I strongly request that you revert the deletion of the photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junchuann (talk • contribs) (related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Junchuann‎)

@Junchuann: Hi,

First, I didn't delete the images, Denniss did.

While pictures from the US military may be free, you did not provide a source. May be ask Denniss to restore these.

For other pictures, you didn't provide neither a source or permission. If you have such a permission, please send it using the procedure at COM:OTRS.

Regards, Yann (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I apologize for blaming the deletion on you wrongly. I would like to ask you to help me contact Denniss and explain my argument about the copyright laws of malaysia and that the copyright holders have told me that they have sent emails to COM:OTRS, because my ability to use wikipedia's talk section is limited. Also, I do not remember not stating the source of the US photos, however it is impossible to check now that they are deleted.

Hi,

I will be away for 2 weeks.

Bonjour,

Je serais absent pour 2 semaines. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I posted this to your en-WP talk page in error, sorry.

The following images appear in the slideshow starting here. The comments on the pages suggest that the photos were published around about the same time as they were uploaded to Commons by Pranav21391:

• File:Jan_Lokpal_demand_1.jpg
• File:Jan lokpal 4.jpg
• File:Jan lokpal 3.jpg
• File:Jan Lokpal protests 2.jpg

At the news website, they are all attributed to "AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool". There are other photos in the slideshow that are attributed to other photographers and which have not been uploaded by Pranav21391. I've no idea if that user might be Maqbool, nor am I 100% sure how agency copyright works.

Photos uploaded shortly before this set contained EXIF data, eg: File:ISWK-Oman.jpg, but were taken several years before uploading. They are not great quality, which would be surprising for a professional photographer. As would the absence of EXIF data for the set listed above. Photos uploaded subsequent to the set all come from Flickr.

Any idea of the best way to deal with this? Do they need email verification? Are they automatically unacceptable because of the AP tag? Are they obviously copyvios? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you delete this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2014_Nysa,_zesp%C3%B3%C5%82_ko%C5%9Bci%C3%B3%C5%82a_%C5%9Bw._Jakuba_Starszego,_witra%C5%BC_10.JPG The author has agreed to this. Earlier you kept this image because the resolution was different, but now the author has changed the resolution on the other image, and now both images are exactly the same. So, there is no reason to exist a duplicate image like this.

The same situation is here, with other image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2014_Kapliczka_w_Wolanach_01.jpg

--Halavar (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann, I had uploaded these files on the instructions of Ambassador Arshad Sami Khan's eldest son Mr. Adnan Sami & so I have his instructions hence permission to use the images uploaded. Mr. Adnan Sami is the source who has inherited them from his father Ambassador's personal family collections. You may contact Mr. Adnan Sami directly on his "verified" Facebook page entitled ADNAN SAMI or on his email id: <email> for any clarifications.Thank you. Peter Downings 04:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have the photo in my office and had lent it to a group wanting to honor him so I then used it in the article about him. He died several years ago. I work with his family. It was a photo we had used in different ways at services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Kmccook: Hi,

The author is unknown, and you didn't add a license, that's why it was deleted. If you have the permission to upload this under a free license, please send it to COM:OTRS, and then the image can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann. Take a look at the 3 DRs in Commons:Deletion requests/2014/08/28. I deleted and undeleted them, and I can now see the images, though the thumbs are still not displaying. @Stefan4: @Bharadwajdayala: may also want to have a look again. INeverCry 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The images displayed properly when I converted the "no permission" tag into a deletion discussion, but they didn't display when Yann commented in the deletion request. Now I can apparently see them again. I'm not sure what is going on here. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Basically I did a delete/restore to get around a bug that hasn't been dealt with. If the images should be kept, they can be kept, if not, they can be deleted. I just want to clear the August DR backlog, and these 3 images are the last ones left. INeverCry 21:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Yann. Do you mind explaining how File:Большой клитор.jpg (which was an image of an enlarged clitoris due to clitoromegaly) was a copyright violation? Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Flyer22: Hi,

It seems this was copied from [5]. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. And sorry for the late reply. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,

I noticed you've checked some of the images I uploaded for violation of copyrights. I may made something wrong because in truth I'm the owner of these pictures.

Can I re-upload these images and sign with copyright tags?

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixer Kid (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Fixer Kid: Hi,

As these images were copied from the Internet (hybridcircle.org and YouTube), you need a permission before uploading them here. Please send it following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey Yann, have you ever tought about trying to help, instead of complying? Anyway, all I see is people complying about user and just a few trying to help. Im quite new to Commons and Im having some problems on getting the way license is done. Still, IM TRYING! Check the website of the pic and you going to see my name there. Its easy to comply and not verify stuff to help, right? Again, anyway... Im just learning all the stuff for licenses. It will be on my website very soon. Once more, sorry for making the world worst... as you make it look... Have a nice day!

Dear Yann,

Thank you for your message about my copyright violation. I had no idea and I'm very sorry. Is there any way to take the pictures back or do something about it? I've always added the correct source and author to the information of the uploaded files.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do.

Regards, --Mr. Bunker (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mr. Bunker: Hi,

If you have a permission for uploading these images, please send it following the procedure at COM:OTRS, then they can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have noted with distress that you have deleted an image taken by me claiming it to be a derivative work which it is clearly not. Once again, i am repeating what i have said before, it is an original image taken by me on a phone that was owned by me at that time. Request you to undo your deletion immediately.

Superfast1111 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Superfast1111: Hi,

Please read COM:DW. Greetings from Ahmedabad. ;oD Yann (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have read that page before but still believe that you have acted in haste and error. So pls undo your deletion. Superfast1111 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please read it again. I have confirmation by 2 other people that I am right. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have but your decision still does not make sense to me. Could you be more specific as to which sections you believe i have fallen foul of?? Superfast1111 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yours is a picture of an advertising, which is covered by copyright. It is therefore a derivative work of the advertising, and the rights of the advertising creator affects the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the author's of the advertising consent. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Good grief Yann why did you not tell me the ad in the image was the problem rather than sending me on a wild goose policy chase. Anyway just to clarify, during that time the entire train was hired by Airtel and thus sporting their name. Not to worry i have blacked out the name.Superfast1111 (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, your interpretation of FoP seems to be really original. According to it, the mere fact of public display in a public place makes a work free, regardless of who decided to display it. I've asked for opinions in here. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 19:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Discasto: Hi,

That's the whole point of the FoP exception. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann,

Les images, de la série télévisée Taxi (1978), supprimées par vos soins provenaient d'une recherche Google Image afin d'agrémenter la page wikipédia concernée. Je ne pourrais dire si ces images sont encore sous le coup d'un copyright en France ou aux États-Unis, mais la plupart provenant de screenshots télé effectués, je suppose, en toute légalité, et donc libres de droit, sachant que la page wikipédia anglophone de la série en utilise une identique à l'image 6 que j'avais uploadé.

Si il s'avère que les images que j'avais ajoutées à wikimedia commons sont libres de droit, est-il possible de les réinserer avec votre aide, et de les intégrer dans la page wikipédia de la série télévisée Taxi (1978).

Je vous remercie de votre aide et de votre compréhension.

Cordialement,

Éric Ersilio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericersilio (talk • contribs)

@Ericersilio: Bonjour,

Le droit d'auteur / copyright ne fonctionne pas de cette façon. Ces copies d'écran sont couvertes par le droit d'auteur comme oeuvre dérivée. Une permission du producteur et/ou du réalisateur de cette émission est nécessaire pour importer ces images sur Commons. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann, I am quite sure that proposal to delete this file is a misunderstanding and I would like to clarify it. I am the author of this picture and you can see even my name at the bottom right corner of the image. My full name is Armando Jorge de Carvalho Ferreira. Regarding the two links that you mention where this picture is also available at internet, this is quite easy to explain. One of the pages, Moinhos de Portugal, is my personal web page. The other page, Caseiro.pt, was publishing this picture after my agreement. Based on those facts I kindly ask you to remove deletion request for the image Moinho da Torre.jpg as makes really no sense to do it according the rules from Wikimedia Commons. If you need further clarifications please let me know. Thank you very much for your understanding. Best regards. Armando Jorge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge de Carvalho (talk • contribs)

@Jorge de Carvalho: Hi,

I copied your message to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moinho da Torre.jpg where it belongs. It looks fine to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann, I see that File:TIMS - Sociedade Internacional de Molinologia.gif was marked to probably be deleted due to some uncertain about the licence of it. Please be aware that this is a logo from a association that I make part, available at there internet page as well at several other web pages and documents. As a logo, I quite don't understand why should be a problem to share it in other pages. Therefore, please let me know what should I do to avoid the deletion of this file. If I need to add some additional information, please be so kind and send me a short explanation about how to do it. Thank you very much for your support. Armando Jorge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge de Carvalho (talk • contribs)

@Jorge de Carvalho: Hi,

Logos, as every other artistic creations, get a copyright. Since it was published outside of Commons before, it requires a permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure to send it (or COM:OTRS/pt in Portuguese). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann. Thank you for emailing me to let me know that I needed to add more License information on the photo I uploaded on 9/27/2014. I thought including a link to JMTURNER's photo (with his release to public domain statements) was the correct thing to do.

I have added this statement {{PD-user|jmturner}} to the code to accomplish what I believe you want me to do. Please let me know. If need be, we can delete this photo and I'll drive over and take my own picture of the Seaboard Railroad office in Raleigh.

Thanks for you help Kim Wrenn — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimWrenn (talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@KimWrenn: Hi,

Actually, this image being a duplicate of File:Raleigh-and-Gaston-Seaboard-Coast-Line-Building-20080321.jpeg, I deleted it. I moved all information to the original image. You do not need to duplicate images. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

My name is Jody Eddy and I am requesting an un-deletion of the of the two images mentioned in the subject line. I know the wrestler in the photographs personally, and am aware of the promotions he wrestled for. They are both from wrestling shows in the Atlanta area taken by fans. There is no copyright issues with the pictures, and would like information on how to allow them to be posted on the wikipedia page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesdy (talk • contribs)

@Jesdy: Hi,

There are copyright issues with these pictures, and you are not allowed to upload them here without a permission from the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Gurdhad photos

I have logged onto my account and am surprised that most of the pics i have uploaded have been deleted. Please note, most of the photos are my own work which have been deleted!

Hi Yann,

I am talking about the proposed eliminations of my shipments. The images about Pomerode and Blumenau are historical or their copyright is free. The file Maryam mirzakhani is the only image about this mathematician.

Grateful, Ma2xlon (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Jesdy: Hi,

If you are the photographer, please upload the original images with EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

You warned this user previously. I thought the uploads might be genuine, because of the recent date in the EXIF data, and I asked for clarification on the permission. These messages have been ignored and deleted images Special:ListFiles/BaoHen have been uploaded again without a reply. Should we attempt to get his attention, one more time? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, blocked for a week. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

That was not why I brought this to your attention. I thought that this might actually be inexperienced uploads by the copyright holder under a pseudonym, since the of the date in the EXIF data was too recent to have been "stolen" from the internet. Anyway, if it is, he can respond. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Serdecznie witam. Z pewną przykrością odnoszę się do upomnienia o mojej pracy w kwestii artykułów i wklejania do infoboksów stosownych fotografii. Ze szkodą dla Wikipedii muszę zaprzestać współpracy, skoro moja praca wzbudza takie kontrowersje. Dziękuję za upomnienie i powodzenia. RadLes (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I put a bunch of time into creating Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook and it detailed exactly why it was a valid template. I'm quite upset because you deleted it without so much as warning me. I received no notice until it had already been deleted. Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook The release covers commercial use. Turelio's comment is .. well, why not rangeblock all of AOL then? It's clearly a free license, legally. Sure it can be misused, so can any license. Sure, we can find examples of users who have upload content in violation of the license and every other free content license we have here. Not relevant.

Please restore it to user space so I can open a discussion and get feedback from LCA. --Elvey (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

This template is totally inappropriate for Commons, and six other people agree. Sorry. Yann (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

False. True. Doubtful, given your refusal to restore to user space because "Sorry". Thanks for your considerate response. I thought consensus evaluation required evaluating the REASONS given. My bad. </sarcasm>--Elvey (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Where do you get "six other people"? I see 3. Good job reviewing the reasons given - you didn't even COUNT THE VOTES even close to correctly. --Elvey (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Yann is busy, I’ll help you with your counting.)

1. Stefan4, at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook (as nominator) and at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook
2. De728631, at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook
3. Túrelio, at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook and at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook
4. Jkadavoor, at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook
5. Yann, at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook (as closing admin)
6. LX, at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook
7. Pierpao, at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook

That’s six people in favour of deleting {{Free--PublicOnFacebook}}; zero against. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that's an interesting way of counting too. Merci. Are you going to apologize for him too, for not following the policy which AFAICT requires notifying the uploader prior to deletion?--Elvey (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Then ask to recover it in your sandbox commons:undeletion request, maybe someone will do it, and make a request into the Commons:Village pump/Copyright for consensus.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 04:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Elvey, who are you claiming didn't follow policy when the creator of the template was notified? Anyway, the page you are talking about only applies to deletion requests created manually. The deletion request was created using MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I dispute that. In your views, what is and should be the policy regarding notifying the uploader prior to deletion, Stefan4?--Elvey (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

And if you're going to delete my template, mustn't you delete File:Bill_Nye,_Barack_Obama_and_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_selfie_2014.jpg since it's marked as NOT for commercial use? I mean, under the precautionary principle, even though I'm pretty damn sure it's PD-USGov, it says it's not for commercial use, so we must delete it; there's significant doubt about it. Hey?--Elvey (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deafening silence. In your views, what is and should be the policy regarding notifying the uploader prior to deletion, Stefan4? --Elvey (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

No page suggests that the uploader should receive a notification prior to deletion, as far as I can see. However, according to some pages, notification should be given to the original author at the time when the deletion request was opened, which, for the template discussed here, was given in this edit, where the user who created the template on Commons was notified about the deletion discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

You voted (3*) on your own picture. This isn't allowed by the rules. Could you please allocate your votes to other pictures. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done Yann (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,
I'll remove your votes to the Photo challenge Hair as the voting closed on September 30 - sorry. Perhaps we should try to make the closing a bit more eyecatching...
On the other hand, voting for Holidays has just started.
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anna reg, I asked Yann to fix his vote, as he had voted on his own image. So please keep the changes he made. I'll re-run the vote counting tonight to get the results. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay - makes sense. Then sorry for reproving you for something you were asked to do, Yann. --Anna reg (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply