User talk:Yann/archives 21

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,

Monicaua, 10 August 2014 19:56

I am trying to upload a photo for Lenore Skenazy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Skenazy She wanted the photo changed because the first one was so crappy. I removed the old one and added a nicer one. I have received notice of possible copyright violation. HEre is our twitter correspondence.

Our convo from Twitter Lenore Skenazy @FreeRangeKids · 17h I do Google myself a lot, but JUST looked at my Wikipedi a page. WHO KNOWS HOW TO CHANGE A WIKIPEDIA PHOTO?????

Direct messages › with Lenore Skenazy Lenore Skenazy Thank you!!!! 9Although i cant see the pic on my phone, anything is better than a side view of bad posture!) 1h I used your twitter photo. Bip Bippadotta You are welcome 53m Bip Bippadotta Well looks like Wikipedia is holding the photo saying it is questionable because of possible copyright violation 37m

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HEpakcU7tWcjFqVWUwMnpqaDA/edit?usp=sharing

0 HI Mate, Why were the Hindu temples directory Images deleted? We own the copy right , we created the directory, How can I ask for restoring, the images were crucial to show the locations of temples to everyone.

Hi Yann,

I got your message. I would really apreciate if you can help me with upadting Etihad's logo.

I am on leave starting tomorrow and I've read that the update I did will be remove after 7 days if I have not complied to a requirement.

Kind regards, Allan Duncan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduncan2014 (talk • contribs)

@Aduncan2014: Hi,

I added the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you just informed the uploader. Thanks. Regards. --ThePolish 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann. Would you please be able to help post a new photo challenge watchlist message? I have tried asking at MediaWiki talk:WatchlistNotice and AN with no luck so far. HelenOnline 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@HelenOnline: Hi,

  Done I hope I didn't mess up everything... Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yay, thank you very much Yann!   HelenOnline 16:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

I'm very surprised to see that you deleted my image "Logo komera-rwanda.jpg" on Komera Rwanda page. I am vice-President of Komera Rwanda no-profit Association and I'm very disappointed of your cancellation of the symbol of our Association for supposed copyright infringement. The image was drawn by myself and not stolen or copied.

I ask you, please, to explain me WHY have you deleted it.

Thank you so much for your kind reply. Best regards.

--Huye (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann,

I have seen the comment you made in my Value Image nomination Bharatha Natyam Performance. I am really sorry to say that, I am not much experienced in Commons but in Wikipedia. If you can cure the defect to promote the picture to VI, I will be very much thankful.

Hope you will help me out for this :) Bellus Delphina (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Bellus Delphina: Hi,

I fixed the scope. You need to add geocoding. You can use [1]. As I said, it is a scope with plenty of candidates, so it is a bit difficult to decide. Would it be possible to define a scope more precise (a sub-genre of Bharata Natyam? I am not an expert about that). And if she is a famous dancer, it is certainly a VI for her, but you need to create another nomination for a different scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you so much Yann. Geocoding, Malleswaram, Bangalore, India, I am really sorry, I tried but couldn't make it because am not an expert in these kind of things. Further, she is not a famous dancer but the dance form is very popular. I think, you could do something more to this. Bellus Delphina (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann, J'ai téléchargé mes propres photos et vous les avez volontairement retiré à cause des copyrigth.... je suis ecrivaine et j'ai payé cher certanes de mes photos pour les avoirs... dites moi comment faire pour les utiliser ? Je ne comprends pas votre raison d'annulation ? J'aimerais avoir une explicaton détaillée ? Cordialement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadap1952 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann. I've just noticed that some of the files you listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LubnaMR were already listed on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Randi650-2.jpg. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

In your close of Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA, you wrote, "Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. " but it looks like there's been no request / discussion in COM:UDR of a Massive restoration of deleted images 'by' the URAA. It's appropriate to open one, isn't it? User:Fastily's mass deletions have not been reversed or self-reverted. example. The request / discussion in COM:UDR would be of restoration of mass-deleted images, per User:Avenue's list, including that example of 540 files mass-deleted by Fastily, that are still all redlinks. Fastily is active; is it appropriate for the community to prod him to self-revert? --Elvey (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

• This is the current status now after a lot of discussions. Jee 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elvey,

This has been controversial, but my opinion didn't change. Were these files not moved to the local project where they were used? And there is little use for them apart from there, I think that's why no undeletion was requested until now. Yes, please ask for undeletion, especially for files which could be used on several projects or languages. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding, Yann. I'm confused by your question and usage claim. "There is little use for" what? You've been through the 540 files? Please restate/clarify what you're asking and claiming. I find it hard to believe you've been through the thousands on Avenue's list and determined that they were only used on one local project and there is little use for them apart from there. But it is those thousands that I've asked us to discuss; if you're talking about the 540, you've changed the subject, perhaps inadvertently. I have no idea what local projects they (the hundreds or the thousands) were used on, or knowledge they were copied or moved anywhere. Please inform me. --Elvey (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is this a copyright violation? It said it was from a United States Coast Guard station - hence an easy {{PD-USGov}}. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Adam Cuerden: Hi,

OK, restored and DR created instead. It had a Copyvio tag, and still have an incomplete description, no source, no author, and an inappropriate license. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Something is broken with MVR in the VIC. Could you look there? Maybe you, as an administrator know, how to fix it? --Halavar (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Halavar: Hi,

I don't see the problem. Could you please explain? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Click here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates and then click on "Skip to most valued reviews". This button doesn't work. It should redirect me to the section with MVR. But this section doesn't exist. Today I nominated two images but you cen't see the in the MVR section, but in the general section of all VI candidates. So this is a technical problem that should be fixed. --Halavar (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think I fix it. Please look now. --Halavar (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Unfortunately, I'm really not sure if "Light cannot get a copyright". Just think of Eiffel Tower etc. And what show here is clearly not just some illumination, but a projection of visible copyrightable image content. Please reconsider your decision. --A.Savin 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

As I see, someone re-opened this DR. Your ignorance of my question in spite of having been online is surely not the very nice way for a sysop; unfortunately it is not the first time I see similar complaints on your behaviour. Anyway, I kindly request you to refrain from repeated closure of this RfD. --A.Savin 11:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Eiffel Tower is a good counter-example: what is covered by copyright is not light, but a show. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

We discussed this deletion request, but you deleted it without showing a reason. I want your explanation in regards to that.--Y.haruo (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not covered by FoP in Japan. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The act that you deleted without a reason even if you rewrite it later does not disappear. I objected for reasons of three by this deletion request.

• Japan
• de minimis
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philipp Lahm lifts the 2014 FIFA World Cup.jpg

I demand the explanation of these criteria from you.--Y.haruo (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You recently deleted a photo I uploaded. May I ask why it is a copyright violation? I cited where I obtained the photo; it's a photo made public on a facebook organization page.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzhang17 (talk • contribs)

@Jzhang17: Hi,

This picture has a copyright by default, like any other picture, even if published on Facebook. You need a permission from the copyright holder (probably the photographer). Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see on the deletion policy page, that 7 days is the normal time for considering deletions and giving me time to respond. Why was I only given 2 days and further why was I not notified that I had only 2 days?

I posted the following next to your notice about deleting my files -- not sure if that was the right place to put it, so I am repeating it here.

Apparently a decision has been made in just 2 days to delete my work
According to Yann (see User talk:Rickdoble), my work is now scheduled for deletion, having been nominated for deletion only 2 days ago (nominated on October 9 and decision made to delete on October 11). Is this normal procedure? Is this fair? Do I not get more time to respond or ask others I know in Wikimedia to respond? Told that my work was out of scope, I responded this way: My work here on Wikimedia is not Out of scope. As a teacher and educator myself, or course, I respect the purpose for which Wikimedia was created. I have clearly noted how my work has an educational purpose -- with 40+ college libraries (over 240 libraries worldwide) carrying my book, Experimental Digital Photography, and also a number of courses being offered with the name Experimental Digital Photography which is what my work is about -- so my work here has an educational purpose. As I stated in my response to this deletion nomination of over 100 of my files, I put them up there for students, teachers, schools and educators to use. I clearly detailed all of this in my response to the deletion nomination. Did it get read? And if what I have said does not qualify for an educational purpose, why not?
And I will add to that note: My book, Experiment Digital Photography (*NOT* self published but instead published by one of the largest publishers of photography books), is used as a text book in some experimental digital courses. I made pictures from that book available on Wikimedia so that students who used my book could use the digital version in their work.
So again I have to ask: If what I have said does not qualify for an educational purpose, why not? I want a direct answer from you about why my work was out of scope and why it should not be reconsidered for inclusion at commons.wikimedia.com. --Rickdoble (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your scrutiny of my recent photo uploads. I can confirm that all materials used to create the "CMC Collage.jpg" and "Dmitri Trenin Print.jpg" are the property of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and are authorized for unconditional release. Please notify me if I have improperly documented their statuses or if an email verification is needed.

The files "CMC Collage"2.jpg" and "Dmitri Trenin.jpg" both use an image of Dmitri Trenin that I cannot verify as belonging to CEIP, and I concur with their deletion. Thank you for catching this oversight.

You also deleted the file "CMC Banner.jpg", which is authorized for release but not needed for any current Wiki pages. You may retain its deleted status or inform me of what information I must provide in order to re-create it.

Thanks, D.a.kelm (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@D.a.kelm: Hi,

Files owned by third parties or previously published elsewhere need a permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. The files can be restored once the permission is received. There is some backlog for permissions, so it can take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hola Yann, no entiendo el porque fueron borradas las imágenes File:Gilberto_Smith_Duquesne.jpg y File:Gilberto_Smith_Duquesne_1.png, según usted por Violación de Copyright y estas imágenes fueron tiradas y donadas por Raúl G. Smith Mesa, hijo de Gilberto Smith Duquesne para el artículo Gilberto Smith. Él la dono para que las personas pudieran copiarla y utilizarla libremente por lo cual la hace una imagen CC. Mi pregunta es: ¿El estado de Copyright lo da el creador de la fotografía o los moderadores dueños de Wikipedia?

Saludos, --Javiermartin.cu (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Javiermartin.cu: Hi,

Sorry, I don't speak Spanish. Your images were deleted because you need a permission for files made by third parties or published elsewhere previously. Please see COM:OTRS/es (in Spanish) for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Kept: All images from the US Embassy have a (c) ARR, so reason to think that this one is different" = Ceci n'est pas une pipe. LOL. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 23:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why was the File:Lumia625.jpg deleted? The file was my own work, but did it have something that violated copyright? --Msaynevirta (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Msaynevirta: Hi,

This is a derivative work of non-free software. It is therefore not allowed to upload them here. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, ok. Is it ok if I upload picture of the phone with the display shut off? --Msaynevirta (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Msaynevirta: Hi,

Yes, it should be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann,

Thank you for noting that i have no copyright to use those images. I just wanted to clarify that we do have the copyright to use the images, as Ms. Persaki and Miltos Sachtouris are my grandparents and the majority of the pictures are from our family records, some of which are unpublished and have been taken by mobile phones/cameras others that are published and are available in websites which our family initially provided.

We want to contribute with details of their work and photographic materials or documentation where ever is appropriate to make sure the public has the real pictures and accurate information. I recently asked my assistant to use my account and improve their page as the public and fans of their work often tell me that their wikipedia pages are very poorly written for such important Greek artists.

I hope you understand and that you will allow us to use those pictures.

Best regards, Gianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannalexham (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ioannalexham: Hi,

Could you please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS? The files will be restored once the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann, le scan de l'article de presse sur Raoul Merchet provient des archives des Pucistes Anciens Footballeurs. L'article date de 1963 et l'association possèdant l'original de cet article considère que c'est un contenu libre. Que devons-nous faire pour que le fichier: "1963 Article Presse Raoul Merchet.pdf" soit restauré? Merci de vos commentaires. Bien Cordialement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Paffe (talk • contribs)

@Tim Paffe: Bonjour,

Ayant été publié auparavant, une permission est nécessaire. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr (en français) pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please verify this photo, it is under CC as mentionned on the website of the artist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Achraf_Baznani.jpg Maromania (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Maromania: Hi,

I noticed that Jim W. restored it. Sorry, and thanks for your contribution. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

I would like these images deleted

• File:2013 Mercedes ML350.JPG
• File:City,Honda11.JPG

You do not need to do it but I would like these delete asap

EurovisionNim 01:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fastily#Please_delete_the_following_images too. He need some advice about the licensing terms first. Jee 02:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The deleted images have been re-uploaded. - Biruitorul (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Deleted, user warned. Thanks for your help. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. However, both images have been uploaded yet again. - Biruitorul (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Grr.   Deleted again, user blocked and reported. Thanks again. Yann (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good day Mr Yann, I wrote to you with the intention of asking you to delete all the images I've downloaded, since their only purpose were to participate into this photography contest (that has already concluded): [[2]] As I am a photography student, they are my own works of art and haven't been downloaded with an educational purpose beyond the provisions of the Contest. Waiting for your response, I thank you for your time and dedication. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice2021 (talk • contribs)

@Alice2021: Hi,

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Once you publish your images under a free license, it is irrevocable. Sorry. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your quick response Mr. Yann. I see, however, I've read the Deletion Policy, one of the options says it could be deleted if the image is own and it does not intended for educational purposes, which is my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Alice2021 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just received this message:

Hello Josedgs, You have uploaded several files that are copyright violations and you have done so despite our requests not to do so, and despite our instructions. If you do not stop uploading files that are not free, your account will be blocked. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Image casebook useful. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

And I think it's because I was uploading the files incorrectly. I have been granted permission by the developer SkyRise Miami to use their images and create their wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedgs (talk • contribs)

@Josedgs: Hi,

Please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I noticed you recently deleted File:Jokowi swearing-in, 2014.jpg and File:Pelantikan Jokowi rahmat3-770x465.jpg. As I noted in the image, they are works of Indonesian government and are in the public domain by law. Could you please explain? See Template:PD-IDGov. HaEr48 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann!,

Thanks for telling me! I will now take photos myself. And while I'm here could you tell me how to get to userboxes? (Since I see you have a few.) And also how to get the fancy name in cursive, different colors, etc.?

Thanks again,

I have had sock puppets -a. j. (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann! How do these photos look? I have posted them below. I took them myself.

• File:Mighty Maverick 1.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick2.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick3.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick4.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick5.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick6.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick7.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick8.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick9.JPG
• File:Mighty Maverick10.JPG

I have had sock puppets -a. j. (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@I have had sock puppets -a. j.: Hi,

Fine, but you need to be aware of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Models. Depending of the local law, these may or may not be accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann. See this user's user page please. He was blocked! Just thought this might be helpful, Visit Ink in the trashy2's user page! (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Today you deleted the posters for our films In Search of La Che, The Greyness of Autumn and Broken Record. We sent the necessary copyright clearance to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Tuesday 21st October. Why have they been deleted? --QuickOffTheMarkProd (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@QuickOffTheMarkProd: Hi,

Because they are copyrighted by the designer and/or the film producer. Please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Hi Yann, yes I know, I am the films producer and we have already done the procedure you just posted thats why I am conceded they have been removed. --QuickOffTheMarkProd (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@QuickOffTheMarkProd: Do you have a ticket number? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Where would I find it? --QuickOffTheMarkProd (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: I have tried contacting permissions to see what the problems but no one is responding. Is there an ongoing issue at the moment? --QuickOffTheMarkProd (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just seen this in the queue; ticket:2014102310020158, ticket:2014102110021759, ticket:2014102110023711, ticket:2014102110023739, ticket:2014102110023908. Best, --///EuroCarGT 03:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@EuroCarGT: Thanks for your input. Is there a delay with the processing of permission forms? @Yann: Does the above info now allow the posters to be returned? --QuickOffTheMarkProd (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have a somewhat silly question.

First some background:

I asked a photographer on flickr if we might use his photo. He agreed over flickrmail and later uploaded it at [3]. I assume he did not establish sufficiently on Commons about ownership. You deleted it subsequently; which is obviously right, as the flickr page still claims full copyright.

So, my question is: Is there a way to upload a photo from flickr when the photographer agrees to release it to PD/CC and use flickrmail threads as evidence of release? --Nafsadh (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Nafsadh: Hi,

Send the mail to COM:OTRS, then the image can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Nafsadh (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Taj_Mahal,_Agra-Delhi. --Hafspajen 16:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't me who first tagged it as copyvio, it was Future Perfect at Sunrise – diff ;-) I was just reverting well-known vandal Wikinger. Regards, Tufor (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have a somewhat silly question.

First some background:

I asked a photographer on flickr if we might use his photo. He agreed over flickrmail and later uploaded it at [4]. I assume he did not establish sufficiently on Commons about ownership. You deleted it subsequently; which is obviously right, as the flickr page still claims full copyright.

So, my question is: Is there a way to upload a photo from flickr when the photographer agrees to release it to PD/CC and use flickrmail threads as evidence of release? --Nafsadh (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Nafsadh: Hi,

Send the mail to COM:OTRS, then the image can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Nafsadh (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Taj_Mahal,_Agra-Delhi. --Hafspajen 16:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't me who first tagged it as copyvio, it was Future Perfect at Sunrise – diff ;-) I was just reverting well-known vandal Wikinger. Regards, Tufor (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I could not understand how you declared the file as PD-India in 1992, only 42 years after the author's death. Can you please enlighten me? Hrishikes (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right, I changed my statement. Yann (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, I am very sorry I forgot to replace the file. I just did it. Could you please delete it now. Thx--Oursana (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Sample: File:Delomys dorsalis 1 (12).png. Is this ok, now? or no? If is ok, than I will fix the others monday; I don't have time right now. cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@DenesFeri: Hi,

Yes, fine. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. DenesFeri (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Please watch this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polistes nimpha killing an Apis mellifera-20140819-1.jpg. cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

An image is nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:McCaul Loop pictures-r-352.jpg. You closed the discussion at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA and as an experienced editor I need your help in clarifying the situation at the deletion request. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you take a look at my comment here: File_talk:Sabda.png Bennylin (yes?) 08:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Bennylin: Hi,

OK, I restored these 2 files, and added a license review template. Sorry for the inconvenience. In the future, you could add a {{LicenseReview}} template, so that someone will confirm the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. I'll remember the {{LicenseReview}} template you mentioned. Regards. Bennylin (yes?) 17:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann, J'ai utilisé Open Street Map suivant vos conseils , pour remplacer les cartes google litigieuses ! dommage c'est moins bien, mais correct ??

• File:Ave neuilly.jpg
• File:Ave Neu-Maillot.jpg

@Paris17bg: J'ai modifié la licence, et ajouté une catéegorie.

Je viens aussi de télécharger plusieurs fichiers de diverses nature et j'aimerais que vous les validiez ou que vous me disiez ce que j'aurais dû faire différemment pour que ce soit correct...

• File:1760 plan Trudaine.jpg
• File:Ave neuilly.jpg
• File:Ave Neu-Maillot.jpg ‎
• File:Départ du défilé- grande armée - peinture de Charles Duvent.jpg
• File:1919 défilé victoire.jpg
• File:Arc xhost2016.jpg
• File:Mestre cp.jpg
• File:Peugeot - Histoire.jpg
• File:Gallica 78 gr armée concert pte maillot.jpg
• File:Arc mariage 1810-1.jpg
• File:Defense arc triomphe.jpg

Il faut être plus précis : mettre la source exact. Seules les photos de Flickr avec CC-BY et CC-BY-SA peuvent être importées sur Commons. Yann (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cette photo est CC-BY-NC-ND ai-je le droit de publier ? sous cette forme syntaxique ? {{CC-BY-NC-ND}}.

@Paris17bg: Non. Comme tu peux le lire, ce modèle propose en fait l'image à la suppression. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Je suppose que je ne peux intégrer les 2 photos suivantes (copyright) mais peut-on y renvoyer par une note et un lien ?
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10343212
http://www.stephanecompoint.com/41,,,14471,fr_FR.html

Non, il faut d'abord une autorisation du photographe. Yann (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you. pour votre aide et conseils Paris17bg (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Estimado Yann: Esta imagen ha sido borrada de la subida de mi biografía a Wikipedia, siendo un cuadro de técnica mixta sobre lienzo de 202 X 424 cm realizado por mi, el pintor León Calancha, y de mi propiedad; habiendo partido para su realización de fotografías buscadas en internet y otros medios. Por lo que te rogaría que vuelva a ser subida a mi fuente para ponerla en mi biografía. Atentamente, a la espera de tu respuesta. Gracias. León Calancha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cineutopia (talk • contribs)

@Cineutopia: Hi,

You didn't respect copyright, as was requested to you many times, therefore I blocked you for a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I dont now how to upload a file with a right license ? Can you help me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadsadas (talk • contribs)

@Sadsadas: Hi,

You need a permission before uploading pictures made by others. Please read COM:L and COM:DW. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your advice, please dont ban me, i just wanted to upload photos to made Wikipedia better, i just wants the best for wikipedia. I will hear your advices, thanks. Sadsadas (User talk:Sadsadas) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

For this photo, File:T.Xhaka.jpg, i speak with author of this photo in facebook, and he give me permission to upload his photos.

His facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Krenar.Hajdini.Official?fref=ts Sadsadas (User talk:Sadsadas) 14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Sadsadas: Hi,

Please ask the author to send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your information on my Talk page. I promise I'll try not to brake any licence or copyright anymore. Greetings, Kszapsza (dyskusja) 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for closing deletion discussion.But Could you please explain why you change the license tag of this file [5]? I think {{PD-India-URAA}} and {{PD-US-1996}} was the right tag for this book.Jayantanth (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because the author died in 1950, and therefore the copyright expired in 2010, after the date of 1996. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Shraddha Kapoor at IBJA awards and fashion showcase.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） ∙ +/−

Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You're administrator, and I want your help. Can you view this file?? It's non-free, and not for Wikimedia Commons. Thank you.
Sorry for my bad English) --Alexei Pechko (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. Thanks for reporting. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you eventually check whether these uploads are o.k. or violate copyright per jurisdiction of France?

• File:Airport Charles de Gaulle - panoramio.jpg
• File:Grande Arche - Wielki Łuk na La Defence, Paryż (VIII.2005) - panoramio.jpg
• File:La defense Grande Arche - panoramio.jpg
• File:Bronze nu (jardin luxembourg sept 2006) - panoramio.jpg

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I nominated 3 of them for deletion. Thanks for reporting. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yannn, I am allowing permission for the picture that was used but taken down to be used with permission so as long it's the same picture. Thank you.

Anita Fuentes President and CEO EMOAF/Open Your Eyes People www.emoaf.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitaemoaf (talk • contribs)

@Anitaemoaf: Hi,

Please send the permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

You deleted 2 pictures I uploaded to cover Quentin Mosimann pages (FR & EN):

• File:Quentin Mosiman - Loft Paris - 2013.JPG == (old, not needed any longer)
• File:Quentin mosimann TOP100DJ 2014.jpg == (current)

I work for Quentin Mosimann as an administrator for all his Web sites. Those pictures are supplied by Quentin Mosimann himself. I declared them as the owner as I work on his behalf. I don't understand why you assume I'm not owner? Was there any delation from a user? What should I do to get them restored ASAP, as the page currently show badly without picture.

Many thanks in advance for your help, Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froglight (talk • contribs)

@Froglight: Hi,

This image was published on the web before you uploaded it here, therefore a permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully I did it right. God bless and good day.

ACTUAL EMAIL SENT TO: "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org"

"I hereby affirm that I, Anita Fuentes am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Evangelist Anita Fuentes President & CEO Of EMOAF/Open Your Eyes People — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitaemoaf (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mr Bonjour ,

Je me présente je suis Julien , nouveau contributeur (du moins avec un compte) sur wikipedia.

Vous avez supprimé cette nuit plusieurs photos que j'avais ajouté sur une page dont je fais actuellement la refonte. Cette dernière étant en travaux , je n'ai pas eu le temps de mettre la forme ce qui est de ma faute.

Cependant , on ne m'a laissé que 4 jours entre l'avertissement (que j'ai vue aujourd'hui...) et la suppression.(qui est effective depuis hier soir) Je suis bénévole dans la vie réelle et sur le web et une chose est bien sur , je n'aime pas qu'on supprime ma contribution comme cela , vous n'avez pas pris en compte que chaque contributeur avait une vie réel et que par conséquent il ne peut pas forcément s'occuper de régler ce genre de problèmen un clin d'oeil...

Wikipedia faisais il y a quelques temps une campagne pour que plus de personne contribue à enrichir cette encylopédie intéracttive. je conprends maintenant pourquoi... Personnellement , j'avais beaucoup de projet pour enrichir cette encyclopédie surtout dans le domaine ferroviaire Francais qui est délaissé par rapport à d'autres pays. Cependant avec cette nouvelle expérience que je viens de faire , je n'en ai plus l'envie.

Maintenant que cela est fait et est irréversible , une question se pose alors : Comment faire pour mettre des photos qui sont forcément soumis à une license créative commons 2.0 à savoir quelles ne peuvent pas être utilisées comerciallement ? Je m'explique , l'usage des images concernant le matériel roulant de certaines association de chemin de fer ne peut se faire d'une facon commercial autre que par la dite association. comment faire ? Le photographe n'est pas propriétaire de ce qu'il photographie donc impossiblle de mettre en ligne une photo non ?

Cordialement,

Julien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prismyque (talk • contribs) 10:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Prismyque: Bonjour,

Il y a plusieurs sortes de license Creative Commons, et seules les licences CC-BY et CC-BY-SA sont acceptées. Pour publier des photos prises par un tiers ou publiées auparavant, il faut une autorisation formelle, que vous pouvez envoyer par email en suivant la procédure décrite à COM:OTRS/fr. Les photos pourront être restaurées une fois la permission reçue. Comme ce service est entièrement géré par des volontaires, cela peut prendre du temps. N'hésitez pas à me demander si vous avez besoin d'aide. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

quiero saber q pasa con las imagenes que estoy subiendo por que brindo la informacion pedida y me advierten que van a bloquear mi cuenta ademas hay algunas que son de mi autoria yo mismo las tome de mi pc con el programa q se utilizo

Muchas Gracias. --SebaSant (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann,

I am a little troubled to see my pic still not up. I received a response email and replied to it last week. The exchange went as follows: > Dear Anita Fuentes, > > Hello, thank you for contacting us. Unfortunately, we cannot restore the photo > at this time. > > The copyright in a photograph generally belongs to the photographer, not the > person depicted in the photo, unless the rights were transfered by a formal > agreement. So, we would need the person who took the photo to send in the > permission. If the rights to the photo were in fact transfered to you, please > clarify how this was done. > > I apologize for the inconvenience, but please understand that we take > copyright seriously; we just need to make sure that everything is in order. > > Yours sincerely, > Adam Lee

I RESPONDED: Dear Adam,

Good day to you. There was no transfer of any rights my friend because I am the photographer as well as the person in the picture. I use a Sony HD $5,000 handy cam and I have taken hundreds of pictures with the flip of my remote that comes with the camera. I use this same camera to do my recording broadcast via live stream as well. When I wrote originally as the "sole owner", I am. and the "permission" sent via email was written correctly.

Thank you!

Anita Fuentes www.emoaf.org

Yann, what now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitaemoaf (talk • contribs) 11:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was recently told that I uploaded several images that were not free despite requests not to do so. I would like to note that I received no indications of any wrongdoing until all images I was attempting to upload were complete, and that I ceased any uploads after I was notified and the originals were removed. All files I uploaded ("Forge of Darkness.jpg", "Assail.jpg", "Orb, Sceptre, Throne.jpg", and "Stonewielder.jpg") are book covers. I was using another book cover in the same series of novels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Returncrimsonguard.jpg) as a template, which clearly states that low-resolution images of book covers qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. I was therefore under the impression that the images were free and therefore fair game for uploading (although the subjective "low-res" part is certainly open to interpretation). The upload wizard didn't exactly have an intuitive way of classifying these images as such, and I was in the process of reaching out to an admin to ask for advice. If these images are indeed non-free, please let me know (or link me to a relevant article) how to do this properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knmorgan08 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann Thank you for your warning! I have so far uploaded few files which I believed important for certain page in Wikipedia. In fact I have taken photo from Ministry of External Affairs India's official Flickr account where it is written that the pictures are free to use but still my uploads were deleted on alleged copyright violation. But now I have decided not to upload any files from internet sources. And please let me know whether my account is vulnerable of getting blocked? As I am very sincere contributor of wikipedia with a focus on India's foreign policy, from now onward I will refrain from commons to keep my wikipedia account active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.soumen (talk • contribs)

Yes, please do not upload files from the Internet unless you have an explicit permission. If case of doubt, please ask me or COM:VP/C. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann good morning (Here in México). The subject of my message says it all. I'm an employee at the City Hall of San Luis Potosí and I was told to upload the photo of the current president of the city. The thing is when I try to upload the photo it says that was deleted by you for "Copyright violations". We held the copyrights for that picture and we want to upload the photo. Is this posible?. the photo is at http://sanluis.gob.mx/ayuntamiento/presidente-muncipal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abel7x (talk • contribs)

@Abel7x: Hi,

In this case, you need to send a permission. Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS/es (in Spanish). Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that the images I have uploaded and gave explanation about after your note on my talk page have been deleted. I did understand why some unattributed images got deleted but why the ones I indeed was the owner? I did provide the explanation needed. And now I can't even re-upload them providing their panoramio link as a proof! --Klitemnistraa (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I restored your images. I think you should change the license on your Panoramio account, as it may create a confusion. Also you should whenever possible upload the highest resolution with the EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The license I use in my panoramio account is CC, am I mistaken? --Klitemnistraa (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Klitemnistraa: Hi,

Il y a plusieurs sortes de license Creative Commons, et seules les licences CC-BY et CC-BY-SA sont acceptées sur Commons. The license you use on Panoramio is CC-BY-NC, which does not allow commercial uses. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour. I am a new user in Wikimedia Commons. I uploaded this file and now I am trying to upload new version of it, but I have problems with uploading of new version. I can upload new version with another name, but name «AmericanCivilWarFlags» is already widely used in Russian Wikipedia (my home project). Can you delete it, and I will be able to upload new version with the same name immediately? With respect -- Thermicien^talk 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Thermicien: Hi,

I deleted it, but you should not upload this, as it is copied from the Internet. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Please, describe me, why this file is a candidate for deletion? I have copied it from the site (I named this site during uploading), but I have changed it before uploading (I have cropped it and chaged colours). Can I represent this file as my own work? -- Thermicien^talk 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Thermicien: Hi,

No, you can't claim this as your own, because you didn't make it entirely yourself. Please read COM:DW. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are right. This file is now unused and you can delete it and its talk page. I will try to make my own version and to upload it, and a new version will have nothing in common with information on the talk page. That is why I think that its talk page should be deleted too. -- Thermicien^talk 16:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

His uploads are really valuable, as he is working as firefighter in Korea and provides good images about related topics; He just needs to learn more :p (Nothing much; just FYI.) — revi_msg 18:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, some images may be useful, but portraits of himself or his friends are out of scope. ;oD Yann (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yep :p (FYI, VIC replied.) — revi_msg 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the way, when you have spare times, please take a look at Category:Uploads by Revi needing license review occationally - Every new museum files (or some external sites where their license are compatible with Commons) are categorized there. — revi_msg 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@-revi: I don't speak Korean, so I don't think I can help here. I looked at the 3 files in this cat now, and their source, and I can't see where is the license. Sorry. Yann (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can do Greek Helmet one (and all museum.go.kr files - there is logo on {{KOGL}} which is present on the source link. — revi_msg 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, may I ask why you deleted File:Igor Radojičić YT.jpg, thanks. Overdtop (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Overdtop: Hi,

Because it is not under a free license. Please read COM:L. Thanks, Yann (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I uploaded the most recent en:File:Animal Planet logo.png to Commons and it was speedy deleted because it violated copyrights (Now I uploaded it to the English Wikipedia). Then I questioned why File:Animal Planet logo.svg, File:Animal Planet.png, and File:Animal Planet HD.svg were not up for deletion? The only reason I uploaded the most recent version on to Commons was because these other versions were on here. Is the logo I uploaded free or is it non-free? Your help would be much appreciated! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 05:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Corkythehornetfan: Hi,

Logos are usally under a copyright, but these are too simple to get a copyright, so they are fine here. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks! I only questioned about those files because mine was deleted... you know it goes. 😀 Thanks again, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann, as PierreSelim is possibly busy, would you mind looking into this French-language ticket please, when you have time? Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Newer_files_in_Category:Rapha.C3.ABl_Toussaint_.28probably_French-language_permission.29 It's not the most urgent case ever (help desk thread got archived a while ago), but it would be good to close it, if possible. The basic question is, if that "old" ticket is sufficient for later, more recent uploads aswell. GermanJoe (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You`d changed the name of my file of "SG1" to "Tanisław Gądek" and there is an error in the description of the picture is: "Tanisław" and should be "Stanisław". The name of man on the picture is "Stanisław Gądek". Regards Radgad

  Done Yann (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour ! je viens de recevoir vos avis concernant les licences de fichiers incorrectes.

Premier avis : je n'en ai pas eu d'autres !! et j'ai du mal à savoir ce que je n'ai pas fait ou mal fait ! je suis surpris de n'avoir eu aucun préavis pour aucune des images sauf File:Place Tristan Bernard 1.jpg (supprimée).

Les 6 imges à "problèmes" sont : 1. La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Rue d'Armaillé Dyonnet 1849.jpg ce fichier est un extrait retouché par moi du plan "Dyonnet 1849 1/14 000 env. 1 Paris en proportion avec son enceinte" sur le site [6]. Un appel à paris-expert m'a confirmé qu'ils avaient les originaux, qu'ils étaient du domaine public (1849) et qu'il n'y avait pas de problème pour la diffusion sur Wikipédia. que faut-il faire ?

Pas de problème, pas supprimée.

2. File:Place Tristan Bernard 1.jpg si j'ai compris l'auteure de la statue n'étant décédée qu'en 1973 (œuvre de Josette Hébert-Coëffin — (1906-1973). Cette statue même situé sur un rue publique doit attendre 2043 pour être insérée dans wikipédia ?

Elle n'est pas dans le domaine public en France. Wikipedia en francais a une tolérance pour ce type de cas. Essayez de l'importer localement.

3. La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Francs tireurs des Ternes.jpg. je ne comprends pas : non seulement la statue date du XIXe siècle, mais elle a disparu en 1941 et la photo est extraite de Gallica http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b6915174b.r=franc+tireur+des+ternes.langFR je croyais que tout gallica était domaine public ?

Pas de problème, pas supprimée.

4. La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Zèbre poisson.jpg sauf erreur de ma part (je ne peux plus vérifier car effacée) le propriétaire de la marque l'a autorisée comme suit: "Cette œuvre a été placée dans le domaine public par son auteur, lezebre. Ceci s'applique dans le monde entier.Dans certains pays, ceci peut ne pas être possible ; dans ce cas :lezebre accorde à toute personne le droit d'utiliser cette œuvre dans n'importe quel but, sans aucune condition, sauf celles requises par la loi." si omission il est prêt à le faire !

OK, restaurée. Il faut indiquer la source (le site web où tu l'as trouvée ou si tu l'as scannée toi-même).

5. La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Wagram et mac Mahon.jpg. Il y a peut être doute, mais cette carte postale à manifestement plus de 100 ans (n'est-ce pas suffisant?) en plus elle n'est pas signée.

OK, restaurée. Il faut que tu indiques la source, et la date, au moins approximative. J'ai mis la licence qui convient.

6. File:Ave Neuilly.jpg, File:Ave Neuilly persp.jpg. Surpris que ces 2 fichiers déposé hier aient disparu alors que je suis encore en brouillon : les deux fichiers sont des extraits de Google (earth et maps) retouchés par moi Google-earth et google-maps ne sont-ils pas publics ? Quelles cartes actuelles en 3D peut on utiliser ? IGN ?

Non, Google Maps/Earth n'est pas dans le domaine public, et les cartes de l'IGN non plus. Vous pouvez utiliser Open Street Map : http://openstreetmap.fr/

Merci de m'éclairer et de me dire ce que dois faire pour remettre ces images ou publier quelque chose d'avoisinant. Smiley.svg Merci

Comment est-on prévenu s'il y a problème ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris17bg (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann.

L'utilisateur Play On 911 ne verse que des images de ZAZ. Trois ont été supprimées pour soupçon de Copyvio et une 4° est en cours. Je lui ai dit qu'il faut qu'il envoie une OTRS car il affirme "Nous avons tous les droits puisque nous sommes les producteurs phonographique de ZAZ ! Les photos nous appartiennent donc pas de conflits de droit d'auteurs.". La photo mentionnée en titre est versée d'aujourd'hui, est d'un petit format et n'a pas d'EXIF comme si elle a été scannée, ce qui mettrait en doute la licence ; y a-t-il un modèle concernant l'EXIF dans le genre de {{Autotranslate|1=File:ZAZ ©Yann Orhan.jpg|base=Image license}} que tu avais apposé pour un de ses versements ? Lorsque j'avais demandé la suppression d'une des photos, j'avais aussi envoyé un mail au photographe (Yann Orhan) qui est resté lettre morte.

D'avance   Thank you.. --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 15:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ai-je fait ou dit, t'ai-je froissé pour que tu ne me répondes pas ? --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 17:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Llann Wé²: Non, désolé. Oui, tu as raison, une permission est nécessaire. Tu peux demander la suppression si importateur ne répond pas. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ouf ! Je croyais avoir fait quelque chose qui t'a déplu car je voyais plein d'autres interventions de ta part sur ta page et rien pour moi.

J'ai demandé la suppression et c'est en cours. Je doute fortement de l'identité supposée de l'utilisateur qui n'a jamais donnée une suite concrète à mes interventions, pas plus que Yann Orhan. Je vais aussi faire une DR pour la dernière photo versée même si elle a des EXIF, au cas où. Réellement, je n'en ai rien à faire de cette chanteuse qui ne rentre pas du tout dans mes goûts musicaux, c'est juste pour le principe et que sa page est dans mon suivi.

Tout ça histoire de te tenir au courant puisque tu avais déjà donné un avis sur la première que j'avais mise en DR. Sur ce coup-ci, si tu ne me réponds pas, je comprendrai puisqu'il n'y a pas de question, juste un constat et une explication  .

Bonne semaine à venir. --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 18:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

These are my own works. They were taken from my Instagram account. Some of the others were developed using free Flickr licenses. The history shows that. You can't nominate an entire user's uploads merely because one picture is too small. This isn't France.--Mmann1988 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mmann1988: Hi,

No, this is Wikimedia Commons. Out policy requires that documents published elsewhere before need a formal permission before being uploaded here. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, could you check whether these two files are eligible to host in Commons? According to https://archive.org/details/FraserOdonata3 the books are PD in India because pre 1947 publication of government. Jee 14:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Jkadavoor: Hi,

Look fine. You should use PD-India. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. They (the museum) did some OCR recognition; so the file is more useful and fully searchable. So whether it requires CC BY-SA for their efforts or simply PD-India is enough? Jee 14:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Jkadavoor: Hi,

Doing OCR doesn't give a copyright. They are also free of URAA, so {{PD-India-URAA}} is OK. Personally, I prefer {{PD-India}}+{{PD-1923}}. Yann (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK; but does {{PD-1923}} applicable? Jee 15:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. This template shows that this file is also in the PD in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

But they are not published before 1923; so I did this. :) Jee 15:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Yes, you are right. Yann (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, Is it ok to nominate two images in one category for VIC? (I didn't find anything about this on VIC subpages.) If not, please review only this & i will withdraw this nomination. Thanks you --Aftab (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Livio fixed the problems you demanded, except the question of competion. But:seen from Via San Lucio seems unique. Archeo.. and I supported it then. --Hubertl (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is wrong. I just didn't have the time to check all images in that cat. And as I said, if there is an oppose, the status should be discussed, not supported. But this is moot now, I removed my opposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merci d'avoir très sportivement pris soin de Léon Blum ; il le mérite (imo) ainsi que le photographe inconnu qui l'a ainsi portraituré ! -- Le remplacement général n'était peut-être pas obligatoire : c'est souvent fastidieux... Mais ça me change de quelques autres pages de ma région : les photos labellisées y sont souvent refusées, surtout quand elles remplacent des images techniquement quelconques :). Passons. -- Merci aussi pour ton vote en FP, quelle que soit l'issue du scrutin ! -- Dernier point : j'ai commenté le fumeur de houka parce que la catégorie comprend, à mon avis, de nombreuses sous-catégories. En conséquence, ne faut-il pas restreintre le scope ? J'ai fait une suggestion. Autre possibilité : ajouter le nom du pays... À toi de voir. -- J'en termine avec ces considérations à la périphérie du principal problème : les photos elles-mêmes ! Bien cordialement. --JLPC (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:RroseSelavy.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） ∙ +/−

— Racconish^📥 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I need some answers https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrey60. I have tried to download few photos, which can be used free. I asked journalists of Altai region Legislature and they approved it. Also I'm member of Altai region Legislature

"Все материалы официального сайта Алтайского краевого Законодательного Собрания могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации.

Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет. Единственным условием перепечатки и ретрансляции является ссылка на первоисточник. Никакого предварительного согласия на перепечатку со стороны Аппарата Алтайского Законодательного Собрания не требуется." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey60 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann, I took this picture myself at the residence of Professor Togo. could you please tell me the steps to load it again? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentehuitornex (talk • contribs)

@Trentehuitornex: Hi,

Since this was published previously, you need to send a permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I can see that you have deleted my uploaded image for 'copyright reasons'. I stated when uploading that I had permission from the image owner to upload this image. I will re-upload. Kindly please do not delete this as it is not violating copyright. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsfollower (talk • contribs)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Within_This_World_Within_My_Mind_Wiki.jpg

@Artsfollower: Hi,

You need a permission from the photographer at least, Ben Thomas. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you delete this file again? It is not used on any other articles anymore as on your previous comment. Thanks! — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 17:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you reopen the DR please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. You're welcome. ;) — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 00:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done Yann (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann, si la solution de compromis que j'ai proposée te semble acceptable, je te laisse téléverser sur Commons la nouvelle image et sur WPen celle litigieuse, et je veux bien m'occuper des changements sur les projets qui utilisent l'image actuelle. Cordialement, — Racconish^📥 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done — Racconish^📥 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Je déplace ici ma réponse puisque la discussion sur Satie est close : Of course not. My bad : I had not checked their detailed information. Thank you for doing it. — Racconish^📥 18:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Any ideas why the bot is sometimes not removing by me closed FPC nominations? Regards, --Ivar (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Salut, Yann. À vrai dire j'ai pensé à enlever l'ombre juste avant de télécharger, mais ce jour-là, comme ce week-end, j'étais un peu bousculé... Il faut dire que le blanc du haut de la photo devrait aussi être "allégé" et que le reviewer a trouvé que l'ensemble n'était pas parfaitement net :).--Conclusion : je dois retoucher. Je ne pourrai le faire qu'en milieu de semaine, sans doute. Je te mettrai alors un mot sur cette page... Quoi qu'il en soit, c'est très sympa : merci de ton attention. Cordialement. --JLPC (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rajesultanpur city.png: What is the point of keeping the file? It has cropped out the main feature of the image. The image name and description now refers to a lighthouse which isn't even in the image. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE: I have uploaded the original image from flickr at File:Rock Harbor Lighthouse at Isle Royale National park.jpeg.jpg. This is higher quality, and more importantly, actually contains the lighthouse that the file name and description decribes. Please reconsider the "keep" decision. Thanks, -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour. En cherchant des informations sur deux photographes nommés Stanisław Ostroróg (dit "Walery") je suis tombée sur le site Category:Lucien Waléry que tu avait crée en 2013. Tu mentionne la-bas le problème de l’identité de Stanisław Ostroróg et Lucien Waléry qui m’intéresse vivement, mais malheureusement tu n'a cité aucune source de tes informations. Pourrais-tu les ajouter pour que les données que tu avait mises dans cette catégorie soient plus fiables? Moi j'ai cherché des publications récentes sur les biographies des Ostroróg et Lucien Waléry, mais a part de Répertoire des photographes parisiens du XIXe siècle (ou ils sont tout probablement mentionnés) je n'ai rien trouvé. Cordialement, Cancre (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour,

Je pense au j'ai simplement recopié ceci : b:fr:Photographie/Personnalités/W/Lucien_Waléry. J'ai créé certaines biographies sur Wikipédia, quand j'ai trouvé assez de renseignements. Ce n'est pas le cas Lucien Waléry. Désolé. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, merci. Cancre (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, could you look into this copyright-problem claim. The site with the license is in French. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. Commercial use not allowed. Yann (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

However I find very strange that you are so quickly intervened to block User:Lmbuga (which certainly was wrong), and instead you have selfless motivation that led to the block and what he did User:Steindy. Also being in part because you also uninterested in the subsequent discussion that led to the block of the same. Pour moi, un mauvais travail. Bonne journée.--LivioAndronico talk 07:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re "Please read the template before creating DR": I did just that, and that was when I noted that an important prequisite stipulated there ("This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was.") was not met at all, and in fact, the whole image description was quite sloppy. This was amended only after the DR was made. So please read the DR before giving strange "advice". Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, like several other editors, you require much more than it is reasonable. That's the problem. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

If license tags available here insist that certain details must be specified before one can use these tags, it is not at all unreasonable to demand that this is actually done. Letting this slide endangers the goal of Wikimedia Commons as a repository of media files that are actually free. An answer like yours suggests that we should be content with a repository of files that could possibly be free, but perhaps not. That is not what Commons stands for. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 23:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I missed your IRC message yesterday. I did add information to Commons:Deletion requests/File:'The Visitation' by Jacob Epstein, Tate Britain.JPG which you may have missed.

There are two key considerations with FoP in museums:

1. The rationale that a museum is equivalent to a public space is flawed, there is no legal case precedent to define the boundaries. The flaws include that (a) spaces that require tickets are not public, and that spaces that have free public admission may not be public in the view of the organization that runs it, (b) the museum may include works that are under copyright by the artist or their estate, just being in a museum does not ensure that the work is public domain or covered by FoP provisions, even if permanently installed. Obvious trouble free exceptions would be "open sites" such as castles run by the National Trust with no tickets, however the usual provisions would apply to notices etc.
2. The photographer may be unaware of contract law that applies on their entry, we (Commons) may or may not wish to ignore this, however it may put the photographer at a low exposure of claims. This may be more hypothetical in some locations than others, however there are museums that would ask for photographs of their exhibitions to be taken down on the basis that visitors made either a tacit agreement by reading signs that commercial photography was not allowed when they entered an exhibition space, or an explicit agreement by accepting a ticket with terms printed on the back (even if the entry were free). In theory there needs to be an exchange of property to validate a contract, however one can argue that the service is the product being exchanged. There may also be cases where the design and arrangement of artefacts has creative content, even if the focus of the exhibition is on objects with no copyright. For example I recently saw an exhibition at the British Museum where a Viking ship was on display, composed of original wood remains placed on a metal frame; it could be claimed that the metal frame that represented the rest of the "skeleton" of the ship is sufficiently creative even if intended to represent an ancient artefact.

--Fæ (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, I reopened the DR. Thanks for your input. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Yann.

Regarding this and other deletion requests from same user, those files were uploaded a few days ago. They were taken more than 4 years ago.

Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 17:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please stop deleting the Table4five. I'll explain in the next edit. --Pitke (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, explanation. 1) The files are not overseen yet. As you can see at the bottom, I've been going through them as there indeed are useful files amidst the many, many personal ones. No other editor has mentioned going through them either. I am not yet ready with the files from " to J. I have not seen them at all. 2) There has not been much discussion. Consensus has not been reached. No one has commented on my comments as per what files are useful, and there has not been enough time either. Some of the files are such that my current knowledge is not enough to determine if they can be kept. 3) You are welcome to delete the commented-on Spaceship Earth files and all files without comments from "Spartys" to the end and from "K & R" to "Some of these". Those are good to go (unless you have something to say). --Pitke (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Pitke: Could you please tell which file(s) you are talking about? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Table4five_photographs <- these ones. I was probably too paranoid, as a big majority of the pics ARE clearly out of scope, but I was concerned someone was going on "full auto" to get the slightly aged DelReq out and done. --Pitke (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was just about to change the speedy to a regular deletion discussion because I disagree with the speedy for File:Rodrigo y Gabriela en Acceso Total.jpg and only just got the notice. The Flickr uplaoder is obviously the creator of the content for Walmart, especially when you look at their Flickr profile. Ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

;oD Restored. Yann (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's even faster. Ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is ruthless. I barely had the chance to explain or provide more detail. These photos belong to the Cao Đài religion, and all believers have the right to publish/ popularize them as long as they do not violate religious laws. Please let me know how I can undelete or upload again, because Wikipedia does not let me. I understand your good intention, but honestly you have done a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppn vn (talk • contribs)

@Ppn vn: Sorry, but rules here do not work that way. Commons only accept images which are under a free license or in the public domain. You had one week to answer in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ppn vn, but you did not. To publish them here, you need a permission from the photographer. Files can be undeleted once the permission is received. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you should revisit this and delete the other three files as clear copyvios, or at least lacking permission. See for instance [7]. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, right. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yann, I think you closed this DR a bit prematurely. While I don't have any objection to a decision that the photo in question is covered by {{FoP-Switzerland}}, you've closed the DR but left the file without a valid license. Shouldn't the photographer have to agree to a commons compatible license before we can keep this file? To that end, I've left a note on the uploader's talk page asking him to update the license. —RP88 (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@RP88: What the issue with the current license? Usually the photographer claims a copyright for stained glass, and add a CC license, but it could also be argued that these are faithful reproductions of 2D art, in which case PD-Art is OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

But the art in question isn't PD, so the photograph can't be PD-Art — the very first line of the PD-Art template is "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art." which is absolutely not true in this case. Faithful 2D reproductions of copyrighted 2D works of art covered by FoP should use something like "{{Licensed-FOP|Switzerland|Cc-zero}}" (replace Cc-zero with whatever commons compatible license the photographer is comfortable with). —RP88 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for a message, here you are. Regards, Wiktoryn (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The images I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were badges of football teams in the city of Brasilia, Federal District of Brazil, and were sent to me to illustrate their articles that do not have badges as the most important clubs in the city.

If the way I uploaded I violated image rights, which option of copyrights should I select for these files to be accepted?

@Clebiojr: Hi,

You need to obtain a permission from the copyright owner before uploading such files here. See COM:OTRSfor the procedure. The files could be restored once the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the copyright issue re this image. The fact that the drop down menu has an option for "I found it on the web" made me think it might be OK. Three of the other cases where I had trouble were flickr to Commons uploads done using Flinfo where the copyright holder changed the copyright back just after I uploaded them and before the bot had checked them. A P Monblat (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would just like to add that now that I understand the position about photos from the web, I won't make this mistake again. I'll stick to uploading from my own photos, or from Geograph or using Flinfo. I don't think I can go wrong that way, can I? A P Monblat (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@A P Monblat: You can upload your own images. But please read COM:DW. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann

The pictures I uploaded for the article "Nina Dotti" were only uploaded for style purposes and were not ready for final draft, as I choose the pictures and later I do the copyright research. Obviously I was not aware of the fact that this is not allowed. Please accept my apologies and allow me to fix. I am new to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juancescritor (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann I thought http://shahidblog.com/ has the GFDL license because there is Content is available under GFDL at the bottom of this site Hananeh.M.h

Hi, I restored the images, but the source URL is broken. Please fix it. Also please fix the license: {{GFDL}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could You be so nice and confirm that the pictures are available under the stated licenses:

• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku (audytorium).JPG
• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku wnętrze (1).JPG
• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku wnętrze (2).JPG
• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku wnętrze (3).JPG
• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku wnętrze (4).JPG
• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku wnętrze (5).JPG
• File:Europejskie Centrum Solidarności w Gdańsku wnętrze (6).JPG

Thank You
Artur Andrzej (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done Yann (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why was it nonsense? I thought that rather rude.Bruce Marlin (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why was File:ThePharaoh.jpg deleted? The owner of the photo is the one in the picture. What information is needed for it so it can be restored?Georgivac (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Georgivac: Hi,

Please see the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:ThePharaoh.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Yann:

Thanks, I did read the deletion request for it and it's not accurate information at all. It's uploaded again. The source of the photo was taken from at a practice session. The wrestlers had their own camera's at that time. There is no way to show anything else about it. What do you recommend to keep the other file up? It is the wrestlers picture. Thanks, Georgivac (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Georgivac: Hi,

I suppose you are talking about File:The Pharaoh Pro Wrestler.jpeg? Then I put it on DR too. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Yes, that's the file. Why would it be put on DR? As stated in the previous message, it explains the source.

@Georgivac: Hi,

As it was previously published, a formal written permission is necessary. But are you the photographer of this? On the other file, Riccabrothers wrote that he is the author. Is it also your account? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Riccabrothers gave me permission to use the file as well as other files. I can get that permission from them. Where does the written permission need to be sent to and put at so any type of deletion is stopped? I would like to see this issue settled. Thanks Georgivac (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Georgivac: Hi,

Please see the procedure at COM:OTRS. The file could be restored once the permission is restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann, "Less clear cases should remain open for at least seven days. " http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests

and "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." ..... Regards --Jean11 (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Why did you delete this file? The license at Flickr is still CC-BY-2.0. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. The metadata for the image attributed it to photographer Scott McDermott.
2. I contacted Scott McDermott from contact info at www.scottmcdermott.com.
3. He asserted copyright and didn't want the image on Wikimedia Commons or Flickr.

Hope that explains it, -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Cirt: Yes, thanks. I was just curious. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I was sorry to have to do it but the photographer didn't want to use a free-use license. -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply