User talk:Abzeronow

This user (Abzeronow) is away on vacation from 4 August 2024 until 14 August 2024 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Abzeronow!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: Archive for 2018-1st half of 2019 at User:Abzeronow/Archive1 Archive for 2019 to 1st half of 2023 is at User:Abzeronow/Archive2 Archive for 2nd half of 2023 will be at User:Abzeronow/Archive3 Archive for 2024 will be at User:Abzeronow/Archive4

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, I award you the Public Domain Barnstar for your research on public domain works to be undeleted. I am going through your list. Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Faced with the easy choice of deleting an image or working to correct an error, this user decided that the project could be improved. This generous and honorable action represents the essence of the project. If the project had more souls like Abzeronow's, the quality of the project would increase exponentially. Luizpuodzius (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Abzeronow, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--Krd 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well deserved Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Bedievere. Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

congrats.... "Let justice be done though the heavens fall". OMG!! is that a better call zaul referance?!! ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow, congratulations, I hope your addition to the team makes a difference. You are one of the very few "knowledgeable" people here. Heartily congratulations. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, although I think there are definitely more knowledgeable people than myself on Commons, and I try to keep learning from people here. I hope you'll be able to join the team soon, Aafi. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

from me too :-) --Rosenzweig τ 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Danke. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Red-tailed hawk. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Entirely as expected -- very few get 100% votes! You may find User:Jameslwoodward/Commons notes for administrators useful -- it overlaps the official page that Krd suggested above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Jim. Definitely some useful information there. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

2024 New Years Message

Tous mes voeux pour cette nouvelle année, Abzeronow !
―Tisourcier

Merci beaucoup, Tisourcier. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please delete non-commercial copies of the following images

Hi, Abzeronow, I realize that I've uploaded some non-commercial copies of flickr photos, please help me delete them. Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done File versions that you had uploaded are hidden. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 0x0a (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Abzeronow, I noticed a similar case. The file was uploaded after flickr user switched from cc-by-sa to cc-by-nc-sa license. That is, the copy on Commons is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa, not cc-by-sa. But in the DR, some users argued that the previous license is still valid for subsequent copies. May I ask which view is right? Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the view that the nominator was correct, but I'm not going to try to overturn a decision made by the community twice to keep it especially since my view may be contentious. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a considerable controversy over how to interpret the "irrevocable" of a CC license. A discussion may need to be initiated on the VPC.

I'm aslo inclined to agree with the nominator, but I need to collect some information to support this view. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. 0x0a (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yakovlev SJ-100 Logo.jpg

@Abzeronow:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd come down on delete per COM:PCP since it's not clear on how low the ToO is in Russia and part of that logo is stylized. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Logo Alcaldía de Lecheria

@Abzeronow:Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Lecheria como lo indica esta foto (https://twitter.com/Urbanejalcaldia/photo) esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}} porque representa una "geometric shape")?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks more complex than just a "geometric shape" to me. Is there guidance as far as ToO in Venezuela? Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@AbzeronowEl ToO en Venezuela es complicado pero no dice nada sobre Logos con "geometric shapes" AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Warner Bros. Television 2023 (Alt).svg

Hi, Azberonow. I want to overwritting File:Warner Bros. Television 2023 (Alt).svg with a smaller KB size of the file (come from https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/a/a8/Warner_Bros_TV_2023_Print_color.svg/revision/latest?cb=20231227193226) than the original file upload by BiggieSMLZ. But sadly, the request is easily archived at Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests/Archive 2 without any further consideration. Could you please grant me a request to do that? Thank you. Yayan550 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see that image you linked to. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Well, if you want to see the actual link the image comes from, here: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/File:Warner_Bros_TV_2023_Print_color.svg, the WBTV 2023 logo kb size there is smaller (17 KB) than BiggieSMLZ's upload (476 KB). But, only Logopedia users can see that file, so i download that image. Yayan550 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Yayan550: You can now overwrite the file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ayuda

@Abzeronow:Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Valera creado en 2014 hasta el 2017 y el autor del logo ex alcalde de Valera falleció el 29 de diciembre de 2019 (https://www.redpres.com/t35652-fallecio-el-exalcalde-de-valera-jose-karkom) según el {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} son 60 años después de la publicación y en que año subirá el Logo a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(google translate) En Wikimedia sería 2090 aunque probablemente 2075 se convierta en PD en Venezuela. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because you're a nice administrator :)

OttavianoUrsu (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you undelete file:Mycock5.jpg?

You allege that there is another file that uses it. Where is this other file? Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of the photographs used in File:Various size penises.jpg. There was an undeletion request for the file after a question appeared at the Help Desk. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Splitting

I find COM:SPLIT rather confusing for myself (perhaps because its suggestive of moving old revisions to a new title). Would you want to take a look at File:Photo portrait d'Andréa Furet.jpg: seems an interesting deal of learning for me. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done This is my first time doing a split. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alcaldía BMUracoa (2021-2025).jpg

Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (keep)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

Since I have an apparent conflict of interest with anything related to DCW, I thought seeking assistance from any admin should help. Could you please merge File:Wiki Loves Muslim Academia logo.svg and File:Wiki loves muslim academia copy.svg. The former should appear as the current version. The user who uploaded File:Wiki loves muslim academia copy.svg did it in a hurry despite me telling them do db-author it because it wasn't anyway approved to be used in any case for WLMA, a program by DCW, which I lead. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi (DCW): The files are merged but I probably created an extra revision by accident since this was the first time I have merged a file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick help. Best of luck with future tries. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You might want to delete the redirect as it won't be anywhere used, and isn't even old enough. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Overwriting existing file

Hi @Abzeronow, thanks for your hard work. :) Did you perhaps miss the entry for File:Logo SG Dynamo Dresden neu.svg? Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

good catch

I dont think either are actually licensed for usage in commons, it is a regular mistake. I am reluctant to engage on the issue, as my Indonesian language usage is very very rusty. If I had either the time, or the energy, I think I could halve the amount of similar items on commons, simply by pointing out the lack of suitable licensing. Sorry, I am not very helpful. JarrahTree (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I will nominate them for deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg

Deletion here was more the question of whether the photograph was "published prior to 1978", than when it was taken. Neither the uploader, the blog it was copied from nor the user who voted to keep it had anything to say about that. Belbury (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Per orphan works policy, we generally assume publication near creation unless there is evidence to the contrary. The photograph from the age of the sitter and the style of clothing appears to be from the 1950s. In order for it not be published before 1978, the unknown photographer would have had to have taken the photograph and then stuck it in a drawer for more than 20 years. Italian simple photographs are creation plus 20 years so the publication before 1978 is a consideration of URAA, and as stated, we don't have evidence that URAA applies here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd missed that there'd already been a fuller discussion of this at Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Giordano_Bruno_Lattuada.jpg! Belbury (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I'll link that to the DR (I would have done so when it was archived, but I'll do it now). Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Tm

Just comment one thing. User Tm is using the issue in the Noticeboard to blatantly forge and reopen old wikidata conflicts that were not directly related to this topic, and in which I have no responsibility. Apart from the fact that he is making false statements against me and against the other user (Lopezsuarez). I have told Tm privately, so that he has the decency to not manipulate my words and make this even worse. But it is really shameful that from the first moment he had a disruptive [and tolerated] attitude, and that on top of that I was the bad guy in your eyes (although you later corrected it).

In essence, I gave in to find a solution to the conflict. And he (Tm) reluctantly accepted your disposition, only to go to wikidata to extend the conflict. And for dessert, the user Tm poisoning the environment even more. But after all, I cannot understand why this user is tolerated with everything. CFA1877 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Abzeronow, sorry to burst into your talkpage, i will not comment the accusations against me made by this users, but i am only going to tell you that i have made a conteur argument of the Noticeboard with links to to back up and as evidence of what i say related with this subject (and these user accusations). Sorry and regards. Tm (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg

Hi. File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg appears to have been reuploaded. I tagged it as G4.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. Deleted again. I'll raise the issue at COM:VPC because I hadn't heard of US ToO covering "booth pictures". Abzeronow (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ayuda en UDR (Undeletion Request)

@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor en el COM:UDEL (en la parte "File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg") esta foto debería ser restaurada (support) o no restaurar (oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Overwriting File:Warner Bros. Games logo (Alt).svg

Hello, Abzeronow. Could you please make the File:Warner Bros. Games logo (Alt).svg overwrite for everyone? Because i want to replace the incorrect version of the logo with the correct version taken from WBD brand website. Further source come from Logopedia. (https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/b/b6/Warner_Bros._Games_Dec-2023_%28without_wordmark%29.svg/revision/latest?cb=20240208160325). Yayan550 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yayan550:  Done Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanna try to overwrite File:Nick Jr. logo 2023 (outline).svg to update it to the official version

Hello, Abzeronow. Could you update File:Nick Jr. logo 2023 (outline).svg to unlock overwriting for anyone? I wanna replace it to have the official version with the official blue color. The source came from Logopedia, and this is what I wanna update it to: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/d/d3/NICKJR-2023-Outline.svg/revision/latest?cb=20240129075100 RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@RobloxMiner$$: I cannot see the svg in that link. Abzeronow (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How about this: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/File:NICKJR-2023-Outline.svg RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@RobloxMiner$$:  Done Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Turns out not only is the blue in ‘Jr.’ the official blue, but this is actually the official version of the outlined logo. Didn’t see it until I noticed the difference between both versions of the outlined logo. RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Update of map

You killed Lithuania and Croatia in map ! And Andorra is also missing. --92.76.96.107 00:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) File:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg

I reverted to the last attempted version, which was not thumbnailing before. Hopefully this fixes the issue. Abzeronow (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Using/ illustrations

Thank you! So much :)

can I thank you by offering something of my artwork?(Original numbered lunar print of your choice)

I notice that because of the deletion of my file: two pages no longer have the illustration so, can you notify them that they can use the image? their page reference is here 📌 File history Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 01:06, 9 December 2019

1,193 × 757 (265 KB) VeronicaInDream(talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard You cannot overwrite this file. File usage on Commons There are no pages that use this file. 👇 📌 File usage on other wikis The following other wikis use this file: Usage on bg.wikipedia.org Уич хаус Usage on ru.wikipedia.org Витч-хаус

(I don't know how to notify them)by myself https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#c-Abzeronow-20240223183400-File:Lunar_Glitch_VHS_01.png VeronicaInDream (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your gratitude is enough for me. I don't require anything beyond that, and not even the gratitude is required, but is appreciated. I will restore the usage of your file on Bulgarian and Russian Wikipedia shortly. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried restoring on Bulgarian Wikipedia but was reverted. I don't speak Bulgarian so I can't really ask why they did so. Commons Delinker didn't have any listing for the Russian Wikipedia entry. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi 👋

you were really respectful! I thank you for checking all of this; ps: the Bulgarian version (short version) (https://bg.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уич_хаус) only is up to date; the Russian version (long and more complete) has not yet been able to even restore the version including the illustration -> https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Витч-хаус MANY THANKS 🙏 (maybe you can you just notify them?) if you can’t restore .. a++ and, please let me know if I can do anything for help (I mean for help you in any ways for something now or later if you need something) bye! VeronicaInDream (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Copy of the previous format

Hello again;

I have an email copy of the version including the (missing viewable) image and its description on the pages that uses it so I can send you the email because copying and pasting it here does not give you a correct overview (I have to on my smartphone because my computer is broken)

Thanks a lot VeronicaInDream (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

[1] If the drawing is made from a photograph, is it free? --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If a drawing is a derivative work from a CC-BY-NC photograph, it is not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. Your drawing can be licensed as CC-BY-NC on a website that allows noncommercial-only works. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• • If I draw an antique statue, then I am its copyright holder. All known photographs of this bust have the same projection and it is clear that the drawings will be similar to it, but this does not mean that I am reproducing someone else’s work --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • p. 105, and, and--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I can definitely see differences in lighting though in the photographs, and different parts of the antique statue are emphasized as far as the different photographs. I took another look at the drawing, there are some details on the Getty.edu photograph that aren't in the drawing. @Holly Cheng: @Yann: Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
        • @Воскресенский Петр: Are you saying that you did not refer to any photos of the bust when drawing it? Did you see it in person? If you drew the picture based on the bust itself, then there is no problem. However, if you were basing your drawing on photos of the bust, those photos have their own copyrights, and that's where the copyright violation comes into play. —holly {chat} 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Only work made on directly based on the original work will be protected. A drawing based on an image from my head is mine alone. And it does not matter whether I have seen the bust, seen its photo or read its description--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
            • I don't think you quite understand what I'm talking about. Why don't you tell us the story behind your drawing? How did you decide to do it from this angle, and what did you use as your inspiration? —holly {chat} 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
              • I studied the descriptions in the books and all available photos. And based on this information, I made a drawing --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• This is the statue. I don't think you draw it from the original. Yann (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't understand you --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Yann, that's a different statue. See https://flinterm.home.xs4all.nl/Vakantie-in-Kynouria.html. —holly {chat} 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Danish sailors on warships and all kinds of other images released as public domain

Hi there @Abzeronow,

You're a very busy contributor here and I can see you need to make all kinds of decisions. Whereas as I am relatively new and, let's be candid, have made some mistakes. To help me learn can you take me through one of your calls.

It's about a shot of a sailor on a Danish warship, once published at wikmedia here and originally published here on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. You may know the site. Everything they publish is published as Public Domain. In the case of this sailor on a warship, it says that the image was provided to DVIDS courtesy of the Royal Danish Navy. As you can see it is published as being Public Domain, and there is no copyright restriction.

On the good faith principle, I've assumed that as an image is published as Public Domain, and that it was provided to DVIDS knowing that everything they publish is published to the public domain, that we, in the wiki community, could proceed on that understanding.

(If we can only assume that American images, that's to say, images taken by US Military staff or government workers while doing their duties, are the ones that are "truly" public domain, then the result will be an absolute domination of images of the American military, from an American military point of view, which, personally, bothers me and could undermine our common mission of being encyclopaedic.)

I would like to continue finding valuable images that are public domain or creative commons, and using them to improve articles. Please let me know what principle I should be deploying.

Best regards,

Matthew

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: Yes, I am aware it was posted to DVIDS, but the copyright holder is the Royal Danish Navy, which doesn't automatically release their works to the public domain. Someone from the Danish military would have to write COM:VRT to say that they dedicate photographs they give to DVIDS to the public domain or even them saying that authorize a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license of the photograph would do. I cannot assume that this photograph is public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Abzeronow for looking at this question, really grateful.

Just wondering where you have found a document that states that the Royal Danish Navy holds a copyright on this image?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Courtesy Royal Danish Navy." Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind me saying, that the plain reading of "courtesy of Royal Danish Navy" would be "this image has been kindly provided to DVIDS by Royal Danish Navy."

And, of course, the Royal Danish Navy has provided that DVIDS where they publish everything to the public domain, and that image is clearly marked as such.

I don't believe a reasonable person could assume that "courtesy of" means "this image comes with a copyright."

That's not what "courtesy of" means.

I would like you to reconsider this matter please. Any person, acting in good faith, should able to look at that language, and that image clearly marked as being public domain, and use it as such.

Kind regards,

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I read that more as "this photograph was provided by the Royal Danish Navy, who have allowed usage on DVIDs and for the personal use of those downloading the photograph, but they retain the copyright." I'll ask my mentor @Jameslwoodward: since he's had more experience in these matters, and I know DVIDS hosting non-American military photographs and video has come up before. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Abzeronow is right. If you go to the copyright statement for DVIDS, you will see that it explicitly states that images on the site that are provided by others may have a copyright. I see no reason to believe that this one is copyright free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward I see that here DVIDS does not not waive any publicity or privacy rights of any individuals portrayed. Fair enough. That's about the right of the Colonel (or whomever) being photographed. That doesn't affect the fact that the image is Public Domain. True? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Although we often take note of the personal rights of the people in images, that will not prevent it from being kept on Commons. However, again, as I said above, I see no reason why this image is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you staying engaged on this topic @Jameslwoodward. The short answer to why intelligent people would view an image as PD is because it's been published as PD, having been given to a dedicated PD image hosting site.

I believe we can act with integrity and use those images as such.

I care about seeing more material on allied militaries, aside from the Americans. It would really improve a lot of articles.

Images such as the Danish sailor, have been provided to a PD images site, published as PD and can be used as such. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not make it correct. There is nothing here to indicate that the Danish Navy has authorized a free license of the image. Also, the copyright information for the site places restrictions on the commercial use of its images which are unenforceable for images made by US personnel, but certainly apply to foreign images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Trying to keep this productive here @Jameslwoodward, and very keen to keep this peaceful and respectful. I have reviewed what I've written and in my saying that the image is on a page that states it is published as public domain is not incorrect. We can both check that. As to moving forward, I believe you would want some kind of a statement indicating that DVIDS has been given an authority by the photographer to publish as public domain. I am gathering that's what is needed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've made contact with DVIDS and they have provided advice on this particular image, which may provide context for you @Jameslwoodward.

I have not asked for a decision to be reconsidered before, so could you tell me the right way to pass that information about copyright on to you - or any other decision-maker?

Best regards

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason to believe that a "courtesy of" image comes without a copyright. You may either put forth the statement from DVIDS here or at Commons:Undeletion requests, but be aware that that will not be sufficient -- we will require a statement from the Danish Navy via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleting "EightTNOs" image in different languages

Hi,

Since you've deleted File:EightTNOs.png on the grounds of copyright violation and lack of attribution, I want to ask you if that means we would have to delete all other derivatives of this image. There's many different versions of this image as we can see in Category:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I don't see a reason why these versions should be kept but not the EightTNOs image. @Renerpho: pointed out in the discussion (the talk page of that file is deleted unfortunately) that the Haumea illustration is the main reason why the image got nominated for deletion in the first place, and most of these EightTNOs derivatives I mentioned earlier use this copyvio illustration of Haumea. Nrco0e (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, in the deletion discussion, I did mention that I was going to draw a replacement for the EightTNOs image. I'm not finished with it yet, but I do have some progress. I don't think I am able to send it here, but if you're interested in seeing it, I can PM you through email. Nrco0e (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose @Renerpho and @Tomruen might be interested, so I'll ping them here. Nrco0e (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and the PM. If replacing the image(s) in the various articles becomes easier if we wait for the replacement before deleting them then I suggest to do so. @Abzeronow: Can you access the deleted talk page? If so, retrieving the rationale for deleting it (which I unwisely pointed to in the deletion discussion, not realizing that it wouldn't be preserved) would be nice. Renerpho (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The derivatives affected by the unfree Haumea image are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; also 7 which is not in the category linked by Nrco0e (are there more?). There are numerous others that are derivatives of the EightTNOs image, but don't use the Haumea image. I'd have to read my own rationale again to remember if there was reason to delete those, too. Renerpho (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the Haumea image, the talk page said

"The Haumea image was published in 2011[2] with a Creative Commons 4.0 license. One condition of that license is attribution (credit: SINC/José Antonio Peñas), which is not done in the Wikimedia image. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: In any other case I would have simply nominated the image for deletion, because its license is wrong (3.0 vs. 4.0, no attribution, and this is not "own work"), but considering how much this file is used, maybe it can be rectified without the trouble? Unfortunately I am not sure what to do, because so many users have contributed to this. Renerpho (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Haumea image was removed once before (as a non-free image) in 2016, but was added back a few days later without explanation. Renerpho (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The SINC image was licensed CC BY 3.0 at the source at the time of upload to Commons. The source licence was later changed to version 4.0. Indeed, the file versions that include the SINC image cannot be kept in this file which is multi-licensed with version 1.0 etc. The file history could be split to make two separate files. The credit could be added in a separate file that would be licensed with version 4.0 only. However, the SINC license page has a strange restrictive clause that might contradict the CC license, so it's not clear if this image is really free. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)" Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for retrieving the talk page section, Abzeronow. I think the part of the license that Asclepias was referring to is this: El uso de los contenidos bajo la licencia Creative Commons BY 4.0, no permite, en ningún caso, la explotación, sea o no con fines comerciales, de los contenidos de SINC para la creación de publicaciones, en cualquier soporte, cuando estén integradas mayoritariamente por contenidos de la agenciasinc.es.[3] That's a strange restriction indeed, and I don't think it is compatible at all with CC-BY, making that license null and void... Maybe that's of relevance for the decision whether to delete/keep the derivatives linked above. In any case, the EightTNOs image was deleted based on the SINC Haumea image, so I believe that all derivatives that use it have to go, too. Renerpho (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll start adding a temporary and hidden category to the files derived from Eight TNOs, and I'll do a mass DR (or a few of them) to deal with the other files. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've created it now Category:Haumea SINC files. Feel free to add files that have the SINC image of Haumea in them to this category. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:BALANÇA DOS PRIMOS A RESOLUÇÃO E DEMONSTRAÇÃO DA CONJECTURA DE GOLDBACH (1).pdf

In your closing comments, you noted that this file "would be better off as an upload to Wikisource". However, Wikisource does not generally accept unpublished manuscripts by contributors, such as this one. Would you mind updating that bit? Omphalographer (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I edited that part out. Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

About the deletion request

I apologize for my insistence on inviting you into the discussion. I have noticed changes in the facade of the building, which will probably prove critical. I would like, if you are able and willing, to take a position, at least for the last time, in the discussion. IM-yb (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll leave a response later today. Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aula_Paolo_VI

You deleted and keep images at random. I feel discriminated. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It may feel random to you but I was making judgement calls as far as de minimis in some of the photographs rather than just deleting everything because of the lack of FOP in the Vatican. I can assure you that I was not taking who took the photographs into consideration when I was deleting. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont believe you - you kept the panoramico images. There is no reason to keep these and to delete others. Bahnmoeller (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

They were de minimis. The cityscape was the subject, not the individual building. And if you believe I deleted an image in error, you can make an undeletion request. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Message from IP user

Oui je suis complètement d'accord pour la suppression de la couverture " les lettres infernales de ratel sigma. 2001:861:3B81:E290:CCE8:2D02:FD84:6F1A 03:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to Overwrite File - 1st Oscars

On the Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests page, I requested to change an image of File:1stOscars 1929.jpg to a higher res one. Would you be able to let me upload that new version? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: I have approved your request at OWR. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I've recently made a file of the Cuban Coat of Arms with the flag stripes in their original blue scale, to make the former coat. When uploading it to Commons, it loaded wrong, and accidentally I finished to upload it. Well, I investigated how to delete it, but only an administrator can do that. So I'm asking you to do that. You will find easy to find it by typing in the search bar "Former Coat of Arms of Cuba". It's the black-coloured option. Thank you so much. Have a nice day. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Marked it for speedy deletion (qualifies under G7 since you uploaded it less than seven days ago.) Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pan American Airways

Hello again, following our exchange about Fokker F.VII/3m, I now discover that there's a problem with the Pan American Airways category here. The category contains the Wikidata item Q7129586 in an infobox that instead belongs to Pan American Airways (1996–1998) as per Wikipedia article, but no such category at Commons. I'm tempted to just amend the Wikidata item and remove the Commons infobox, but unsure how it might co-exist with the current infobox on the Wikipedia 1996–1998 page. Perhaps as a Commons admin, you might action or advise accordingly. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

More thoughts - perhaps we should rename our categories here as Pan American Airways (1927–1950) and Pan American Airways (1950–1991), to reflect aircraft types and liveries, although not necessarily reflecting legal company names ? PeterWD (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Amending the Wikdata item and removing the infobox seems to be the simplest solution. As far as the other thing, I could start a CfD to ask about the best way of reorganizing the aircraft subcategories since as the U.S. public domain expands, we probably will be getting more photographs about Pan Am's early years. I could also ask about the main categories and what others think might be the best way to organize it so things can be easily found. I could definitely create Fokker and Fairchild categories for Pan Am if they are not already existent. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Crocus City Hall 2020.jpg

Hi, could I please have your opinion? I've uploaded this image today, and now it's protected. I'd replace current version (3648 × 2232px but with cropped bottom) by this one: [4] (2560 × 1707). Which one would be better? Thanks, Quick1984 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not just upload the uncropped photograph as a different file? (assuming that is also from the same Russian website as the currently auto-protected file.) I could see potential use for either. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Cablevision (Lebanon).png

@Abzeronow:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept), una opinión?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reluctant delete since Lebanon's ToO is unknown. (Apologies for the late reply, was not near a computer until now) Abzeronow (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow:Gracias por responder, pero ese Logo que contiene era solamente texto con "CV" pegadas (osea pasaría como "simple"). AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Author's request to delete

Good afternoon. I am the original uploader of File:Raisa Vasilyeva postage stamp.jpg. It is now nominated for deletion, and I, the original uploader (from my previous account), was blocked for evading the earlier block. I am not going to make any further contributions, but I only ask you to remove this file because it doesn't look like the original postage stamp, I found it in an unreliable 4chan-type website and I don't want to insult dignity of the woman depicted or anyone else by having mock stamp published in Wikimedia. I wanted to be productive in Wikimedia, but unfortunately someone recalled my badwill contributions five years ago and blocked me. I apologize for evading block and I will not make any further contributions. Thanks. Пётр Серков-Новый (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You cast a vote, but is it possible that you delete it immediately under G7 (Author or uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content (G7))? Пётр Серков-Новый (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

File:2022-03-06 11-25-59 ILCE-6500 DSC15155 Kiri DxO (51982500989).jpg

File:2022-03-06 11-25-59 ILCE-6500 DSC15155 Kiri DxO (51982500989).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors) and CSD G10 (files created as advertisements) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

All the best - Chuck ^Talk 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

UDR Mazzoni

Hi Abzeronow, sorry to bother you, I just realized that in the UDR I forgot about File:Ufficio poste Sabaudia.jpg. It's in the exact same situation as all the other photos. Friniate (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ciao, it's not an issue. Buonasera  Done Abzeronow (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Grazie mille! :-) Friniate (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Check image

@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor chequea la imagen File:Bandera Municipio Urdaneta Estado Bolivariano de Miranda (2023).jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hey sorry to bother you, but I think you overlooked me on Commons:Requests for rights. Thanks. Hilbeck (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw your request. I'll wait to see if anyone else acts on it. I'll make a decision on it if no one else acts on it in a week from now. Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Images of Stadio Franchi

Hi Abzeronow, thank you very much for having undeleted the images deleted in this DR. Checking the images I'm not completely sure if File:ArtemioFranchiwiki2.jpg and File:ArtemioFranchiwiki3.jpg are ok though... If the building itself is in PD, can the same be said for the graphic version that can be downloaded by the 3D gallery of Sketchup program 7? Friniate (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If the uploader drew the image themselves in the program, I think it would be fine. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not completely sure about that, since in the description he wrote that he used the 3D Gallery Warehouse. Searching in the website of 3D Warehouse I found this model of the Stadium. It's different from the photos, true, but maybe it was changed since 2010...--Friniate (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

FM promotion

This file has been promoted to Featured media! The file File:His Girl Friday.webm, which you nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:His Girl Friday.webm, has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another file, please do so.

Cart (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrol rights

Hey, so it's been 3 months since the trial period began and it's about to end like tomorrow, as far as I know, there's been no significant issues, so Id like to know if this role could be made permanent? NorthTension (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@NorthTension:  Done Abzeronow (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much NorthTension (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Hallo, I would like to ask you the reason for the deletion of File:Movie project poster brazil (1985) by nedz d1di9fb.jpg. I am very confused as to which exact licenses are not permitted. Is it possible that you sum it up for me using their names? Thank you and have a great day. Michail Angelos Georgoulas (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't accept noncommercial restrictions (NC) or restrictions on derivative works (ND). Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your work in clearing year-long backlog on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves! 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

MP3 uploads

Hello. As you can know from Commons:Requests_for_rights/Denied/Autopatrolled/2024#RuzDD, I really want to upload MP3's and I really have good reasons for that but I can't do that as I'm not autopatrolled. As you know, non-autopatrolled users can request overwriting at Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/Requests, is the equivalent of this for MP3 uploading exists? If not, can this be created? I promise I will not upload any copyvio, thank you! RuzDD (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit count is a little better now than it was three months ago so I can see progress as far as that right goes. As mentioned to you previously at the help desk, you can upload in other audio formats without needing the right for it. I can consider temporarily granting you the right so you could upload whichever MP3 files you feel the project needs (provided they are freely licensed or public domain as being pre-1924). Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not urgent but I think (also for other newcomers) it'll be very good if a specific MP3 uploading allowing system can be implemented. I really love MP3: It can store mono and stereo sounds in one stream, disrupting it does not prevent it from playing (you can open a MP3 file with notepad and edit it and it should still play), and you can combine two MP3's with just notepad, and MP3 is very compatible, and it supports 8kbps (Vorbis does not). Also, I really like MP3's sound color if it's encoded with a good encoder. Thank you. RuzDD (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-05

In re Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-05#File:Cyber_tux.jpg -- this is not "personal art", it's an illustration that was being used in an article on the English Wikipedia. Does Commons now have a policy that Wikimedia projects aren't allowed to host their images here anymore? JPxG (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: https://commons-delinquent.toolforge.org/?image=Cyber+tux.jpg&action=any&result=any shows no results for usage. It was not in use when deleted. Apologies for a late response. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The file 1936 Summer Olympics (Berlin) boycotting countries (red).png

There was no way the Soviet Union could boycott the 1936 Olympic Games, because the Soviet Union was accepted into the Olympic movement only in 1951: The Olympic Committee of the USSR was formed on April 21, 1951, and the IOC recognised the new body in its 45th session (May 7, 1951). --Surely-NFI (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing what the facts are, just trying to head off any contention by pointing out that the text on the English Wikipedia article en:List of Olympic Games boycotts states that the Soviet Union did boycott. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg

I'll admit that I'm far more familiar with English Wikipedia procedures than Wikimedia Commons ones, but was a "withdrawn" closure appropriate on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg if the nominator was not the only one to support deletion? In that case, despite the update by 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:219E:E7AC:5087:1A8 who found the image in an ArcGIS StoryMap, my delete vote still would've stood because {{PD-NWS}} specifically only applies to files stored on the web servers of the U.S. National Weather Service, whereas the StoryMap is on a domain and servers run by the private company Esri. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Your deletion vote was before it was found on the ArcGIS StoryMap. The byline indicates this was written by NWS Austin/San Antonio, TX and NWS Fort Worth/Dallas, TX and the end credits names those who prepared the StoryMap. Your delete vote said "Delete unless an actual source other than "here's a PDF that doesn't have the image" can be found". I had assumed consensus was to close as keep. If you want to renominate, I won't object, but for all intents and purposes, the StoryMap is a NWS publication. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:202010 Plateosaurus engelhardti.svg

Hello. I am reaching out to ask that you reconsider your decision to keep File:202010 Plateosaurus engelhardti.svg. Creating a vector graphic equivalent to the existing PNG file is an extremely complex and time-consuming task. The level of detail required for the SVG to match or surpass the quality of the PNG is significant, and it is unlikely that anyone will invest the necessary effort to achieve this in the future. Moreoever, this file is closer to "photograph quality" than, say, a diagram, making PNG the preferred format anyways (see Commons:File types). While COM:DUPE does not technically apply, the SVG file simply is a duplicate of the PNG, and keeping both files is simply redundant. Thank you for your consideration. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The file is in use by Basque Wikipedia (specifically their children's encyclopedia section). I cannot redirect a svg file to a png so I cannot treat it like a duplicate, so my only option was to keep, as I cannot tell Basque Wikipedia what the best file is. Thanks for letting me know that fixing the problem via overwrite is not feasible. Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Permission to overwrite file

Hello Abzeronow,

would it be possible to give me permission to overwrite the file Datei:Logo 1fc passau.svg (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1._FC_Passau_logo.svg)? The logo of the club is an old one and has already been relaunched a few years ago. You can also compare it to the logo on their website https://fcpassau.de

Thanks in advance! Alexmo00 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexmo00:  Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I noticed that there is also a second file of the logo (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1._FC_Passau_logo.svg). It would be great if you gave me permission for that too so that the old version will not be used by people in the future anymore.

By the way, there were made some mistakes while removing the other file. If you want, you can erase the other versions between the new and the old file. Thanks :) Alexmo00 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delete any revisions on the file. Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. But could you also give me permission to overwrite the second file of the logo (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1._FC_Passau_logo.svg)? Thank you! Alexmo00 (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

As above, you can overwrite File:1. FC Passau logo.svg. Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Max Fishman.jpg

Please restore the photograph of Max Fishman. File:Max Fishman.jpg It was made by amateurs around 1953-54 for the stand of our conservatory teachers. Since then it has not been published anywhere. All rights to the photograph were given for free use. Comments that I am 90 years old are too exaggerated - I am 86 years old. When the photo was taken I was learning to take photographs. There were many assistants. Max Fishman died in 1985. Why remove a photograph of a person that no one has claimed for about 80 years. Sincerely Levikoan Levikoan (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I said approximately, and I was rounding up from 88. I did not delete it, and yes, 86 would be a plausible age. There are a few options here: 1.) You can contact COM:VRT and provide them the evidence needed to confirm that what you've been saying. 2.) You can make an undeletion request at COM:UDR but they might tell you to contact VRT. I also cannot confirm on-wiki whether the statements you've been making are true (which right now, they definitely could be). To answer the question of "why remove an unclaimed 1950s photo", we care about copyright even if no one else does. COM:CARES. Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Help me please. I clicked on COM:UDR and wrote and received no response. What is VRT I have no idea and what evidence can I give? I am a person of a different generation and I don’t understand much. Proof: A photograph where he, Max Fishman, is approximately 38 years old. Born in 1915. He went through the war, the Gulag, persecution. Sincerely. Levikoan (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This link (which I shortened above) explains what VRT is. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. But I will tell you honestly that all these obstacles take away health. Levikoan (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I sympathize, it's a lovely photograph, hopefully issues can be resolved quickly. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that the photograph of Max Fishman will be returned. There is little health left, just stress. Levikoan (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Block email

Thanks for bringing this to my attention -- the block is gone. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the right

Hi,

thanks you giving me the autopatrol right. PDF uploads now work the way I need.

Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Confusing Image Source

I was recently looking at the page for File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png while overwriting it with a better-encoded version, and I noticed something odd. There is a template on the page that says that you personally verified that the file was posted to https://www.nemo-ocean.eu/gallery/ very recently. To put this simply, you now have me wondering if I'm going nuts. When I visit that page, I see no posted images of any kind. The only things that page seems to display are four embedded YouTube videos, and nothing more. I see no images on that page that match the appearance and dimensions of File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png. Could you help me understand what's up? Is that image actually on that page at all? Or am I missing a button or link that I have to click to bring it into view? Obscure2020 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The colors roughly match those found in the first video around 1:38, and copyright notice says "Copyright: work by Oriol Tintó, Barcelona Supercomputing Center is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 2020". Abzeronow (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of that. I now have even more grounds to object to your verification template.

1. If an image was originally a frame in a YouTube video, then the source of the image should be stated to be the YouTube video, not some random webpage that happened to embed that YouTube video.
2. File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png was clearly NOT a frame in that YouTube video, for the following three reasons:
   1. The video is clearly of horizontal widescreen dimensions, while the photo is vertical.
   2. The video clearly displays two vertical red lines that overlay the globe at the 1:38 mark, and those red lines are not present in File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png.
   3. The video clearly displays text and logos in the corners of the frame at the 1:38 mark, which do not appear in File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png.

From these findings, we can positively state that the following two things are true:

1. https://www.nemo-ocean.eu/gallery/ is clearly not the original source of File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmE9t0WYhsA is also clearly not the original source of File:Velocity and sea surface temperature in the oceans.png.

I think you should remove your LicenseReview template until such time that we find a webpage or video online that contains a copy of this image that appears exactly the same as the version that was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Obscure2020 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it, although it's consistent with being authored by Oriol Tintó in my opinion even if it does not match what is shown in that video. Abzeronow (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Uploader also states he received that image from Tintó in Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSM UVglobe-1024x1024.png Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for that. So we do have some confirmation of the author of the original image. Until we find another copy of the image online (or perhaps some sort of official licensing statement from Tintó himself), it would be inaccurate to say that we know for certain the licensing of this image. Obscure2020 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hi Abzeronow. I uploaded this file false name. Can you delete this file? Thank you. :) -- kızıl message 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- kızıl message 19:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for the quick approval of the design improvements.

Dungeeva (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

About a Public domain photo in a web with no CC-BY licence

Hello, In order not to make more mistakes, I ask you. I would like to upload to WikiCommons this photo, which is in public domain. But the web in which the photo is used has no CC-BY. By another web I discover the archive of the image, but there is no information online about it. Can I upload it? Thank you! Mentxuwiki (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an 1890s photograph judging by the age of the sitter and the clothing. I'd use {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} for it. Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your tireless work fielding all the requests at COM:OWR. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Smthngnw and Sangjinhwa

Hi, Azberonow. I'm writing here on order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

This is my first post since the one-month block on Wikimedia Commons was lifted. The situation is complicated.

Before I tell you, I have to confess what I've hidden so far. In fact, a few months ago, I accidentally uploaded a Eurovision heart logo on Wikimedia Commons with an offensive Nazi symbol that is legally banned in some countries. Therefore, a Wikimedia Commons user submitted the file to the deletion request saying, "Germany used only the black, red, and gold tricolor in Eurovision. The rest of the file is a fictional logo". As a result, files created by other users have also been deleted because of community consensus. In other words, due to my carelessness in uploading files containing offensive symbols for non-educational purposes, even files created by other users that did not contain offensive symbols were deleted. However, the Flag heart symbols of Eurovision gallery has the sentence "Some flags may be proposal" and the Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision heart-flags article has one user's opinion that "some files may serve educational purposes, even if they do not need to be used within a Wikimedia projects" (per COM:INUSE). A comprehensive look at the aforementioned paragraphs can be interpreted as meaning that even if the symbols are fictional, they do not contain offensive symbols to a particular group or the public and prove useful in an educational scope, there is no need to delete them from the Wikimedia Commons. In addition, the files referred to as undeletion requests were based on flags actually used in former countries and regions and did not include offensive Nazi symbols or similar symbols legally prohibited in some countries.

There is also an error as to why those files were deleted. Other users did not take issue when the Eurovision Heart logo, which was created by applying old flags that had never actually been used even though they had participated in Eurovision like Germany, or the Eurovision Heart logo, which was created by applying old flags from countries and regions that had never actually participated in Eurovision in the past only if both did not contain symbols that were offensive to certain groups or publics, was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. There's even an article in the Russian Wikipedia (See the Russian Wikipedia entry for Евровидение-1971, Евровидение-1972, Евровидение-1974, Евровидение-1975) that uses the Eurovision heart logo created by applying the old flags of countries and regions that have never really participated in Eurovision, and the Eurovision heart logo created by applying the old flags that have never been used even though they have actually participated in Eurovision. Additionally, the article Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision heart-flags states that the Eurovision heart version of the flag can be used not only for Eurovision-related purposes, but also to express love for a specific country. Therefore, the claim that it should be deleted because it is not useful for educational purposes is incorrect.

After being blocked from Wikimedia Commons for a month, I have come to reflect on my inexperienced behavior of uploading deleted files again without consultation, and using symbols that are offensive to certain groups or publics for non-educational purposes. I have found that reuploading such deleted files without consultation, or using symbols that are offensive to certain groups or the publics for purposes other than education, could be a bigger reason for punishment later on. Also, I didn't create any sock puppet accounts that were strictly banned from Wikimedia while they were blocked from Wikimedia Commons.

I apologize for the inconvenience caused to users of Wikimedia Commons by my misbehavior. The request for undeletion requires a recusal request to avoid a conflict of interest with the user who proposed deletion or the administrator who decided to delete it, but it is clear that we have no intention of accusing the user. Therefore, I would like to ask you to undelete only the Eurovision Heart logo, which has been found not include offensive Nazi symbols, which are legally prohibited in some countries. Sangjinhwa (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My personal view is that we should not have Eurovision heart flags for countries that no longer existed in 1956, so no Eurovision Prussia flags. Eurovision Saar Protectorate would barely make the cut (reunited with West Germany in 1957). I'd obviously consider East Germany. I'd have to get the OK of @Rosenzweig: and @Pi.1415926535: for this. But honestly, it's not a loss to no longer have these files since it's essentially personal fanfiction and not actually educational. Abzeronow (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I will raise a counterargument. The Soviet Union, which never participated in Eurovision, existed from 1922, before the creation of Eurovision, until its dissolution in 1991. So should the Soviet flag version of the Eurovision heart logo file also be deleted? I don't think this is fair. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, if the Soviet Eurovision flag is in use, then by policy, it's automatically in scope. If it's unused, it should be deleted. If you have a potential Wikipedia use for Saar Eurovision or East German Eurovision flags, then please tell me. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I need to explain this part. I looked at the link to the Russian Wikipedia article mentioned above and there was a paragraph that mentioned East German stations where Eurovision was broadcast. The remaining files were deleted due to my carelessness as an active and constructive participant in Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, the COM:INUSE paragraph states, "custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed if you are an active, constructive participant on Commons." -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I'm inclined to restore the East German ones now. Commons is a collaborative project so I'll wait to see if Rosenzweig and Pi respond. There's no rush on restoring them, so I'll wait a few days before making a decision. Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I acknowledged that the remaining files were deleted due to my carelessness in uploading files containing offensive Nazi symbols, and the file that caused the cause, that is, the file containing offensive Nazi symbols, was excluded from the request for undeletion. However, there is a sentence in the Flag heart symbols of Eurovision gallery article that says, "Eurovision-style heart-flags, Some flags may be proposal", and I think the issue will be how to interpret this. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the reason why they were deleted was that the nominator and closing admin felt all were out of scope. Category descriptions don't overule scope. You are not the reason why they were deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My situation is complicated. To be precise, I acknowledged the negligence of uploading files containing aggressive Nazi symbols that are beyond the educational spectrum, and revealed that I had excluded files containing Nazi symbols from the request for undeletion. Meanwhile, in the case of East Germany, the Russian Wikipedia article stated that there was a paragraph referring to the stations on which Eurovision was broadcast (including East Germany), where the Eurovision heart logo was attached. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't feel that any of those files are in project scope and think files of that kind should be restricted to actually participating countries. I'm also not aware of any GDR broadcast stations actually transmitting the song contest. Large parts of East Germany were able to receive West German radio and TV stations though (including their ESC coverage of course), which was not allowed, but done anyway. The East German broadcasters (I'm not even sure if there was more than one) were under control of the ruling Communist regime, and they were opposed to the ESC. The Eastern European countries had their own song contest, the Intervision song contest. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that Eurovision wasn't offically supported by East Germany, and the ruling regime would frown on its people listening, but as say, de facto parts of East Germany would be part of its audience. I also agree with you that in general, files of this kind should be restricted to those who actually participated as files of countries that never participated is fodder for alternate history sites which have tended to dump such files here, and we don't want to encourage such behavior. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Flag heart symbols of Eurovision gallery is "a collection of files that have modified the flags of specific countries and regions to match the heart logo used in Eurovision", and it does not matter whether the countries actually participated in Eurovision. Of course, this only applies if it does not contain symbols that are offensive to certain groups or the public and serves an educational purpose. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Gallery descriptions don't overrule scope. And you're incorrect about "symbols that are offensive to certain groups", if said symbols are in scope, they would be kept. Commons is not censored. I recently restored files that were clearly derived from Nazi flags but the files were in use when they were deleted and I said that as someone with a Jewish ancestor and Polish ancestry that I found the files repugnant. Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been an active and constructive participant in the Commons. Wikimedia Commons also states that for files that are only used by Wikimedia Commons, "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed if you are an active, constructive participant on Commons." -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you'd qualify as a substantial contributor so I think it's possible to restore them as allowable personal artwork. We can always disclaim that these are fictitious and that they are allowed under the small number of personal files exemption for contributors. Because of the fictitious nature of these files, I am naturally cautious about the prospect of restoration because we tend to get a lot of fictitious flags that we would need to delete. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Parliament.bg

Dear Abzeronow,

I am contacting you regarding the actions taken to delete the Parliament.bg template (that is already a fact) and all the files using it (in the hundreds). As I cannot state my reasoning on the Deletion request page, I kindly ask for your time and response to the following considerations:

While the National Assembly's terms of use statement is not citing a CC BY license per se, their content and intent closely align with the principles of CC BY. The terms effectively grant the same permissions as CC BY, with the sole requirement being attribution, making them functionally equivalent to a CC BY license in practice. The terms do not mention any restrictions on commercial use or creation of derivative works. In CC licenses, anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed and restrictions are explicitly stated (e.g., NC, ND). The National Assembly's terms (bespoke public use license) follow this logic by stating broad permission with only an attribution requirement. The absence of explicit permission for specific (commercial, adapt) uses in the terms does not equate to prohibition but implies that these uses are permitted, especially given the opening statement allowing free use.

The argument that "for each uploaded file it should be shown it complies with the licensing on Commons to keep the file" is not directly relevant to determining whether the terms are equivalent to CC BY. This is more of a procedural requirement for content management rather than a fundamental aspect of the license terms.

Please let me know if there are some specific actions from our side we could take to prevent the deletions of all the files (images) from Parliament.bg uploaded to Commons and to restore/create a new version of the template.

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation!

Kind regards, Pelajanela (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: but implies that these uses are permitted. You are demonstrating a key misunderstanding of the COM:L#Acceptable licenses policy requirements - these conditions must be present, not assumed. It is for a reason that the word must is highlighted many times in the text in bold and italics. You're not the first who tries to declare we can get away with it, but that's not acceptable. Quick1984 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What is not acceptable, Quick1984, is your claim that I am "not the first who tries to declare we can get away with it" by which you assume and suggest certain incentive from my side and put thoughts and words in my mouth. I understand that people express themselves differently and may put different meanings into their words. I also understand that I may be showing an reprehensible misunderstanding from your point of view - and not just me in this case (I discussed the case with a copyright attorney аmong others). But if I may, I would say that your attitude shows disrespect to Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct. Please revise your statement, moderate your tone and demonstrate collegiality and respect for the knowledge and differences in experience of others. Thank you
Pelajanela (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Pelajanela, the consensus was that the terms of use did not conform to the license that was stated with the template. The terms of use were unclear if the photographs actually did fall under a license that only required attribution, and it is not adequately defined what was considered free use of the material (were modifications allowed? was commercial use allowed?) To prevent files that had been licensed under the template from being deleted, it has to be clearly shown that the files are in fact freely licensed in a way that Commons can accept, and right now, it's unclear whether that is actually the case. Abzeronow (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Files

Hello Abzeronow you deleted the file "File:Flag-map of Bolivia, Wiphala & bandera de la flor de Patujú.svg" saying the original one was deleted for copyright reasons, however the original one is requested to be undeleted according to this discussion. Can you restore the file and the original one please? Thanks in advance. Janitoalevic (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ellywa: I deleted the DW since the original was deleted, should I restore both? Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are agreeing with the discussion on the DR, please undelete those files. Ellywa (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Janitoalevic: Both have been undeleted per request. Abzeronow (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

VRT

Just wondering if this was available in 2006? I think the consensus is not to delete all old files where current tools weren't available. Isn't it? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that 2006 files would have looser standards of permission COM:GOF. However, consensus was to keep the file deleted (two longtime users opposed restoration) and Jim also opposing restoration. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is if the deletion was done correctly (no supervoting, even by longtime users). The result seems to be the arguments there were incorrect and there was no consensus on the scope issue. People seem to refer to Wikipedia discussions which seem to have concluded that the article there was just bad or badly referenced, and might have been improved.

Also apparently the VRT argument was erroneous. Shouldn't a longtime user be aware of that?

It's clear that we could just all give random arguments without trying to evaluate them and then count the number of admin who supervoted, but I think this isn't what we aren't trying to do in WMF projects, isn't it? Would some defeat the point of having discussions in the first place. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Premier Donald Tusk – konferencja prasowa dot. wpływów Rosji i Bisłorusi (21.05.2024).jpg

Are you sure about your deletion of this? Looking at the history and the original source it looks fine in source and copyright terms, but like the original uploader of this third-party file vandalized his own page after uploading. Please have a look and let me know what you think. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The uploader blanked the file and it fit the G7 criteria. I'm not opposed to restoration if that's desired. Abzeronow (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If it had been the uploader's own work I'd agree on the G7, but it's an in-scope image with an appropriate license from a third party. I think it should be restored. Since you were the deleting admin, could you either restore it or say explicitly that it's OK with you if I do? (I think you kind of said that, but explicit is clearer.) Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll make it explicit, I'm OK with restoration. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)