User talk:Denniss

This user talk page is for discussion with user Denniss. If you ask me at this page, I will answer here. If I ask you at another page, I will answer there! For starting a new section: click here Please sign your message: --~~~~ Add a new section at the end of page, please!

Discussion page archive

• Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

---

File:Mark Dennis with Ben Foster and Olivia Draguicevich.jpg

Could I trouble you to undelete this image? We've got OTRS permission from the copyright holder (ticket:2012012610010264) Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please wait for an OTRS member to handle this ticket, he/she will then undelete the image if the permission is sufficient. I'm not at OTRS so can't comment on your ticket. --Denniss (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an OTRS member (that's how I know the ticket number); you can verify that via the userbox on my userpage. The permission is sufficient and the image just needs the permissionOTRS tag. The only thing I can't do is undelete the image, because I'm not a Commons admin, so I'd be grateful if you could do that for me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You might have missed my reply in all the chaos yesterday, but the ticket is a few days old so I'd appreciate it if you could make any necessary checks and then undelete the image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep on Truckin'

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:KeepOnTruckin'.jpg you closed with "deleted" but you never deleted the image. It seems that you made an error. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. Fixed. --Denniss (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Belgian FOP cases

If you add this tag, or ones like it, including

• Category:Undelete in 20XX
• Category:FOP cases in Y

to a DR, you must use a noinclude tag pair around it.

• <noinclude>[[Category:Belgian FOP cases]]</noinclude>

Since DRs are transcluded onto the daily logs and the archived logs, if you do not use the noinclude tags, then all of the logs will also be included in the category. This triples the size of the category and makes it hard to use.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please ask the user actually adding these tags, I just fixed a report from DRBot/Admin as the last action in some DR was reported to be not by an Admin. --Denniss (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Take more care please

Please be more careful making edits like this. The accompanying text referred to that image, and since you removed it without leaving any kind of note or trace of the image link, it now makes no sense to any readers who have no idea how to interrogate the page history. I have no idea what "no place for images here" is supposed to mean, but if there is some rule against including images in DR's, then the least you could have done is left a note that you removed it. You should also not mark such edits as "minor", as it clearly wasn't one. Ultra7 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about uploading

Hello Denniss. How are you? I hope you are doing fine. I have been a member of Turkish and English Wikipedia for a long time but I recently became active here. Since you are an administrator here, I am hoping I can consult you regarding a question: I uploaded photos to Commons, some recent photos and some from my archives. In 2 years or 5 years from now on how can you know that what I uploaded is the original one? I mean right now noone uses them in any web site yet but some people will eventually use them. Then how can I prove they were originally uploaded by me so that they wont be deleted from Commons 5 years later? Thank you very much in advance. Mimar77 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BSicon KRZSTRlg.svg

You decided that this file should be kept, even in face of the discussion argumenting its deletion at Talk:BSicon/Renaming/Archive_1#File:BSicon_KRZSTRr.svg_et_al., based on which, b.t.w., eleven very similar images were deleted. Since most users of these icons consider that this file (along with its color and orientation variants) should be deleted, now I’d like to know your reasons to keep this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Then file a correct deletion request with proper arguments. Not somethings others tried to fix but without an option to understand the reasons for deletion. The correct way to file a deletion request is to use "Nominate for deletion" available from your toolbox in the lower left of your screen. --Denniss (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. You expressed your opinion that this file should be kept not because you think it should be kept but because the deletion request was not properly filed. That’s bureaucracy at its best. Okay, okay, I’ll do what you say now. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pages with broken file links

Hallo Denniss, du hattest irgendwann diese Kat. angelegt, in der sich derzeit >3000 Dateien/Seiten befinden. Nachdem Yann sie speedy-getaggt hat, ich aber nicht genau wusste, was er damit beabsichtigte, habe ich mir die Entstehung dieser Kategorisierung mal angeschaut und war überrascht, dass sie anscheinend "automatisch" auftritt. Was war denn die ursprüngliche Absicht dieses Mechanismus? Passiert mit diesen >3000 Dateien bzw. Seiten irgendetwas oder ist das mehr so l'art pour l'art? --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Das scheint eine seit Mediawiki 1.18 automatisch genutzte Kategorie zu sein, in der alle Elemente mit kaputten Bilderlinks reinkommen. Die habe ich damals nur erstellt, weil sie genutzt wurde ohne vorhanden zu sein. --Denniss (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Policy

Hello, I do have some questions about some of my files that have been deleted in an es.wikipedia article. These files are some pictures of venezuelan war tanks and military aircrafts, some of them pictures are taken by my self in person, and others are of public use, fotos posted online by random people in blogs and stuff. I ask you, can't I upload these files to contribute with various wiki articles? I apologize for my terrible English, I´m from Venezuela, thank you. --Efraindjc (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You can only upload images you have made yourself (with your camera) and released under a free license. You may upload images taken by others if they are available under a verifyable free license. --Denniss (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gourami With Platy2.jpg

Hello. You recently reverted my request to delete my own image which I had wanted to delete because the file had been distorted from its original version. I had no intention of vandalism. --Gourami Watcher (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I uploaded a different file to replace the original. Hope it's okay. Thanks. --Gourami Watcher (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ingo York in Kategorie Pankow

Hallo, mal abgesehen von dem ausstehenden Löschantrag ist Ingo York 2011 nicht Mitglied von Pankow. Siehe auch: de:Pankow_(Band)#2004_bis_heute. Gruß --Blueser2805 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Er war mal Mitglied und hat auf diesem Konzert offensichtlich mit Pankow gespielt. --Denniss (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Travis Doucette 2011.jpg

Hello, I was curious about the image you deleted, File:Travis Doucette 2011.jpg. The image is also hosted at en:File:Travis_Doucette_2011.jpg, also sourced from Flickr, which is why I uploaded it here under the same name (rather than transfer the WP version). Judging by the uploader's other edits and user name (en:Special:Contributions/Tsteingard), the WP uploader is the same Tyler Steingard that took en:File:Travis Doucette.jpg. Judging by the relationship that the uploader and the subject seem to have (likely friends going to the same school), I see no reason to assume that there is any sort of license laundering going on, or that the Flickr account does not belong to the copyright holder. If there is doubt shouldn't an attempt be made to verify before deleting? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 03:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Francisco Martínez.jpg

You deleted that photo and I am the owner and author. How can I upload it again?

Cricut logo

Any chance of moving File:Cricut Logo.PNG which you deleted to en-wiki, with a standard {{logo fur}} fair-use template? I don't have a copy of the image (which was uploaded by somebody else). It was in use at en:Cricut. Thanks. Jheald (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on it...

I see you're reverting my CFD-related edits. Please stop doing this. I am currently working on several related CFDs. I realize this is taking a while, but it's just going to get more confusing if you keep reverting stuff. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm finished. Now you can see what I was trying to do. - dcljr (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to reopen discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png

Hi Denniss,

Since you did not close the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png discussion correctly, it was perfectly okay for me to revert your edit and reopen the discussion. You wrote that you felt this to be a clear case for "Keep". I don't see how you could come to this decision at all. If anything, I would see the outcome of the discussion as "Delete", but I hoped for more people to jump in and provide hard evidence in one way or the other. I am worried that your closure as "Keep" will bring legal trouble to the WMF when Facebook's legal department will stumble upon them, and this is likely to happen sooner or later. As a German you should be well aware of Facebook's legal action against site owners using their Like button in ways not allowed by them. You provided your personal opinion that these files may be too simple to be copyrighted. You further stated that Facebook did not design these icons, although it was an established fact in the discussion that these icons are direct copies from Facebook's site. Since you brought up the topic of prior art, I asked you to provide some examples so we could bring down Facebook's trademark claims on these designs, but you didn't brought forward any, unfortunately. Some of the participants in the discussion sort of stepped back half-way saying that they cannot provide more than their mere opinion, and that while they would like these files to be kept they didn't really knew if this would be okay legally. Those who really tried to establish an educated opinion based on laws and the text available on Facebook's site recommended to delete the files. I suggested, that someone should ask Facebook for permission to use these files, or simply to design our own set of icons unrelated to the Facebook ones, but noone did so far. However, it is the burden of those who upload or want to keep stuff to provide evidence that it is okay to keep those files. Therefore I ask you to reopen the discussion or change the result to "Delete". And please address the questions I raised in the discussion. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I commented on that discussion, I'm horning in here a little bit: Can you provide any citation that Facebook has ever actually sued (and won) over the use of this little thumbs-up blurb? Or are you merely concerned about what "might happen"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While this is part of the discussion that should take place in the reopened deletion request discussion, Facebook (or its legal representatives) has been acting against numerous site owners who used their Like button in "incorrect" ways since early 2011. In all cases I am aware off, the claims were based on various trade laws. In most of these case, they issued a call for order (Abmahnung) and the site owners had to immediately change their behaviour accordingly, pay a "service" fee (typically in the several thousands for small sites) and sign a restrictive covenant/cease and desist agreement secured by a penalty (strafbewährte Unterlassungserklärung) (typically in the ten-thousands for small sites). This is the normal process if the parties want to avoid a law suit, because of the higher costs and risks involved, however, there were also various law suits with diverse results. I'm not in the position to summarize the outcome of the various incidents without thorough research, but for a quick overview that this is not hypothetical problem we could simply ignore, please check Google with keywords such as "Facebook Like Abmahnung", "Facebook Like Unterlassungserklärung", "Facebook Like LG", "Facebook Like OLG" (LG = Landesgericht, OLG = Oberlandesgericht), and you will find plenty of examples. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some specific links on hand where actually Facebook was active against websites/companies using facebook-like buttons? I was only able to find company vs company actions because the data transfer to Facebook was not mentioned at the webpages using the button (had to be noted in the Impressum). --Denniss (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these All Media examples are related to our case, they are more about what needs to be mentioned in the impressum and privacy policies. Related are cases, where the Facebook buttons are not used in the way allowed by Facebook. For a start, please read the press releases of Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz (ULD), which state that the normal Facebook Like button usage on web-pages (that is, as recommended by Facebook ;-) is in violation with German laws (Telemediengesetz (TMG) and Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG)). Since our WP Like/Dislike templates do *not* use the Facebook icons to transfer any data to Facebook at all, this in itself would not be related to our case, however, the very same fact makes us violate Facebook's license terms at the same time (see below)...

When site owners tried to circumvent these legal problems and trick Facebook's license using the Like button in ways not recommended (by disabling the transfer of "tracking data", but still allowing to "like" external events/topics with Facebook (for example by falling back to a two-click button solution), Facebook's legal department claimed that they were violating Facebook's license and issued threats ranging from reinvokation of licenses, blocking sites/apps/users to penalty fees. Some of the parties involved were "heise.de" (a well-known publisher of various technology-related magazines including c't) and "SWR.de" (a huge public radio and television broadcaster), and you can find well documented case histories there.

Since Wikipedia's use of the Facebook Like buttons in the Like/Dislike templates is not even remotely related to the way intended by Facebook (and shouldn't be either), we clearly violate their license terms. We can avoid this is by using Facebook's original active scripting solution for it's intended purposes (we don't want to do that for obvious reasons), changing the icons to something unrelated to Facebook (my suggestion), or deleting them. Simply ignoring these real world issues is not an option.

Therefore, I again ask you to reconsider and delete those icons to avoid trouble for the WMF (as was also suggested by admin Fæ in the discussion) or at the minimum reopen the discussion. This extended discussion should have taken place in the original deletion request discussion, not here.

In closing, I'd like to point out that the burden to provide evidence that it is okay to keep the contents is with those who upload or want to keep the stuff. Still, I have addressed the various questions raised in the discussion in some detail, wheras you still did not answered my question in regard to your prior art statement. Therefore it is difficult to not come to the conclusion that the discussion was not closed based on legal insight but personal preference... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For your convenience, here is a link into the debate at heise regarding their 2-click derivative of the Facebook Like button: [1]. It's not the most up-to-date article, but it has some further links to various interesting background articles. This article supports my view that Facebook will see our use of their Like button as a violation of their rights, if they will happen to stumble upon it. First, we must not make copies of their designs and upload them elsewhere, declaring them as public domain (a legal concept which does not exist in many countries outside the US), in particular not on Commons. Second, while we could use local copies of the Facebook Like button within the bounds of their license and with proper attributation to their license terms, we must not use them in any way not allowed by Facebook. Facebook makes it very clear on their policy page (see deletion discussion) that we must not create Facebook Like-button look-alikes, neither on visual nor on functional level. Our Dislike derivation is a visual look-alike, and our usage of the Like and Dislike icons in the {{Like}} and {{Dislike}} templates in the English Wikipedia is a usability look-alike of Facebook's social media plugin for a completely different purpose. So, by keeping these icons we are risking that Facebook will block Wikipedia (no direct harm for Wikipedia, but for users who use Wikipedia through Facebook) or even provoke legal action against the WMF (as explained already). Do you really want to knowingly risk creating potential trouble for the WMF?

On a different note, I'm still looking forward to an answer to my question regarding your prior-art statements (which were repeated in your closing summary of the deletion request discussion), for which you did not provide any evidence so far, unfortunately. If you can find some evidence of another party using Facebook's Like button before Facebook (or at least name the party you had in mind when issuing your statements, so that we could collaborate on searching for evidence), we would not have to worry too much unless Facebook bought the design from that prior owner. However, so far these claims remain unsupported statements, and therefore are void. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to Load Image:ATI_Radeon_HD_4890_Graphics_Card-top_view.jpg

This image is similar to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ATI_Radeon_HD_4890_Graphics_Card-top_view.jpg Evidently I did not understand what kind of license to insert, for AMD vide card product the permission is: Permission= {{Attribution AMD}}, but the license ? --Abassign (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

CFD on cat:Pictures_and_images and similar

As someone who has recently edited Category:Pictures and images, please see the (non-) discussion (not) going on at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02#Category:Pictures and images (and the 9 nominations following that one), if you haven't already, and comment there if you wish. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Miles Fisher / John Stamos / Drew Goddard

Hi there,

I have gone in and updated the sources of these 3 images to reflect "photographer" (creator of works) since these images have not been posted elsewhere but have been signed over as creative commons images by the photographers themselves. Please let me know what additional steps I an add to properly indicate file source. Thank you! --AnnBLea (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Permission of pictures by Mr. Li Min

Mr. Li Min (http://blog.udn.com/romeolee) licensed upload some pictures he pictured and marked "同意上傳至《維基共享資源》"(agree being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons) in his blog with CC-BY-3.0 license agreement in 2011. Please read this messege in Wikimedia Commons administrator Ben.MQ's page in Chinese Wikipedia. --Solomon203 (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, just to confirm that the original author released those images on his blog by posting at comment section and the main page(the first line means the work uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are free for commercial usage and/or derivative work creation). Bencmq (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Avaya ERS-5600-Stack-Rear.jpg ‎

Can you please help me provide the information that you have requested on this file? I don't understand what I need to do? I have an e-mail account associated with my wikipedia account, is this what you are looking for? I have never been asked for this information before, so this is a new process to me.

Thanks for any assistance or clarifications - Geek2003 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Denniss,

I made it from pen17.jpg, I'm in such a rush I didn't get the chance just yet. Penyulap (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Infobox

Hi Dennis, I was wondering about your revert a few days ago on the Palestinian Infobox?

The revert I had made to it was to the version before the current dispute about Jesus Christ added into it, I had reverted it back to the version I had added, that had been on the page for a few months, you reverted it back to the version from years ago which is outdated, we have added in many Notbale Palestinians on the page since that version, now when I attempt to reupload the version before Jesus was added in, it just keeps showing the version you reverted it to. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Permission

So not all files need proof of permission? If so what is the criteria for determining whether or not we just take the word of the uploader or not? Thanks. -Aaron Booth (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your actions have been reverted because you just placed the tag without informing the uploader. A quick search with google image search did not come up with anything larger or better than the files at Commons. At least one image you tagged was a cropped version of a larger file from Commons that you didn't tag. --Denniss (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Glenn Close 2012 1.jpg

Thanks, I actually missed the more important step : add the OTRS tag ;)--Bapti ✉ 16:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cdg 165217.jpg

Denniss, I apparently uploaded a file (cdg 165217.jpg) that you deleted for lack of source. Is there any way I can see what the picture was of? I'm almost certain it was taken by a US Navy official photographer, which would put it in the public domain, but I need to see it to be sure. Thanks. E2a2j (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Temporary restored - image does not have the usual metadata info about USN source but I wasn't able to find a USN source as well. A search today came up with this --Denniss (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Japan and Template:Ja2

Hello, Denniss. Thank you for your work. I noticed you had reverted my update on Template:FoP-Japan and Template:Ja2. However, you can't categorize them in the category Category:コモンズ・テンプレート because the category can't be used any longer. Could you check both the pages and the category? If you need to revert, then please make sure everything is perfectly correct without any conflicts. Thank you for your help. --SantaClaus (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:AerialPhotograph-mlitJP and Template:PD-user-ja

Hello, Denniss. Thank you for your work. I noticed you had reverted my update on Template:AerialPhotograph-mlitJP and Template:PD-user-ja. However, you can't categorize them in the category Category:ライセンスタグ because the category can't be used any longer. Could you check both the pages and the category? If you need to revert, then please make sure everything is perfectly correct without any conflicts. Thank you for your help. --SantaClaus

Files Ineligible for copyright

Hello, and thanks! Please tell me do files licensced with {{PD-ineligible}} also needs permission? Tari Buttar (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think this image is PD-ineligible? It was taken from a website and there's no usage permission for it. --Denniss (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Filmitadka review tag

Hello, Denniss. You have new messages at Fanofbollywood's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Italiano | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Svenska | +/−

User:AK47Expert

Thanks for acting on those images really quickly.165.123.232.127 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:The Bo-Keys.jpg

Yesterday was the third time I've had to upload that image. Jacob Blickenstaff, the photographer, submitted permission via e-mail to use it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 on Monday morning. I will forward the e-mail to you if you like, but I've done what I was asked to do to verify my upload, so please remove your deletion request. --Jhdp (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File changing and protecting

Why did you yourself change File:China administrative.svg before locking it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to your unjust deletion of supposedly PD-ineligible images

Hello Denniss, I am here to protest your deletion of various image files which were uploaded to Commons by me, which portray the NBC Peacock logo in its present incarnation created in 1986. I uploaded these files marking them as public domain for being copyright-ineligible, and I see that you deleted these images flagging them as "copyright violations", when in truth, they are not. Here is my explanation:

The present incarnation of the NBC Peacock logo fails to comply with the U.S. threshold of originality because it is basically comprised of multiple, colorful geometric shapes. I have attempted to recreate the Peacock logo using an art program as simple as MS Paint, and upon doing so, was able to recreate the logo almost perfectly. As such, the Peacock logo is not eligible for copyright protection alone because its design is not creative enough, and thus, the logo is legally in the public domain. In addition, please note that the logo is of U.S. origin, so U.S. laws apply here.

There were other files uploaded by me containing the NBC logo that you had deleted from Commons with the images in question, but the reason why I asked for these two specific images to be undeleted is because they would be usable in Wikipedia articles that pertain to the same subjects as the logos that they depict, especially in those wikis where non-free content is not allowed (i.e., Spanish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Danish, Swedish, Bulgarian, Korean, Basque, and Interlingua).

So I'm urging you, think twice before flagging any image as a copyright violation.

-- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 14:36 UTC.

Continue: File:China administrative.svg

I'm disappointed about your decision to revert this image to user:Kondicherry's version. The initial version is to only show PRC and its claimed territories. The dispute has begun since Kondicherry uploaded his versions. Since Wikimedia Commons is not the ground to argue about NPOV, there's no reason the discussion in the image talk page, which focuses on NPOV and now moved to en.wp, has any effect on the prefered version of the image. When there's dispute, the image should be reverted to the latest version that represents the original creator's intention, not the version that conflicts with that intention. Forking the image is just a compromise to your questionable decision. The version that should be forked under the different file name is the currently protected version with the keyword "undisputed". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Sameboat's concerns here. Commons does not partake in POV disputes - they are the responsibility of individual Wikipedia language projects. If there is a dispute, the disputing party can make a fork of the file, so that it does not affect all Wikipedia projects as a whole. There is ongoing discussion, and that is located at en:Talk:China; that discussion is relevant to the English Wikipedia only, and has no ruling over what occurs at Commons. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 08:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Is there any reason why we're being ignored? This is quite a serious issue here. I'm pretty sure you have an obligation to provide an explanation for the aforementioned actions, as opposed to leaving it as a hit-and-run use of administrative tools. Many users on enwiki, and a huge chunk of zhwiki, are wondering what's going on. With power comes responsibility, and I think you're leaving out an important explanation here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Do not violate copyright

I simply assumed that the tool would have transferred all the necessary information, as it should do (otherwise why recommend it or link it here?). I hope that in the meantime the tool has been improved; however next time I'll check carefully whether the tool has moved what is to be moved. Greetings. --RanZag (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2012-04-10

I didn't understand why you deleted it. Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Bergamo collage.png

I entered the name of the authors and the license of the single pics as requested. -- kingston28 08:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

G.I. Joe logo

Hi Denniss. FYI, we have a recreation of the G.I. Joe logo by a probable sock: File:G.I. Joe Banner Recreation Free Of Use.jpg. Dr.K. (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And this: File:Joebanner.jpg. Dr.K. (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/archive 10#タチコマ robot

Does this count as being granted since the bot was approved for the task? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think not--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to file a new request? What do I need to do? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If the files are unchanged from the Flickr version why not use the standard Flickrreview template? AFAIR a bot needs to have file reviewer rights to become an accepted review tag. A null-edit from your useraccount will probably not accepted, I suggest changing the tag to a standard flickrreview tag to have the review bot do its work. --Denniss (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As the bot now has a reviewer flag please sign the added Flickrreview template with the robot signature and not your own. You are currently creating shedloads of work (for me) as your signature is detected as invalid. --Denniss (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem was due to a config file error I corrected today. The issue is already fixed through bot such as this. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it has not been fixed, even the latest uploads likw this one are still signed with your signature. --Denniss (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the bots signature. I am a bit confused. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Bacon

Hello Denniss i think that the image Francis Bacon is with the correct licence under flickr. Please check again and undelete if you can . Regards : JoanL (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all rights reserved. --Denniss (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems we have please do check again here [2]. Regards JoanL (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Denniss please review the image again if you please here. [3]. Thank you in advance JoanL (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Image with "possible" copyright

The image File:Captura myspace.png was a screenshot from my computer, what can be copyrighted?. Actually, I find it illogical!!!!--D vsquez (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The source material is copyrighted, that's called a derivative work. --Denniss (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to vote in administrator request

I requested for administration. Please vote in my request.Please give your view about me. If you oppose no problem But please vote in this. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/sridhar1000 --P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Frisch rassiert.jpg

Hi. I have restored this file as I feel your speedy deletion was out of process. I have added better categories to the image. Note that the file was kept at DR (albeit not a scope-based DR) only last month. If you wish to have it deleted, please do so via DR, not just speedy. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of free license photo (due to me adding wrong license).

It seems like you deleted a photo where I had filled in the wrong license. The photo was for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Masquerade and the picture was: http://www.evilmasquerade.com/lineup.htm - which is free to use (see beneath photo). Is it possible to get it back? I'm still new to Wiki so I don't understand all this with licenses yet. Thanks in advance. UPDATE: emailed Wiki and they'll fix this for me. --Metaldemolition (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

undelete

Hi Denniss, would you please mind undeleting the following picture: "Howl's Moving Castle Poster.jpg". I own the copyright for it as I designed it. I have attached the relevant copyright permission.

Thank you! Kristin

I hereby affirm that I, Kristin McGuire, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of "Howl's Moving Castle Poster.jpg". A poster advertising a theatre show for Southwark Playhouse. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" and GNU Free Documentation License. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. 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 am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Kristin McGuire copyright-holder 10/4/2012

Avoiding the elimination of the image

file:Cerveza toña.jpg Denisse Hello, I uploaded this picture, I ask you, review it to detect any copyright, I do not want to remove the images.

Deletion reasons

Hallo Denniss, ... thanks for providing them (deletion reasons) next time. Oh, and maybe you leave DRs open for more than one day if there is no "speedy" reason. ;-) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pussy close to orgasm.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts in sunshine.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mein penis und ringelsocken.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ehm, no Denniss, also if you delete them a second time without reason - no, that is not according to policy. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 01:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hell, what's your problem? They are valid speedies as they are low-quality self-made penis-pics (or similar) and we have more than enough far better quality images. Better read the policies yourself. --Denniss (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I said what is your (not my) problem: you did not provide deletion reasons in the DRs - not assessed anything else. --Saibo (Δ) 12:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' talk page / enwiki

Hi Denniss, just a courtesy comment to inform you that you got a mention here just now - Alison ^❤ 23:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Al Rama-18759.jpg

Hello, Actually the website www.palestineremembered.com had offered all its contents the GNU liscence. Please see the OTRS ticket #2008122810014342 to verify. Thank you. --3Princip (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see this:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2309935&ArticleID=2722719&QueueID=98 --3Princip (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Tdpe 0003 xs Tommy D Crooner.jpg

Sry, ich hatte vor Ewigkeiten meinen stolzen wiki acc aufgeben, und bin daher nicht mehr mit den Gepflogenheiten vertraut. Ich bin der Manager von Thomas Dellert know as Tommy Dollar (in the 80s), known as Thomas Dellacroix and Thomas Dellert-Dellacroix (from the 90 to the Millenium), known as Tommy D a Vintage Crooner. Thomas Dellert der selbst das Bild als professioneller Photograph inszeniert und geschossen hat, sitzt gerade vor mir und sagt mir, dass das jetzt mein Bild ist, mit dem ich machen darf was ich will. ;)

Wie kann man das lösen?

Und vielleicht kannst du noch lachen und erklären, wieso file:momm_0023_xs_mmp_mmm - magic, money, murder.jpg, ein Kunstwerk das weltweit ausgestellt wurde, sofort gelöscht wurde? Soweit mir noch bekannt ist die Kunst frei - in allen nicht-totalitären Ländern, im besonderen wenn es anerkannte Künstler sind.

Restore image - OTRS pending

Hi ! Could you please restore the image File:Julie-Marie Parmentier par Raphaël Neal.jpg ? I'm in contact with Niko253 who uploaded it. He asked permission to the author of the image Raphael Nael. Raphael Nael is said to have granted permission to publish the file under a free license and to have send a mail at <permissions-commons-fr>.

Apparently, Niko253 failed to reupload the file. Could you restore it for him ? Dodoïste (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Control

Hi, Denniss. When you have time, could you control A, B, C, D. I think they are very clear cases. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

About the image CAÑIZARES2012.jpg

Dear Denniss. Could you please check out if the license permission of the image CAÑIZARES2012.jpg (which is used at Juan Manuel Cañizares is OK? I have just added the License information, but as I am a very new editor of Wikipedia, I'm not sure if it is correct. Thank you very much for your advice and comment. --MOGURA (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

vous avez supprimé mon compte abedel (you delete my accompt abedel why???)

Hello Denniss, you delete my accompt "abedel" and i don't know why. I'am mosaist artist and i put some pieces of mosaisc on wikimedia commons. what's the problem about? thanks Anne anne.bedel@gmail.com

Why did you…

Hi Denniss,
I'd like to understand why you decided to delete this file. The discussion took place on this page: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Candle 2009 08 30.gif four months ago. I'm not here to contest your decision (at least not immediatly :) but mainly to understand your reasons, because I wanted to use this photograph on my blog with the following caption: CC-by-3.0 : свеча в темноте par HECTOP MAXHO, but I would be sure I can. Thanks, --Wikinade (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Google image search came up with multiple hits in even larger resolutions, the uploaders was a one-time account so the image became even more suspect. --Denniss (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding. I shall not reuse this image. Regards, --Wikinade (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This User

I just noticed a small unusual thing about 3 of this user's images. It may be something or nothing at all. This user has only a few images on Commons and some have no camera metadata but in the three that do, they have 3 different cameras. See this:

• A 2009 image taken by a Kodak camera.

• A December 2008 image according to the uploader’s flickr account metadata taken by a Canon camera.

• And a 2010 image taken by a Nokia camera.

These are the only images with camera metadata recorded on Commons or flickr. Do you think the images are probably ‘own work’? The uploader has a few other images with no metadata--it would be interesting to see if a Google search finds any hits before they were uploaded. If not, I assume that its probably OK. Unfortunately, I'm not experienced here and all I use is TinEye which is very limited. If you think they are all copyvios, feel free to take whatever action you think is necessary. But if they're OK, just let me know below. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Flickr images is from Getty images, taken by one of their own photographers. See [4] --Denniss (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: That was what I suspected. The uploader is taking images from other websites. Thanks for taking action. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

All photo deleted

I find all my photo are deleted? why is that? i can upload to flickr to? we decide only some photo to release officially

again sorry my english

Dongshin425 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For your information, Dongshin425 started a discussion at COM:HD#User:Denniss about this matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The flickr account dongshin425 is an account created by some fan, the account soley consists of stolen photos collected[5] from various[6] sources[7]. Note for the last example: This flickr abuser even removes watermarks, the pink cirlce light on the right side is not longer a circle, the photo is manipulated for flickr uploading without traitorous watermarks. There is nothing good with this flickr guy. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Agência Brasil/doc

Hi Denniss,

I undid your protection of Template:Agência Brasil/doc, as this is not a « widely used template », and I do not really see why we should prevent users from editing a documentation page.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

About description of photo

Hello, i would like to as you some questions. Can anybody else change description of my photos? Check this please im the author of picture, but the user delete his identity as he wants. If i dont have rights to add description on my own photo, why should i add photos to Wikimedia? i will be waiting for your answer. Thx --Gomada (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Denniss. First of all could you control Category talk:Kurdistan ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Gelöschtes Logo (Fräkmündt)

Hallo Denniss,

hab gerade gesehen, dass du das Logo von Fräkmündt gelöscht hast. Da kam bei mir die Frage auf, "wiso"? Der Uploader Lienert Meiri verfügt doch über das Nutzungsrecht des Logos und auch des Hintergrundes der Logo-Datei, es war also nie eine ORTS-Freigabe nötig, siehe hier: [8] kannst du also bitte das Logo wieder herstellen? Danke und Lg, --Trollhead (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

License of File:Postosuchus BW.jpg and alikes

Hi Denniss. May I ask you what makes you sure that Nobu Tamura from the site http://www.palaeocritti.com/ (from where the photos came) is the same person that is the user ArthurWeasley (talk · contribs) here? Or there is another reason for removing the {{copyvio}} mark, ie, what makes you belive that the images in http://www.palaeocritti.com/ are licensed under CC or GFDL? Regards. --Stegop (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd appreciate if you answer my question above, not much because I intend to argue with you, but because I want to understand your criteria so I won't use the tag {{copyvio}} wrongly. Thank you very much. Regards. --Stegop (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Melanie Fronckowiak.jpg

HI there. Not having access to deleted images, I can't verify that this image, which I just found on Flickr and uploaded because it has the correct license, is the one you deleted earlier for "license laundering". Is it? If it is, you have my apologies. If it isn't, please disregard this message. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a Flickr account used for white-washing stolen images. Sadly the Flickr upload bot does not track our bad users list. --Denniss (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)