User talk:LtPowers

Image:RIT art - The Sentinel.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:RIT art - The Sentinel.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Also Image:RIT art - The Sentinel closeup.jpg William Avery 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Martines, pilotari

(copied from the Village pump)

Hi, one of the most reputed Valencian pilota players, Martines, has sent me a pic to illustrate his article. The picture (obviously) was not taken by himself, but by a professional photographer who was hired by Martines' club to take some pics during the first match played at the courtfield named after Martines' name.

My question is: Would that pic acceptable to Wikimedia? Martines donates it freely. He is not the author but he has the property, since they hired the professional photographer. If so, which license should be applied? Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 06:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the club would own the license, since the photograph was taken under contract with them. (Of course, the contract could have stated any number of things, including that the photographer retained the rights.) If Martines owns the club, then it's okay; otherwise you need permission from the club. (In either case we can assume the club owns the image if they say they do.) As for a license, that's not up to us or to you; the owner of the photograph must release it under specific terms. See Commons:Licensing for what terms we require. Powers 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply in your own Talk page)

Yes, so I think. If the club hired a professional photographer to take pics of them playing, then those pics are property of the club, not the photographer, who keeps being the author.

Regarding the license, Martines gives the pic freely, as I said. I explained him the terms about derivative works, possible future commercial uses, and so on. And he agreed. The problem is that I can't find a proper license for this case.

The closest I've found is PD-Author, but this is not true since Martines is not the author. Or GFDL-self, since the owner of the pic gives it freely.

The problem remains in which is the proper license, as you see. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Coat of arms of Gagauzia.svg

Hi, from your latest comment on this one it seems you are inclined to support the image? If this is the case I would suggest you place a support vote on the candidate. It is due to being closed as "undecided", but I will give you a chance to vote on it, in case you just forgot to vote. (You do not have to vote on it of course). -- Slaunger 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 4aaf29faddcfc82b6783c88fc5d28da1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
an illustration of the "six degrees of separation" concept.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Oppose This should be SVG to be reusable at least. -- Nichtich 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree it should be SVG but as long as it looks good at the review resolution, it should pass the criteria, shouldn't it? Powers 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with the user above... the criteria clearly states, "Its usability in printed format is not considered." All that matters is how it looks at the review size. – flamurai 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not where the real value of SVGs comes in. The scalability's just a nice little bonus. Rocket000 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment Again, agreed, but modifiability also isn't one of the criteria. Powers 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment Seems like an svg would be a much more "valuable image". We can always change the criteria. --Calibas 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        •  Comment As I see it, the whole concept of the project is to reward images based primarily on their content, not technical or aesthetic quality. If the criteria were changed to increase the technical standards, the focus of the entire project would change. – flamurai 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          •  Comment Having a file in the most suitable file format is certainly something which adds value. If we have not stated that explicitly in the guidelines today, I think we should consider adding it. And I agree SVG is the most suited format for such an illustration. However, we are reviewing if it is the best we have, thus the file format in this review is not that important. Suppose this image was promoted and later challenged in an MVR of the "same" image in svg format, i would certainly favor the SVG as it is much better suited for making adjustments and derivative work. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Are there more relevant categories to place this in? It's only in Networks, and that seems pretty generic to me. It's definitely a graph, so it belongs somewhere in Graphs, but there's probably something down that hierarchy that's more appropriate. – flamurai 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info I've added it to Category:Sociological diagrams per your recommendation. Powers 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Just fascinating and inviting to know more about it. --Foroa 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The way the outlying nodes are scattered around with all the lines crossing makes the illustration very confusing. For example, there is a blue node directly between and above nodes 2 and 3 that appears to be connected to nodes 1 and 4. If this were the case, nodes 2 and 3 would be bypassed, so it would invalidate the graph (only 5 degrees of separation). Not a great illustration of the concept, so this fails criterion 3. – flamurai 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with the opposers that there is room for improvement, but a VI does not have to be perfect. For me it still illustrates the subject well. It could be done better, sure, but that is also what we have MVR for. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Agree -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cinderella Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support meets criteria. best of the crop --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Raisins.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support seems to meet all relevant criteria, although the description can be improved.--Inkwina (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal on Category:Guide signs

Please support your opinion on the merge proposal for Category:Guide signs. Thanks, Sehome Bay (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

your edit on COM:WP

1) "we have plenty of pictures of that": Seems that you know a bit more than I do. Or do you just mean Category:naked children?
2) "Child porn is as in-scope as real pornography is" I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that it's in scope or note.
Please tell me! --D-Kuru (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I meant your suggested edit. I just mixed two of your contibutions.

What you mean with "we have pictures of lynchings"? Are you talking about something like Category:Firing squad? If Yes: Do you think that CP is as immoral as pictures of lynchings?

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg

Hi. Thanks for your vigilence in trying to avoid copyright violations. As File:6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg was indentended to doccument something other than the appearance of the copyrighted character and has been on Commons for more than 2 years without a previous challenge, I've changed your speedy delete tag to a deletion request listing: Commons:Deletion requests/File:6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg. I've also listed an image with similar situation Commons:Deletion requests/File:6FlagsDaffyFloodlines.jpg. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lacrosse categories

Category discussion notification

Several lacrosse categories you made have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Yarnalgo (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 3e92154b437e34c5ea0a5fd1f7c094c8

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocktails Neon Sign.jpg

Thanks for bringing this copyvio to my attention. When I originally uploaded the photo several years ago, it never really occurred to me that the underlying sign might be copyrighted, too. The fact that is was labeled "vintage" also led me to believe that it was old enough not to have to worry about it, especially since there are soooo many similar signs out there. But, thanks to your RFD and an extensive Google Images search, I located the manufacturer, and it's still very much in production. They don't want to release it under a free license (which I understand), so it turns out it was a copyvio--just like you thought. Unfortunately, that also makes all the work I did on the other three images copyvios, too, because they are derivative works of the original. Oh well. I created a new image completely from scratch in SVG format, and that's actually better than a PNG file anyway. All's well that ends well. Thanks again for spotting the problem. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I've been around long enough to understand that this wasn't personal, and it was the right thing to do. I care very much about copyrights, and I would never knowingly violate a copyright. Sometimes people seem to go overboard with flagging things as possible copyvios. I initially assumed that this was such a case. But, I looked into it more, and you were absolutely correct. The extra work wasn't a big deal either, because now we have a freely-licensed image without any murky copyright issues. That's better for the project and everyone. Have a great weekend! --Willscrlt (Talk) 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Tapa.jpg

Hi, I just take the picture. Why? CaptainHaddock (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it's a old thing is coming from the dining room of my garnd-mother. CaptainHaddock (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Map_of_Atlantic_Hockey_states.svg

File deletion warning

File:Map_of_Atlantic_Hockey_states.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

 Powers (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SVG text different after upload

Hi,

Thanks for looking into this. Is this something that should be fixed? I didn't do any tags manually, I simply added text in inkscape. Certainly there is a "standard", right? Which side (inkscape or wikicommons) isn't complying?

Daviddoria (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Orleans_County_(New_York)_outline.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Orleans_County_(New_York)_outline.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

 Powers (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

Greetings. Just wanted to let you know I've closed your RfA as successful and granted you the sysop flag. Congratulations! If you need any help or have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best of luck, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hello LtPowers, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nova Scotia, Canada.svg

Hi,

Could you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nova Scotia, Canada.svg? --Dereckson (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

regarding Midnight68

Hi. At commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Kogaru1.jpg you said "I have seen intermediary forms of this image that prove (to my satisfaction, at least), that issues of authorship should be moot." ... where are these located? I'd like to review them, as I'm not satisfied that these are the work of Midnight68. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding; I've been on vacation. You can see the links Midnight68 provided at wikitravel:shared:User talk:LtPowers#Dear LtPowers. I found them convincing, although I'm sure there's room for disagreement. Powers (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not convinced, but I'm more convinced than I was, if you see what I mean. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat. At this point, it seems to me that we should be assuming good faith; Midnight68 seems to have been cooperative enough to have earned that, at least. Powers (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AGF is the way to go. Since I'm at least partially convinced if not completely, :) that's the appropriate thing to do. Especially since others are fully convinced at this point. Thanks for the elaboration. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Viewing Deleted Images

"First of all, Jim, you know you (as an admin) can view a deleted image without having to restore it, right? ... Powers (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)"

Actually, I don't know how to do that. I have thought several times about a tutorial for new Admins, but I thought that the only important thing that most of us seem to miss is DelReqHandler. Obviously, I'm missing this one -- I have been in the habit of restoring and then redeleting.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

When you go to a page that's been deleted, you'll see the deletion log there. In each entry in the log, you'll see a link that says "view/restore" (I assume you know this since you know how to restore a page). On the restoration page, you can see that each revision to the page is linked, as well as each upload if it's an image. If you click on the time/date stamp you can see the deleted revision or image without having to restore it. Powers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha, thanks very much. Do we actually document that somewhere? How did you learn it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's documented anywhere. Before I became an admin, I think I knew it was possible to do this. And since the link in the deletion log says "(view/restore)", I'm pretty sure I quickly figured out how. =) Powers (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox1 would be welcome, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. =) Powers (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Klick. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

CfD for College athletic program categories

Category discussion notification

Categories for college athletic programs have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Spyder_Monkey (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can this be added in the template? --Vinie007 (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Powers (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my newbie question about that Red Sonja so quickly. I will carefully evaluate if (and if yes, how) that pic is usable in the Red Sonja or Cosplay WP articles, and I will keep future discussions in the Village Pump. X2000 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:WDW_New_Fantasyland_logo.jpg

File deletion warning

File:WDW_New_Fantasyland_logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

  - Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Jan Wellens de Cock Calvary.jpg

Hi, Thanks for fixing this file. Is this something I can do myself as a simple user? If not I have a number of other files in which the latest uploaded version doens't show properly:

• File:Jan Wellens de Cock Calvary.jpg
• File:Peter Paul Rubens - Raising of the Cross - WGA20437.jpg

Do you mind having a look at them. Or am I too impatient and is this a problem that is fixed automatically? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• • They look fine to me. Thumbnail updating has been a persistent problem the last few months. Powers (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry I meant these 2 files:
      • File:Dutch V.O.C. factory in Hoegly (Hugli-Chuchura, Bengal)(Hendrik van Schuylenburgh, 1665).jpg
      • File:Peter Paul Rubens - Raising of the Cross - WGA20437.jpg
    • The first should show no frame and the second white instead of black dividing lines. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
      • • They still look fine to me. Powers (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BadJPEG template discussion

Dcoetzee has modified the English message in BadJPEG template to prohibit its use for scans and photographs [1]. I think, such modification is irrelevant and was not agreed upon during the discussion. Moreover, no alternatives were proposed. I have expressed my concerns in the follow-ups. However, I'm afraid that my arguments are/will not be considered simply because of the personal dislike [2]. If you have time, please comment on the situation (link to the discussion). Any constructive opinion is greatly welcomed. Thanks in advance! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name
Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo MZK Konin.png

Hi!

Can you explain me, why you delete this file? What was wrong with this image? Flyz1 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. So what can I do, to publish this work legally? Is it possible? Flyz1 (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Spammer or houndee?

Care to give us some neutral admin input here and on the image page talk? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

you didn't delete the pic but closed the discussion

Hi - you forgot to delete the pic - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tristane_Banon_2011.jpg - Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Old newspaper photos

Could be quite a find. None of your photo links work. It would be good to find a way to give fixed addresses to these. You need to find and add Stone's death date if you want to use the 70-year template. Dankarl (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid of that for the links; the links to the images are permanent but I haven't found a way to permanently reference the archive data pages. Stone died in 1936; what's the best way to specify that on the image description page? Powers (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket provided

The ticket has been provided. Who removes the tag? [3]? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For keeping NHL fans everywhere well informed concerning the divisional changes coming next year with your awesome and timely new map. It is much appreciated! Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Logos

You have been active in a deletion request about the Disney Junior logo. You might be interested in knowing that there is a similar debate ongoing about several logos at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#PD-textlogo; second opinions. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tiao munchen.jpg

see [4], [5],copyvio--shizhao (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi LtPowers, isn't there a negation missing in the second sentence (It's sad that everyone can just behave like adults.) of your comment on COM:AN? --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably. My apologies. Powers (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)