User talk:Ruthven/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Mappa Ethiopia 1930

Grazie RUTHVEN, per le correzioni sulla Mappa MacMoreno (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@MacMoreno: Una volta inseriti i dati è più facile caricare le immagini direttamente su Commons. Se ti interessa, ci sono delle convenzioni grafiche per le mappe (contemporanee e storiche). --Ruthven (msg) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Requests closed with PD-Italy

You recently closed some of my deletion requests with a "keep" decission by PD-Italy. These pictures were taken in Italy but all photographers are from Austria. There's no evidence of a first publication in Italy! As far as I know all of these pictures were first published in Austrian and German books and magazines. After a quick search through my library i found the first three in the brochure "Die historische Grödnerbahn" by Friedrich Haftel, published by the railway enthusiast assosiation "Club 760" in 2015. The first one I remember from a postcard at least back to the 80ies by the same publisher.

This one Is printed in a calendar from 2017, maybe there is an older publication too:

There was an exhibition about the Gardena railway in Italy back in 2016 or 2017. Any claim for a publication in Italy back long enough ago should be proved by solid evidence, otherwise all of these pictures have to be considered as still copxyrighted! I know there's a distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs". Such we have in Austria too and also in Germany ("Lichtbildwerk" and simple "Lichtbild") but in court decisions the simple type is only accepted for pictures by photo booths, traffic radars etc. I recommend to delete these images, in case of doubt please consult a third opinion. I know, the discussion is not new. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Herbert Ortner: As I said in one of the DR: Italian Law doesn't care if the photo were published in Italy, Austria or Saturn. A photograph taken in Italy without artistic intent is in the public domain 20 years after creation. So, if a no-artistic photo taken in 1940 is published in Germany for the first time ever in 2015, it is still PD (both for Italy and the US). --Ruthven (msg) 17:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In that case someone should change the template as it clearly states that This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first published in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. That's a bit of a missleading statement, at least on first sight. The other thing is still the question of artistic merit. Here we have the following: ...which kinds of photographs are considered "simple photographs" is rather vague; this rule is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should be used on Commons very carefully. In practice this template seems widely used as a justification to upload virtually everything without a second thought.
Do you have any information how this is actually practiced in italian jurisdiction? Aside from the fact that the pictures in question are just very bad reproductions of much better photographs, I'm very much influenced by Austrian and German rules that basically say that the long term of protection applies in any case a picture was taken by a human with a real camera. And I simply don't like the idea that all my photgraphs taken in Italy 20 and more years ago are already public domain there – even those never made public to anyone. Well, I'm sure that's not a new issue at all. Do you know of older discussions and community decisions concerning the topic of PD-Italy? -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Herbert Ortner: Hi! I wasn't aware of this mistake in the template formulation in English (I generally see it in its Italian version, which is correctly spelled). In Italian it is: "Questa è una fotografia scattata in Italia (o in territorio italiano)" (This is a photo made in Italy or on the Italian territory), which is correct because the Italian Copyright law says:
    Art. 6
    Il titolo originario dell'acquisto del diritto di autore è costituito dalla creazione dell'opera, quale particolare espressione del lavoro intellettuale.
    Copyright shall be acquired on the creation of a work that constitutes the particular expression of an intellectual effort.
I shall change the English version accordingly.
Italian jurisdiction is very generous wrt what is considered "simple photograph". In practice, framing is not considered a "particular expression of an intellectual effort", because the style of the photographer must be identifiable in a photograph, and because bare reproductions of reality is not considered an intellectual effort. So, do not fall under PD-Italy photographs shot in studio (the artificial lights, the modified environment, etc. are changes of the reality, thus protected), and all other efforts to change the "aspects, elements or events of natural or social life". A normal panorama is thus considered "simple" or photo of people in a street, newspaper photos (besides obvious special cases) or even portraits where there are not enough details to infer a creative interpretation of the natural life. Ruthven (msg) 11:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiLove Monuments e cancellazioni su Commons

Queste liste con autorizzazione esistono già, senti Cristian Cenci e gli altri organizzatori. --Sailko (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: grazie per la chiusura della procedura. --Sailko (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about a PD-Italy licensed photo

Hi Ruthven. Would you mind taking a look at en:WP:MCQ#File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg. Perhaps you can help sort out the copyright status of en:File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Villanova del Battista rainbow

Ciao e scusa se ti chiedo una cortesia qui ma qui su Commons mi sento un pesce fuor d'acqua, non ci capisco niente. Potresti spiegarmi perché quell'immagine è stata proposta per la cancellazione e cosa si può fare per impedirlo? Grazie--3knolls (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@3knolls: Per impedirlo puoi argomentare che quell'immagine sfocata può essere usata a scopo educativo (in un progetto Wikimedia ad esempio). Lo fai scrivendo (anche in italiano, ma gli utenti preferiscono l'inglese), nella pagina della PdC. A mio avviso, quella foto non è illustrativa di alcunché. --Ruthven (msg) 19:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Ma tra quanto tempo sarà cancellata? Inoltre potresti dirmi dove posso trovare le linee guida di Commons inerenti ai requisiti minimi delle foto (anche se in inglese)? Un'altra domanda: queste due immagini: Ariano_Irpino_Arena.jpeg e Ariano_Irpino_arena.jpeg sono versioni non aggiornate di Ariano_Irpino_arena-stadio.jpeg (nel senso che nelle prime due non compaiono le porte da calcio, che non erano state ancora montate; purtroppo dovetti procedere così perché l'aggiornamento immagini non funzionava) Sarebbe possibile cancellarle o bisogna seguire qualche procedura? Potresti anche indicarmi dove trovare le linee guida per richiedere la cancellazione di immagini ripetute o inusufruibili (anche se in inglese)? Ti ringrazio molto se vorrai rispondermi--3knolls (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@3knolls: Le cancellazioni, durano almeno una settimana. Per le linee guida, puoi iniziare da Commons:Project scope. Quei due file, si potrebbero mantenere al limite. Poi, di norma, chi carica può chiedere la cancellazione immediata una settimana al massimo dopo il caricamento. Se sei sicuro che i file non servono proprio, prova a chiedere lo stesso l'immediata inserendo {{SD|G7}} nelle pagine. Magari passo io dopo. --Ruthven (msg) 20:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Re

Erano dei test che facevo perché non riuscivo a capire per quale motivo gli aggiornamenti non funzionavano. Allora lo chiedo a te: come mai ad esempio nell'immagine del File:Ariano Irpino La Starza2.jpeg continuano a comparire i frammenti ceramici nonostante che la versione attuale dovrebbe essere il segnale stradale? Perché non si "aggiorna"? Chiesi anche allo sportello-informazioni di Wikipedia ma nessuno ne capiva. Ti sarei grato se potessi spiegarmelo e comunque, se ci fossero problemi, cancella pure tutto ciò che non è in regola o che non è utile al progetto--3knolls (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@3knolls: Prova a svuotare la cache.
Detto ciò, è proibito su Commons caricare un file completamente diverso con lo stesso nome di un file già esistente. Quel file Ariano Irpino La Starza2.jpeg a breve dovrò separarlo in due. --Ruthven (msg) 20:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Lo so che è proibito, ma erano solo dei test. Non c'entra la cache, all'epoca informai del problema vari amministratori di Wikipedia (tra gli altri Lepido, Antonio1952 e Sakretsu) e tutti mi confermarono che c'era un problema nel software di Mediawiki. Se riesco a trovare la relativa discussione ti mando il link--3knolls (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Questa era la discussione su it.wiki: Aiuto:Sportello informazioni#Diverse versioni di un file, iniziata il 28 dicembre alle 17:16--3knolls (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank a lot for the help! Chekannataliia (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

question

Specifically, why was my proposed correction [[1]] to the photo description rejected? Do you have any suggestions for a better re-submission? Thank you, A ri gi bod (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@A ri gi bod: Hi! I found the title not really informative. The photograph represents the king with some lama, and the second on the left is Lama Sherab Gyatso [2]. We can rename it like "King of Sikkim with a group of Lama, Darjeeling, India, c. 1900.jpg" if we really have to. --Ruthven (msg) 19:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elbert Hubbard.jpg

You closed the request as PD-1923. How do you know, that the image was published before 1923? Taivo (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: The photo was shot and print in the US before 1915. It is not sufficient enough? --Ruthven (msg) 09:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Shot – definitely. But printed – how do you know? Taivo (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Taivo: Come on! These photographs were made for hire by professional photographers that provided the print to the client as soon as possible. It was the pre-digital era, so a photo was shot to be print, not kept as a negative. In those cases we can consider that the creation time is the same as printing time. --Ruthven (msg) 10:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

?

I assume this is an error, isn't it? --Discasto talk 10:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Discasto: No, it isn't. Re-read what you've wrote at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Puerta_principal_AESF.jpg and let me know. Attacking the admin that tries to reduce the workload will help nobody and surely not the project. --Ruthven (msg) 10:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I understand what you mean and I'd like to apologize. I do think your assessment here is not valid at all (for more than a decade we've asked for an explicit permission on derivation). For me it's surprissing that such a requirement is no longer needed and I'll be glad to use such relaxed requirements for new uploads. Thansk again for your effort and sorry for any inconvenience --Discasto talk 10:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank for the apology, Discasto, I appreciate it. In a collaborative project it is essential to stay mellow, otherwise the collaboration ends and the project as well. Back to the DR, not all admins read all the requests, so it's totally normal that previous discussions remain unknown. The best thing to do is to link them. --Ruthven (msg) 10:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Frank's Antigua Photo Studio.jpg

Hi there. I've only just noticed that you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frank's Antigua Photo Studio.jpg as keep, saying that I didn't give a valid reason for deletion. Surely the fact that the image page states that it is subject to copyright is a valid reason? Other images with the same copyright statement (as far as I recall) were deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HistorianStory. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: You mean it's copyrighted in the file description? No, it doesn't matter. Copyright is compatible with a free license. Publishing under CC BY-SA 4.0, for instance, doesn't strip you of your rights on the photograph. So it is not a valid reason for deletion.
Looking better, you can mark the file as unauthorised (without opening a deletion request), because we need the written permission from the photographer Kenneth M. Milton. --Ruthven (msg) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks - and good point about the copyright claim. Sorry to be slow, but how do I mark it as unauthorised? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Add the following anywhere in the file page: {{subst:npd}}. Then, follow the instructions in the box you added to add the notification in the user's page. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 22:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Richiesta controllo Licenza

Ciao Ruthven, avrei bisogno per favore del tuo aiuto e anche di un chiarimento se possibile. A questa pagina (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_Mazzaferro_(Urbino).jpg) ho caricato immagine con licenza non commerciale inserendola nel Template descrittivo. Solo che per pubblicarla ho dovuto inserire anche una licenza commerciale CC-BY-SA-4.0 altrimenti il sistema non mi consentiva di caricarla. Quindi c'è un'incoerenza. Ho inserito descrizione e template EDP per ulteriore trasparenza, ma non mi è ben chiaro in questi casi perché il sistema si comporta in questo modo.

Traduco: 1) ho una foto che l'autore mi ha autorizzato ad usare liberamente 2) allo stesso autore ho escluso fini commerciali ma solo culturali. 3) la carico con licenza CC-BY-NC-4.0 4) a questo punto il sistema mi blocca e son costretto a far quanto sopra...

Io ho la chat facebook che attesta l'autorizzazione da parte dell'autore, ma poi cosa dovrei fare? Chiedere un ticket? Confuso..--Cinghiale7512 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Grazie comunque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinghiale7512 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cinghiale7512: Ciao. Grazie per avermelo chiesto. Siccome il file è di un'altra persona, devi chiedere il ticket OTRS, che però dovrebbe essere dato per la licenza CC by-sa, visto che hai caricato il file con quella, ma il fotografo non la vuole dare.Per quanto riguarda la licenza non commerciale, questa non è accettabile, dato che questo file non rientra nella categoria che può essere caricata in EDP: il paese esiste sempre e quindi è sempre possibile fare una fotografia con licenza libera. Chiedi all'autore perché non vuole dare una licenza libera, cosa gli cambia se la sua foto viene usata in un sito web. Magari fagli notare che lui ha sempre diritto ad essere citato e che può tranquillamente fare causa se la foto viene usata senza citare il suo nome o la fonte. Nel frattempo segno il file come "senza autorizzazione", poi, se la situazione evolve, si vede. --Ruthven (msg) 08:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Ciao, grazie innanzitutto. Allora, adesso mi è un po' più chiaro e la licenza CC by-sa 4.0 va bene. distinguo in ogni caso i 2 aspetti per il fine ultimo:

1) L'immagine l'ho presa da un sito che non era dell'autore della foto, quindi veniva già utilizzata nelle condizioni che tu descrivi per la CC by-sa 4.0. Per correttezza l'avevo in ogni caso avvertito specificandogli che sarebbe stato citato come fonte e autore. Gli avevo escluso l'aspetto commerciale perchè non mi piaceva che qualcuno lucrasse sul suo lavoro senza citarlo. Ma non è questo il caso, quindi direi che la CC by-sa 4.0 va bene. Ti riporto sotto la chat in cui ci siamo parlati così per "temporanea conferma":

Cinghiale7512:

Buonasera Sig. Mini, non ci conosciamo direttamente ma ho trovato su facebook una foto relativa alla zona di mazzaferro. Credo sia sua perchè era sulla pagina città di Urbino. Volevo innanzitutto congratularmi per la bellissima foto. Sono residente ad Urbino (Marche) nel quartiere di Mazzaferro da circa 40 anni e sto lavorando alla pagina Wikipedia (enciclopedia on-line gratuita) del quartiere di Mazzaferro. Volevo quindi cortesemente domandarLe l'utilizzo, citandola naturalmente come autore. Confermo che la foto sarà utilizzata solo a scopo formativo/educativo. E' categoricamente escluso l'utilizzo per lucro. Le manderò poi il link a lavoro ultimato se lo desidera. Rinnovando nuovamente i complimenti per l'ottimo lavoro, auguro una buona giornata

Paolo Mini: Nessun problema 😀

Cinghiale7512: La ringrazio molto!

Paolo Mini: emoticon con segno di vittoria

Cinghiale7512:Ecco Paolo, la foto si trova a questa pagina:https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazzaferro_(Urbino)

Paolo Mini: ok!

2) In ogni caso proporrei di mantenere la CC-BY-NC-4.0 perchè la categoria EDP a mio parere rientra, per le motivazioni che avevo specificato nella descrizione. Ho capito cosa mi hai scritto, cioè che il quartiere esiste sempre, ma quel tipo di foto è impossibile da rifare, può farla con quel risultato solo l'autore. So che può esser difficile da capire ma è così. Il risultato fotografico è assolutamente irriproducibile perchè schiaccia il quartiere sull'immagine di Urbino. L'immagine che vedi, nonostante sia di un posto reale, elabora una prospettiva difficilmente ricostruibile. Non sono comunque così esperto di licenza quindi mi rimetto al tuo giudizio.

Grazie ancora.

p.s. posso chiedere a te l'eventuale ticket? o devo far tutta procedura?--Cinghiale7512 (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cinghiale7512: Ottimo! vorrei però correggerti su un paio di punti. 1) I file su Facebook sono "Tutti diritti riservati", quindi ben lontani da una licenza libera (non potresti copiarli, modificarli, ecc...): serve l'esplicita approvazione dell'autore a pubblicare sotto CC by-sa 4.0. 2) La fotografia non rientra assolutamente sotto EDP (magari rileggiti la linea guida se non ti è chiaro), quindi o licenza libera o nulla. In pratica ha usato un teleobiettivo da un punto preciso, che magari è casa sua; ma a noi non importa perché una foto simile si può ottenere dalla strada accanto, per esempio. Guarda che la CC by-sa è comunque restrittiva: impone a chi riutilizza il file (anche per fini commerciali) di citare l'autore e di ridistribuire la foto con la stessa licenza (il che impedisce di appropriarsi della foto e di non concederla per eventuali riutilizzi). Appena convinto, fai scrivere a permissions.it@wikimedia.org dall'autore. Grazie --Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Ok dai, chiaro su facebook, ma questo step è by-passato avendo autorizzazione diretta dell'Autore. Chiedo il ticket. Riesci a tenermi foto in stand-by?...non so se in una settimana riescono a rispondere dal permission. Grazie, ciao. --Cinghiale7512 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cinghiale7512: Ciao! Non capisco bene cosa devi dire con lo step che è by-passato. L'autore stesso deve scrivere all'indirizzo di OTRS ed un tipo lì si occuperà di verificarlo e confermarlo (se scrivi alla coda italiana, la risposta arriva in pochi giorni). La foto sta ancora qualche giorno, ma tanto, anche se venisse cancellata, un amministratore la può sempre recuperare. --Ruthven (msg) 08:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Ciao, intendevo che il fatto che fosse presa da facebook non costituiva un problema, avendo l'autorizzazione diretta dell'autore con cui avevo interloquito in chat. Comunque ho chiesto un ticket e me lo hanno rifiutato, avevo allegato la chat dove l'autore dava licenza libera. Mi chiedono di far mandare la mail direttamente da lui e non lo farò. E' una persona che conosco poco e mi sembrava di eccessivo disturbo. Tra l'altro in chat non solo non ha posto problemi, ma si è anche offerto di darmi una foto migliore. Ora ho ri-scritto al permission speriamo cambino idea, altrimenti devo rinunciare. Ho parlato con una certa Giorgia del permission, vedi se riesci ad intercedere. Comprendo la rigidità per tutela del sistema, certo è che in alcuni frangenti si potrebbe esser un pelo più elastici, in fondo parliamo della foto a 4 case in croce. Va beh, ciao e grazie comunque--Cinghiale7512 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cinghiale7512: C'era da aspettarsi una risposta del genere. Se si è mostrato disponibile, digli di mandare la foto migliore direttamente a OTRS con la liberatoria; non vedo perché porsi problemi, dato che si è mostrato disponibile. Poi, se l'autore non vuole dare la foto con licenza libera, è una decisione lecita. Non c'è motivo per essere elastici (poi perché verso questa foto in particolare?), il risultato sarebbe di avere ogni sorta di file rubato in giro su Commons e poi giù dietro a correre dietro agli avvocati per le denunce giunte! --Ruthven (msg) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Non è in discussione se voglia darla libera o meno e certo gli avvocati neanche li nominiamo. Non è stata accettata la chat come dimostrazione di liberatoria e si chiede che l'autore mandi la mail. Non sono così in confidenza per richiederlo ed è una rigidità eccessiva in questo caso. L'elasticità richiesta non è verso la foto, ma nel prendere atto da una chat che non esiste problema.--Cinghiale7512 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cinghiale7512: Ah! è per quello? Beh, considera che rilasciare una fotografia sotto una certa licenza è come firmare un contratto legale. Una chat può essere falsificata; una mail anche, ma sopratutto serve per contattare l'autore (cose che OTRS fa per controllare che non sia una finta autorizzazione). --Ruthven (msg) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Ma si ho capito che in giro ci sono i furbi! Ma le ho mandato una chat facebook dove ci sono nomi e foto e ti dico che si chiama Paolo Mini, fotografo urbinate. Se vuoi fare un check, gli scrivi tu o lo contatti sul suo sito per confermare che non t'ho fregato. Ma poi voglio dire, basta che guardi il lavoro fatto su quella pagina e le modalità con cui ho caricato le precedenti foto, concludi subito se ti puoi fidare o meno. Ma poi scusa, la foto l'ho segnalata io a te che avevo dei dubbi. Sono rammaricato.--Cinghiale7512 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quiterss.PNG

I have a question about the close. I understand you closed because in the U.S. logos that are only text are usually not copyrighted but I think the explanation of de minimis for the other issues is not enough. I have two additional questions - I am asking because I upload screenshots sometimes also.:

  1. Are non-free fonts allowed? Is it ok to post screenshots with non-free fonts, or without a clear license/source information to verify whether the font is free?
  2. Do we defer to U.S. law on this even though the "simple logos" that are unprotected in the U.S. may be protected in the U.K. or other countries?

SeraphWiki (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! To answer: 1) Commons:Licensing#Fonts; 2) If a logo is from a country where the threshold of originality is not law, it might be deleted (we consider only the US copyright and the copyright of the country of origin of a work). --Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fragment d'hydrie apulienne – MSR – Rituels Grecs – inv HC 284.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons di Cathopedia

Scusa se ti disturbo ancora, ma vorrei evitare di commettere altri errori. Per la prima volta ho caricato un file non prodotto da me, questo: [[File:ArianoIrpino MuDi salaespositiva.jpg]] (l'ho preso da Commons di Cathopedia). Potresti confermarmi che è tutto ok e che quindi posso utilizzare il file? Grazie--3knolls (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@3knolls: Va bene. In questi casi, si chiede ad un "revisore di licenze" di confermare il caricamento. Devi usare il template {{subst:Lrw}} nella pagina, assicurandoti che il link alla fonte indichi la licenza usata, come hai fatto. --Ruthven (msg) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you restored this file due to an OTRS Ticket, but forgot to confirm the release. I renewed the OTRS pendign tag now. Can you please have a second look. thx. --JuTa 11:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@JuTa: ✓ Done, thank you! --Ruthven (msg) 11:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

CNNBS copyrights

Hello. I have stated I do not own the copyrights and have openly cited the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimeniah (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jimeniah: Hi, the files you uploaded are copyrighted, please see https://cnnbs.bandcamp.com/album/vanidad-single for instance: at the bottom of the page it is written: "all rights reserved", meaning that it is forbidden to reuse the files without the author's permission. --Ruthven (msg) 15:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Cancellata: GranMadreDiDio-TA 2.jpg

Salve! Vorrei chiedere come mai hai cancellato la mia foto "GranMadreDiDio-TA 2.jpg". Grazie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio Lojk (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alessio Lojk: , per errore, ovviamente, visto che l'avevo mantenuto in Commons:Deletion requests/File:GranMadreDiDio-TA 2.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Massimo Recalcati.jpg

Hi Ruthven, how do you know that http://www.stregatidasophia.it/images/EdizioneCorrente/Massimo_Recalcati.jpg was published in 2013? The external image is only a crop, compared to our version. Honestly, this uploader doesn't have a bad history, no deletions so far, all his uploads have EXIF data from the same camera. Could we convert this speedy into a regular DR? --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I just opened a DR for the other files from this user: they are all taken from Picasa, which is a little weird (but I'm more asking for advices there). For the Recalcati's photo, I searched with Google images within an interval of dates (and the result was tagged 2013-7-1). --Ruthven (msg) 13:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. However, when you click on the first Google-hit from 2013 (https://www.libreriauniversitaria.it/...) and then call the link for the image itself, you get: https://img2.webster.it/strilli/libreriauniversitaria/2016/11/recalcati-massimo.png suggesting that in this case the image was inserted into the page years later. --Túrelio (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Thanks. Actually I had a doubt because I was contacted on it.wiki by a user telling me that this photo was all over the net :-/ It is possible that it was uploaded on Picasa first, then the user uploaded it here. --Ruthven (msg) 13:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure. My first impression is that this uploader is either true or a rather wicked copyviolator by putting even visible watermarks on some of his uploads. When I searched Google for "Kabir Yusuf Abukar" I got quite a number of hits. Many of the recent hits related to a young author/philosopher, who seems to live in Italy. Of course, I don't know whether he is identical to our user. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I transformed the speedy deletion merging it in the regular DR. It is possible that the young author/philosopher is genuine (but it should be confirmed) because he participated to the same events in the past (e.g. [3]). It would be nice to have him confirming. --Ruthven (msg) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

illustration lovecraftienne, le retour !

Bonjour, Ruthven.


Un peu tardivement : meilleurs voeux ! :-)


Je me permets juste de t'informer que l'illustrateur Ville Assinen m'a très aimablement confirmé l'envoi du mail d'autorisation sur OTRS relatif à ce fichier :

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


Aujourd'hui même, il a reçu en retour ce numéro de ticket : {{PermissionOTRS|id=2018012610006311}}

(je n'ose jamais indiquer moi-même ce code dans la page en question, n'étant pas un vérificateur OTRS...).


Disposerais-tu d'un peu de temps pour vérifier et archiver l'autorisation pour sa formidable illustration ?

Un grand merci !


Amicalement. --Guise (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Salut Guise et bonne année!
L'illustration est géniale. Ce que tu peux faire, pour la prochaine fois, c'est d'insérer {{subst:OP}} dans la page quand tu sais qu'un mail a été envoyé. De toute façon, maintenant l'attente est moins longue qu'avant. --Ruthven (msg) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, merci du conseil ! Je note précieusement ce code dans mes tablettes. ;-) --Guise (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

adding back a photo that was deleted

Hello, 

  One of the photo's I contributed was deleted by you I believe.  I believe possibly in error as it was subject to a prior request and then kept.  Regardless - I have found it in use in the public domain and would like to either see the page restored or I can upload it again.

The photo - modified for publication can be found here https://baedaily.com/lifestyle/travel/paris-nude-park-2/ and on nudistwedding.org

Can you restore the page or should I upload it again?

Thanks

--Dudenopants (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dudenopants: Hello, please do not re-upload a delete file. To which file are you referring to? --Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The file I'm referring to Nudist couple nude.JPG - I am the owner of the image and I note that BAE does credit wikimedia for the image on their page.

Thanks --Dudenopants (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dudenopants: The file was deleted by community consent, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dudenopants. As the file is used elsewhere, I undelete this one. Mind that the website is violating the license you uploaded the file with: they should mention 1) your username 2) the CC by-sa license. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 23:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the image - I will send a note to the website regarding the licence. Thank you again --Dudenopants (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

SD

Thanks for notify, but those images are uploaded for more than a week, SDG7 only applies when the image was uploaded within 1 week. --B dash (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pietro del Massaio

Ciao Ruthven, ho fatto su Wp la voce 'Pietro del Massaio' e ho messo due immagini a colori. Ora vorrei fare su Commons la 'Category:Pietro del Massaio'. Come devo procedere? Aggiungo questa 'category' in ognuna delle immagini che lo riguardano? Poi, come si procede a creare la nuova pagina?. Grazie dell'aiuto.--FloraFlavia (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@FloraFlavia: Esatto, crei la categoria inserendo le categorie superiori, per es. Category:1420 births e Category:1480 deaths. Poi passo a controllare :) --Ruthven (msg) 16:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
posted by mistake thought i can back up files on wikimedia Houdinialex (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tutoría

Hola, soy miembro de OTRS y tengo intención de atender la cola de permisos en español (que tengo entendido está algo abandonada), por lo que antes de solicitar ser agregado allí, me gustaría saber si es posible que me puedas dar una tutoría previa sobre como se recepcionan y se atienden los correos que se reciben en esas colas, tengo un conocimiento intermedio sobre licencias y cuales son compatibles entre si, sé algunos aspectos básicos como por ejemplo verificar que el permiso provenga de un correo electrónico oficial de la web o empresa que tiene los derechos de autor de la imagen o vídeo y que lo libere bajo una Licencia Creative Commons compatible. Gracias y Saludos. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Hola! Ningún problema. Es verdad, la cola en español no tiene nadie desde hace tiempo; yo he contestado a unos tickets, pero normalmente sigo la italiana y la de commons. Dime cuando puedas, y quedamos in IRC. Ya tienes acceso, ¿verdad? --Ruthven (msg) 17:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Creo que aquí va a estar algo complicado, desafortunadamente no puedo entrar al canal IRC de Wikimedia OTRS ni al resto de los canales de la WMF ¿Será mucho si nos coordinamos en otro canal (fuera de Wikimedia) o por mensaje privado? Mi nick en IRC es AlvaroMolina para que me puedas ubicar. Espero esta situación (ajena a mi alcance) no te incomode para que puedas ayudarme. Saludos. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Disney's Hotel New York

It looks like some of the images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disney's Hotel New York were kept that shouldn't have been. At least the first four and the last one still being kept are more focused on the hotel than the rink. Also, File:Xtraice. Disneyland 296 (4941779794).jpg has a watermark giving the copyright to Disney, not Xtraice. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: File deleted. For the rest, I considered that the hotel, being in background, is not the focus of the photo. It's a bit generous, but the intention to photograph the ice rink is sufficient for that interpretation. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 18:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahindra Quanto image.JPG

Hi, You should update the license according the license too. Thx. --JuTa 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/File:File 5292CD6F-4D2D-4D0A-A437-FD36A47A2688.jpg. --JuTa 23:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Equipo ley infancia (2015).jpg

Hi Ruthven, what have I missed here? The picture was published in Twitter (here) on September 2015. The picture was uploaded here in November 2016. Thus, your statement seems totally misleading (upload on Commons happened earlier than publication at the source page). What am I missing? --Discasto talk 23:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Discasto: You missed that I confused the two dates! Thanks for notifying me. PS: I deleted the cropped file as well. --Ruthven (msg) 10:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks to you for your prompt response --Discasto talk 10:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GrattacieloPiemonte.jpg

Can I ask you to reconsider your close of this DR? There is no FOP whatsoever in Italy. There is even additional restrictions on architecture. There doesn't have to be any "important artistic character" per COM:FOP#Italy. It just has to be a newer building that would still be under copyright (70 years after the death of the author). --Majora (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mahora: It is not really like that, even if on Commons we always applied it in a very rigid way without thinking. Consider that in Italy there are never been any lawsuits for a copyright infringement of a building for reproducing its external aspect (i.e. a photograph). In Italy there is a threshold of originality, like everywhere, but even pushed further (e.g. simple photographs are PD after 20 years from creation). The same applies to buildings, where the heirs have even no rights unless the building surpasses this threshold of originality. This is decided by a ministerial commission, and there is a list of "protected buildings" with special artistic value. If we want to be super orthodox, even more than Italian Law, we can say that we cannot use photos of these protected buildings, but the one you proposed for deletion doesn't fall in this list. --Ruthven (msg) 09:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Saying that there has never been a lawsuit and I should consider that is a clear violation of COM:PCP, a Commons policy. Second, the building was built in 2015. So clearly 20 years has not passed, even if that was the true copyright term, which according to COM:FOP#Italy is false. I'm asking for you to reconsider. Since this clearly falls into the area of {{NoFoP-Italy}}. It is an architectural work that is photographed from a public space in Italy. It cannot be photographed freely except for personal purposes. I'm seeing this as clear cut as it can get. Please reconsider. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahora: So Commons' policy is above the law? Interesting. Besides the jokes, this building is below the threshold of originality by Italian law; see Sentenze del Consiglio di Stato: Sez. VI, 26 July 2001, n.4122 and 15 April 2008, n.1749 that states that for such buildings neither the heirs have any right. --Ruthven (msg) 08:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You keep misspelling my name. But that's ok I don't need to be pinged. I'm also not quite sure how my comments got turned around in such a fashion that you think I said the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that Commons's policy is explicitly not above the law. Keeping an image that might be violating someone's rights would be above the law. I'm advocating for the opposite. I thought that was obvious but perhaps I didn't phrase myself in the best way. There were no intended jokes in my request. Thank you for the title to the actual law. I will do as you suggested and look it up. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: Sorry for the misspelling. 20 years are for "photographs with no creative content" but this would not overrule the architect's copyright. I'm saying so, because I think that you are talking about PD-Italy for simple photographs. 20 years are also the time of copyright for works belonging to the State or to the Regions (building included). For recent buildings however, I insist: only are protected (because above the threshold of originality) the ones recognised by the Ministry (in particular, by the Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane). --Ruthven (msg) 22:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MarkSalling2013.jpg

Some years back I was blocked for using {{Copyvio}} on some very blatant copyright violations. Despite ample attempts on my part to get clarification, none was ever forthcoming. There are (or at least were) unwritten laws regarding the usage of {{Copyvio}} that the administrators at the time refused to inform me about, despite my multiple requests for them to do so. As a result, since I can not discern what these rules are and such rules are in obvious disagreement with what is written with regards to this tagging template, I have stopped using it. I now consider it a broken deletion process that some administrators will block you for using it. I haven't used it since. Since that time, I've initiated 178 DRs (175 of which have closed as delete and six that were closed by the administrator who blocked me for using speedy deletion) without complaint. If using DR for copyvio deletions causes a problem, please let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Well, if the file is clearly a copyvio, i.e. a recent photo uploaded on Commons after the date of first publication on a website where there are no free license statements.... then you can use the template. It's quicker and doesn't add to the backlog of the DRs. I don't know how it worked few years ago or any non-written rule, but generally an admin checks before deleting. --Ruthven (msg) 20:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Leoncillo

Hi! I remember that you have a good knowledge of permissions and FOP and stuff relating to Italy. I saw that this file had been nominated for deletion, apparently for good reason (I've nominated two other uploads by the same user). That made me wonder about the four images in Category:Leoncillo Leonardi, where there is no sign of permission from the artist's estate, and no explanation of why that might not be needed. Are they OK? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: At least two of the files should be named for deletion. The two general views of the museum rooms might be considered de minimis because not focusing on an artwork in particular. Besides that, the sculptor died in 1968 and his works are still copyrighted of course. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 21:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Well that's what I thought, of course. However, I believe that works exhibited in a public space in the the UK do not enjoy copyright protection, so I wondered if there was any similar exemption for public museums in Italy. Thanks for your advice, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: For artworks in Italy no. For buildings it's different, because relative recent laws made practically all below the threshold of originality. Mind, if an artwork was made for the State, the Region, or a non profit institution (e.g. city hall, Red Cross) they are in the public domain 20 years after creation. --Ruthven (msg) 08:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Глинистый сланец

salve signor Ruthven, le scrivo per dirle che con gran piacere sono stati ripristinavi vari file di ritratti oviali che riguardano i caricaamenti della seguente utenza che lei dice non non affidare una buona fede, nonostante ciò molti di questi file sono stati in buona fede con le licenze PD (parlo di un periodo di 200 anni fa circa), la invio a notare i seguenti file cancellati, invece di bannarli senza neanche darci una occhiatina, perchè penso che questi file dovrebbero essere rivisti e controllati piano piano, e invece l' utente Jeff, li dichiara file di cui non ci si può fidare perchè caricati da un' utente bloccato, ma le chiedo ora a lei direttamente, ma se questa utenza è stata bloccata, come mai sono stati ripristinati vari file di ritratti e dipinti, sapendo che l' utente jeff si affida ad una utenza bloccata anni fa di cui la comunità aveva deciso di rivedere un solo file per ristabilirlo nel ripristino? :) attendo sua risposta e buona serata e buon lavoro :)--87.8.55.123 19:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I file saranno ripristinati il giorno in cui l'utente bannato A1cb3 non scriverà più in nessun progetto Wikimedia sotto nessuna incarnazione o IP, mostrando di aver capito cosa sono le regole e le linee guida del progetto. Altrimenti, solo parole al vento su fiducia e rispetto delle regole. :) --Ruthven (msg) 19:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
non è un risposta questa questo è un' irridigimento assoluto nei confronti delle regole wikipediane, meno male che non sono tutti così, comunque anche se fosse come dice lei, anche se ciò dovesse succedere ch a1cb3 dovesse andarse, io non sono affatto speranzoso che quei file potranno essere ripristinati, perchè penso che anche se quei file possano essere in buona fede col copyright,, non penso proprio che qualcuno se ne possa interessare, e cosi cadranno nell' oblio--87.8.55.123 20:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Continuare a rimanere è violare le regole e prendere in giro la comunità. Come fidarsi di tale utente? --Ruthven (msg) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
"è violare le regole"?????? ecco questa frase la definisco proprio una vera assurdità perchè se voleva violare le regole faceva il troll, e si sa purtroppo che gli amministratori ti tirano fuori dal appello mille ideee che non hanno nulla a che fare col regolamento, cioè ma le sembra normale dire romanere cioè ad esistere si viola le regole, cosi magare quell' utente magari rimane su commons senza mai contribuire a niente, e lei direbbe che che violi le regole,, io so solo che qu ci sono molte ma molte più regole verbali che regole scritte, e tutto ciò fa veramente schifo e danneggia la creatività di commons. le auguro una buna serata e un buon lavoro. non si irrigidisca troppo che se una persona ragionasse in questa maniera nella vita reale (in un contesto non wikipediano), lo avrebbero già sacagnato di botte--87.8.55.123 20:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Certo, è violare le regole, come lo è caricare file coperti da diritto d'autore. Se non ti piace la piattaforma e com'è gestita, la porta è là (ed è aperta). --Ruthven (msg) 20:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Fichiers restaurés Bruxellensis et Bruxellensis~commonswiki

La ringrazio molto di avere ristaurato le fotografie che avevo meso su Commons. Sperando che saranno una documentazione utile. È molto gentile da Loro.--Bruxellensis~commonswiki (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bruxellensis~commonswiki: Pas de soucis. Maintenant uniquement les agents OTRS peuvent ajouter la permission. Dans le cas d'autres téléchargements dans le cadre de ce ticket, il faudrait avvertir un agent à Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Le modèle à ajouter lors du téléchargement est {{subst:OP}}. Merci --Ruthven (msg) 08:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup pour ces informations et pour votre aide.--Bruxellensis~commonswiki (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please verify

Please verify if a dish is indeed made in Italy before placing it in a category that clearly states "... in Italy". - Takeaway (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ethiopia Map 1930 it.svg

Ciao, ci sarebbe da fare una correzione in questa mappa: la dizione "Gibuti francese" non è corretta, o si mette il nome ufficiale di "Costa francese dei somali" o quello ufficioso di "Somalia francese" (vedi anche la voce su wiki). --Franz van Lanzee (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Burns Night

Please tell me why you wrote 'nonsense' and removed my reference to Burns Night on POTD. Charles (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Provide a link or diff, please. --Ruthven (msg) 13:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Here you are [[4]] Charles (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, look at this difference [5]. Besides the opportunity of such an OT text for a daily image, please notice that it was also written outside of the template, with terrible results on the way it's displayed. --Ruthven (msg) 14:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment

You're right. It's similar to this, but obviusly I mispelled the name. Perhaps you can reconsider? --Ganímedes (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: It's not an exact duplicate. We can keep both, because it's possible that someone prefers the scaled version. It would have been different in case of exact duplicate (in that case, you can ask for speedy deletion using the template {{Duplicate}}). --Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olga Sacharoff, Bust femení (1915). Col·lecció Artur Ramon (Barcelona).jpg

Could you please clarify your deletion rationale (same in 2 other related DRs)? Museums are open public spaces, and COM:FOP usually applies to them unless specified otherwise. I see nothing preventative in the Spanish law. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: I can clarify. The Spanish law talks only about public spaces outside of buildings,. There are several problems with photos of artworks in museums; that are not permanently placed there (they aren't a painting on a wall, for instance, that cannot be removed), and they are generally closed spaces. Maybe there are court decisions that allow photographs inside and that extend the "permanently displayed" also to "not permanent displays", that I am not aware of (we should check that). The art. 35.2. says: Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales., which is quite clear and doesn't include museums or any sort of covered space. --Ruthven (msg) 08:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Hi, you wrote "The protection is 30 years after creation if the bridge was built for a "person of legal position"" Would you please leave your comment on my undeletion request here? Best, SlowManifesto (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Foto di Seymour

Ciao Ruthven. Grazie di aver salvato la foto di Seymour. Appena 5 gg fa mi sono state cancellate tutte le foto di Herbert List con una altra motivazione (quella artistica) mentre il carattere di quelle foto non mi sembra differente da queste di Seymour. Tu che mi dici e cosa ne pensi? Grazie per i tuoi lumi. Salutoni, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

E' un ginepraio. Non mi ci capacito più. Vorrei intervenire, ma non saprei che dire. Naturalmente sono pienamente d'accordo con te, e tu hai fatto interventi stringati, molto chiari ed inequivocabili. Gli altri si attaccano a questioni ed aspetti indimostrabili e non verificabili. Secondo me vogliono solo rompere il c... Dimmi tu cosa posso fare (anche in privato). Vorrei essere utile in qualche modo... --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@DenghiùComm: Guarda, puoi semplicemente dire che fintanto che si tratta del template PD-Italy, dobbiamo riproporre la legge italiana. Per le altre questioni, basta vedere cosa dice la legge US… ma è una questione separata che va trattata altrove. A me sembra che voler dare un senso al testo diverso da quanto riportato dalla legge sia una ricerca originale che non ci spetta. Voglio dire: qui nessuno è un avvocato esperto di diritto internazionale, quindi non possiamo far altro che applicare le leggi come sono scritte, senza interpretarle. In ogni modo, ci sono admin ragionevoli anche qui. --Ruthven (msg) 09:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Grazie Ruthven. Sono intervenuto nel dibattito. Spero di non aver peggiorato la situazione... Ma è quello che penso. Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Due artisti diversi, con identico nome e cognome

Come faccio a creare due diverse category, se i due artisti hanno lo stesso nome? Metto tra parentesi il secolo in cui hanno vissuto? (date nascita e morte non certe), oppure la città di appartenenza? (Genova e Napoli).

Mi dai per favore un esempio di come si risolve l'omonimia? E come si fa su Commons il disambigua? Grazie. --FloraFlavia (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@FloraFlavia: Puoi vedere Commons:Category disambiguation. Qui seguiamo il formato delle disambigue su en.wiki. Si differenzia col mestiere per prima e con la data di nascita per secondo. Es: "Will Smith (actor)" e "Will Smith (singer)" oppure anche "Will Smith (politician, born 1903)" e "Will Smith (politician, born 1223)". --Ruthven (msg) 13:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Francesca_(model)

Category discussion warning

Category:Francesca_(model) has 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ /−

BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ruthven, Would you please return to this discussion and explain what the projects are (that you suggest), could use these technically poor and unimaginative photos? Regards. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

File:I wanna play, but I'm sleepy (9872011605).jpg

This file should be re-named??? What to "cat on a carpet"? How on earth does this image have any legitimate place on the project? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: "Cat playing on a carpet.jpg" seems ok. Please use {{Rename}}. The file is fine for this project. Please re-read the guidelines if you're not convinced. --Ruthven (msg) 19:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have read the policy. Have you lately? Your seriously telling me that the cat on the mat is educational. Different? Valuable? I'll except that the bottles on a (Western) Chinese supermarket shelf (one with a torn label) will be of intense interest 100 years from now. Please refer me to the specific policy justifying the position on the cat. With thanks in advance. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

File:I'm not a fan of this particular product (Mae Ploy FTW), but at least this Trader Joe's knows about lumpia! -Filipino -FilipinoFood -lumpia (15519652412).jpg

Hi Ruthven, Please explain why this marginally interesting, but useful (sic) photo, can be uploaded by one admin, and defended by another and yet not be categorised by both? The birds on a wire, is cute at least, I'll let that go.--BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: Here we try to keep photos, not to delete them. We are building a repository of free licensed files with reasonably good quality. Users are not professional photographers, so we tend to accept almost any kind of photograph which is decent from an unprofessional point of view. Besides, we do not have disk space problems at all. Given that, those photos fall clearly in what we host here on Commons. --Ruthven (msg) 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes but why did you not categorize it. Show me how to do please? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@BeckenhamBear: In Special:Preferences > Gadgets you can activate the tool HotCat. It's of great help in those cases, to quickly add categories (there is a lot of related backlog at Category:Unidentified subjects). See also Help:Gadget-HotCat. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have read the policy again, and there is no justification in any of it to keep these two files, here and above. We have many, many photos of cats, and tins on shelves. You surprise me that your even defending the tin cans, when their labels are copyright and they are not in “de minimis”. I assume File:Frustrated (7101783323).jpg is here for a photography contest, well OK… I'm still waiting for you to quote the specific policy justifying your position on how these images are acceptable. When we have many others. As for the naming of the file, your correct it is misnamed. This file was uploaded by an Admin in bulk, who violated policy firstly by uploading files indiscriminately without checking for suitability for the project, and then not applying the rule: "Commons:First steps/Uploading files#4. Set an appropriate file name". Then having completed the upload did not finish the job by correcting the name. He then left It for others to categorize. I would forgive him for all of those lapses, however this particular Admin will upload anything that is CC-BY-SA-2.0 on Flickr or the web in general with no regard to Wiki policy or whether the file is appropriate for the project. I.E. Files better left on Flickr. If he could he would upload Facebook. The policy states at length what is appropriate to upload. I nominated this file for deletion in Good Faith. If it’s mediocre as these are and uncategorised and unused then they are fair game for deletion. It seems policy must be adhered to only by the minions. Meanwhile this particular Admin continues his serial offending of indiscriminate uploading, without censure. As an Admin both of you should be following policy yourselves, presumably you helped form it after all. So in this case censuring me should be accompanied by the policy your using as justification. I have quoted mine, what specifically is the policy your using? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Brian Banks 1 & 2

In the Wikimedia Commons files Brian Banks 1 and Brian Banks 2, you placed a template in both files which, in the history, says "(OTRS email received but not processed yet)". Yet the language of the template itself states "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file," implying that permission could not be granted based upon the message received from the author of the images. Yet I saw the emails that the author of the images sent to Wikimedia Permissions, and the permissions language appears to be consisting with language previously used for other Wikimedia files which did result in a PermissionOTRS tag, indicating availability for use. Please clarify by leaving a message on my user talk page. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that the template simply means that the permission request has not been processed yet. However (and though of course you are not responsible for this), the language of the template is very misleading, and would lead many people to conclude, incorrectly, that there is some problem with the permissions process. Perhaps the language of the template should be changed. Dylanexpert (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The other version

Could you also apply the same decision to File:Antwerpen Centraal kunst 1996 2.jpg as for File:Antwerpen Centraal kunst 1996 1.jpg?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Watermark

Deletion request: File:Hugging (14831940446).jpg You don't consider that the copyright watermark is difficult to get rid of then? So its OK for the project? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: It's perfect for the project. Just add {{watermark}} in the file page below the license (or crop it out). --Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Cropping will spoil this photo. Its a great fave on Flickr... --BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Opinion

Thanks for re-closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coreus marginatus01.jpg with a valid closing reason. I won't renominate it now that I'm aware multiple admins agree it should be kept (though I don't think we should take their word for it being theirs as it was never listed on the site). Would you be able to take a look at this closure, too? I disagree with the closing admin but they're not budging (and not responding) and I don't think it calls for ANU yet. Discussion here and here. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I see that the author modified the Facebook page to include the mention to Creative Commons. It is fine, because at OTRS we sometimes ask to prove the ownership of a photo by modifying the webpage of the social network profile accordingly: it is a well established practice. Besides, the photo is clearly amateur, so there is no fear that it has been published elsewhere. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 07:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I respect the reasoning but I can't help but disagree with the keep as they haven't specified which license it was actually released under, and now that it's tagged with every single one, it's even more incorrect. I'm not doubting it's Abigail Seabrook's own work, it's the licensing I take issue with. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: I don't understand, I clearly reed the license "CC-by-sa". It would have been unacceptable a release of the kind "under free license", but like this it's fine. --Ruthven (msg) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
All CC BY SA license versions have different rules attached to them. We can't assume which it's been released under because of this reason. As per Template:Cc-by-sa, "a version number must be given. Files without a valid license will be deleted." Would creating a discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright be a good idea to help gain some sort of idea as to what's required? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
We can consider it a CC-by-sa-all (or just the last version of the license), it doesn't really matter. I'm wondering why you're even loosing your time on a case like this one, which is borderline if not fully acceptable! In Category:All media needing categories as of 2016‎, for instance, there are surely a lot of blatant copyvios that need to be identified. --Ruthven (msg) 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Eh, I just think it's important for Commons, one of, if not, the largest collection of free images, to have their images be properly licensed. I also find it odd that there are contradictory opinions, with some thinking everything must have a license version (see the DR) and others who think it's fine, as long as they intended it to be free. Obviously, I fall into the former camp, but I'll leave it be. And from all my searching, I don't think there's community consensus or policy surrounding what to do in these sorts of situations (which is why I proposed VP). I might take a look at some uncategorized images in a few days after real life slows down and my en.wp GA noms get closure. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Francesca (model)

Apologies I had not realized that I had clicked a deletion here. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I realised right away that it was a mistake. --Ruthven (msg) 23:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stemmi comuni italiani

Ciao Ruthven, ti segnalo questa discussione Commons:Bar_italiano#Stemmi_comuni_italiani. --Afnecors (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, recently I discover the file Service Merchandise logo.png on Commons. This file would be better if you would insert them on the infobox of the article of Service Merchandise in Wikipedia (English) to replace the existing logo, wich is the same, but the version that I propose you to insert has a better resolution. I propose you this changing because the article of Service Merchandise is locked for now, but registered users for a long period may edit on them. Thank you. Henritrain (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking

Hi! Sometimes I ask other people to take a look when I'm not sure, or I think it might be a conflict for me to both look at something and decide about it. I don't do it often, but there are times when even the best of us wants a second opinion! Thanks for asking! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I understand! I asked because it's quicker and more efficient to check a license yourself than opening an DR. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 08:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:William.S.Burroughs.1977.jpg

Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs.jpg, which also mentions File:William.S.Burroughs.1977.jpg, which I think should be deleted as well. George Ho (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 06:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have uploadefnewer version of images

@Ruthven please have a look https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Solverfr1z Solverfr1z (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have time would you give your opinion on COM:VPC#Vincent Hložník's paintings before I do anything rash. BTW will you be around the weekend of March 10? Ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I replied. During the weekends, I don't know if I'm here. However, we're trying to organise an edit-a-thon during March. See Discussion_Wikipédia:Mois_de_la_contribution_2018. --Ruthven (msg) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, OK, that's a pity but maybe one evening between 8-11 March. I'll be at Cornebarrieu but can drive. Ww2censor (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Da ieri sera ho fatto questo, inoltre ho fatto altre piccole cose. Ti volevo chiedere di controllare un po' per vedere se ho scritto qualche cretinata. --Los Vegas (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rita Martin

Hi Ruthven; I think it's obvious that Mutter Erde was right to nominate these files for deletion - Elisa apparently misunderstood the text quoted by her, which explicitly states "Works of this artist first published before 1923 can be uploaded to English Wikipedia" (not Commons!). Commons requires that files are free both in the U.S. and in their country of origin. The country of origin of these photos is certainly the United Kingdom (photos of UK people by a UK photographer and from a UK source), so UK copyright applies for Commons, which is 70 years p.m.a., and Rita Martin died in 1958. These photos should be deleted on Commons, but can be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia (where photos that are PD only in the US but not in the country of origin are acceptable). Maybe you could reconsider your decision? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Right, they should be undeleted in 2029. --Ruthven (msg) 12:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that was fast :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Small Request for translation

Hello, I see you speak Italian. I was wondering how to say "village in Indonesia" and "commune in Morocco". It is for updating Wikidata. Thanks in advance. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: It would be: "Villaggio in Indonesia" and "Comune in Marocco". Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pachervilla Schönau

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Schönau_an_der_Triesting_-_Villa_(Kirchengasse_11).JPG

Caro Ruthven,

pare che la decisione di non rimuovere l'immagine é stata la Sua. Purtroppo, la Sua posizione e del tutto sbagliata. Infatti, questo non è una questione rilevante del dirtto d'autore (e quindi della cosidetta "Panoramafreiheit"), ma del rispetto dovuto alla proprietà privata. £E molto evidente che la foto è stata presa non da un punto pubblicamente accessibile, ma da un punto all'interno del parco privato, laddove il fotografo non doveva penetrare senza aver ottenuto la permissione previa del proprietario.

La prego quindi di togliere questa foto - altrimenti dovro rivolgermi al mio avvocato per risolvere la situazione, cio che sarebbe senz'altro molto piu costoso per tutti coloro che sono da ritenere risponsabili del fatto, incluso Lei.

J.C. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.169.150.5 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Non c'è nessun elemento che tocchi la vita privata in quella foto. Per quanto ne sappiamo, l'autorizzazione c'è stata, visto che la foto è stata scattata. --Ruthven (msg) 16:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Come avete verificato??????????

No, molto ovviamente l'autorizzazion non c'è stata, perche la sola persona a poter gradirla sono io, e non ho gradito nessuna autorizzatione. La proprietà privata, lo sapete cosa è? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.169.150.4 (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Cancella il caso, per favore guarda in questo [6]. Flickr Acc fatto per mettere su questa foto. Richiesta di cancellazione rapida (119.157.250.129 19:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC))

R: Public administration in Italy

Grazie per la segnalazione. Riguardo all'open data by default della pubblica amministrazione italiana, a suo tempo avevo abbozzato questo template, ma poi non sono riuscito più ad andare ad avanti perché non sono esperto di template e non conosco la procedura per l'inserimento dei parametri, ecc. Ad ogni modo altri utenti si erano espressi a favore di questo nuovo template, molto utile in quanto molti siti della PA (in special modo i Comuni) sono senza licenza e quindi ci sarebbero montagne di materiale 100% libero che potrebbe essere ben sfruttato sia su commons sia su wikipedia. --Holapaco77 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

C'è poi da dire che la dicitura "Camera dei deputati 2015 © Tutti i diritti riservati" non è a norma (sic! in Italia tutto è possibile), perchè la diretiva europea PSI e le linee guida dell'AGID dicono espressamente che tutto il materiale on-line della PA deve essere libero o al massimo con licenza attribution oppure CC-BY; in caso contrario, se cioè viene posta una qualsiasi licenza non libera, nelle note legali devono essere ben esplicitati i motivi. E nel sito della camera dei deputati non sono indicati questi motivi. Paradossalmente, anche i testi di legge pubblicati su camera.it sarebbero tutti con diritti riservati, mentre la legge è chiara nel dire che i testi normativi sono liberi e non può applicarsi il diritto d'autore. --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiversity #2

Comunque mi sto trovando un amore su WV, e credo anche di stare simpatico agli altri utenti (visto che faccio strasegnalazioni di spam e altro) Adesso ho esattamente 259 modifiche :) --Los Vegas (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Los Vegas: Mi fa piacere! Passerò a fare un giro in questi giorni. Lì è un ambiente molto rilassato e amichevole. --Ruthven (msg) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Lo credo anche io, a differenza di wp dove alcuni cani e porci sono amministratori (non tutti ovviamente) --Los Vegas (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Importing images of coins from Art-Hanoi

Am I free to import images from Art-Hanoi that are exclusively Sema's/Pyvanet~commonswiki's copyright (so coins from before 1968) or does the OTRS permission only count for images uploaded prior? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Yes, but then write me, so that I can add the OTRS permission. Only coins that are free of rights. --Ruthven (msg) 13:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see File:Minh Mạng (明命通寶) Silver coin (1820-1841) 01.jpg and kindly check for my recent uploads. Is this how I should import them? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Almost, but the license is incorrect. Please use the one specified in 7tien.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 15:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, but I really have to sleep 💤 now so I will work out any other corrections later, an OTRS member will add the correct ticket 🎟? Anyhow thank you for all your help and processing the request so quickly. Have a nice day. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Message from Sema

Sema seems to want several images deleted that are in the public domain because otherwise he can't exercise any restrictions on them for other users, this concerns some Cochin-Chinese banknotes that he wants to see removed and replaced. I don't want him to retreat his OTRS ticket 🎟 but I am not a fan of deleting them either, I'll let you decide. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung:  For the bills in the public domain it is difficult to pretend a copyright. Anyone can copy the files from his site legally and reupload them here. The ticket holds only for the photos of the coins, where the attribution to his website is mandatory; for the bills, you have to go through a DR, but, as I said, even if deleted, the files can be reloaded by anyone. Try to explain him that. I suppose he wants to add a watermark for those files, rather than delete them. So, the best thing to do, is to wait for him to upload his website before uploading new material. --Ruthven (msg) 08:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I have actually explained that to him, and he asked that files be watermarked first before uploaded, thank you for your response. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Does the OTRS ticket also cover File:Thiệu Trị (紹治) Silver coin (1841-1847) 1 Lang 03.jpg which technically isn't a coin? If not then please speedy delete it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

CC0

Hello Ruthven. Thank you for keeping File:Berends-ellen.jpg. Could you please have a look at File:Man-de-frederique.jpg and File:Cuelenaere-de-leonie.jpg as well? Same source, same arguments. Thanks. --Gereon K. (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gereon K.: Actually this page says: "Voor foto's is de CC0 niet van toepassing. Het is dus niet toegestaan om een foto te hergebruiken, tenzij bij een foto is aangegeven dat dit wel is toegestaan", and the page https://www.nederlandwereldwijd.nl/ambassadeurs/m/man-frederique-de doesn't specify any free license. Can you clarify that? --Ruthven (msg) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
You are right. I was just reading CC0 and interpreting the text wrong. I was thinking they meant that CC0 applies unless the name of the photographer is mentioned. But actually it seems to mean that CC0 only applies to text. And since for pictures the status is unclear all uploaded photographies from nederlandwereldwijd.nl and ambassadeursconferentie.nl on Commons should be deleted. The same applies to pictures from regeringen.se. The copyright there says that the photos have a free licenses, but commerical reuse is not allowed, so they're not compatible with Commons either.
  • File:Man-de-frederique.jpg
  • File:Cuelenaere-de-leonie.jpg
  • File:Jurgens-wouter-02w.jpg
  • Bijl-jules-02-owp.jpg
  • Berends-ellen.jpg
  • Ines Coppoolse.jpg
  • MatsFoyer.jpg
  • Helene Öberg.jpg
  • Margot Wallström 2016.jpg
  • Catharina elmsäter-svärd (M).JPG
  • Håkan syrén ÖB.jpg --Gereon K. (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gereon K.: Thank you. For the Swedish diplomats, the same doesn't hold because Swedish government is applying Open data, see http://www.government.se/about-the-website/psi-data/ --Ruthven (msg) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
But look what it says under the pictures on the Swedish government website. Example taken from http://www.regeringen.se/press/jenny-ohlsson/ : Bilden får inte användas kommersiellt (translation: The image may not be used commercially). --Gereon K. (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gereon K.: Dealt with them, one way or another. --Ruthven (msg) 21:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Guarda npo'

te lo aspettavi? --Los Vegas (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Los Vegas: Ottimo! --Ruthven (msg) 19:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Does the OTRS permission cover this?

Can I import these images from Art-Hanoi? Or are they outside of what was agreed upon by you and Sema? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The permission holds for all images of 3D objects in the public domain, except of the ones from the TODA's book released in 1882. Maybe this book is in the public domain, but it's better to find another source for it. --Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Toda's book was released in Shanghai, the Qing Dynasty in 1882 and in the United States of America prior to 1923, despite the author being Hispanic (where the copyright would've been valid until 2022) it was published in the Qing Dynasty so follows Chinese/Taiwanese copyright laws which expire after 50 years, and the author died in 1941 anyhow. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Simonna singing.jpg

Hi, you forgot to add a license tag after restoring that image. Please have a 2nd look. --JuTa 15:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@JuTa: I just misclicked for the template: we have a permission, but no license was specified. We're waiting for an answer. Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor Gala!

Hola Ruthven. You remember the Chilean fisher with the huge catch? You had saved that file by splitting and deleting a personal image in-between updates. Please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gala.jpg and do something for File:Gala.jpg if you deem it necessary. Gracias de antemano. --E4024 (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@E4024: ✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 12:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Daticamera

Grazie, non preoccuparti, conosco benissimo la linea guida e sto già discutendo con Majora su come migliorare le descrizioni. --Nemo 08:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ecco, allora magari condividilo con Majora che fa un buon lavoro ma temo usi piú olio di gomito del necesario. :-) --Nemo 08:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

file in cancellazione

Ciao, intervento per una amica che non conosce l'inglese, per salvare dalla cancellazione alcune sue immagini; lei ha erroneamente indicato come fatte da lei foto di immagini trovate in libri o riviste; Quale è la modalità corretta per intervenire? deve correggere in ogni foto la licenza sostituendo il self|CC BY SA con il template opportuno, in genere PD Italy. Potresti tu stesso corregere i metadati della foto File:Galleria_Numero._Vigo._Venezia.jpg in modo da capire bene come fare per tutte le altre che sono in cancellazione? Ti ringrazio --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Giaccai and Manuelarosi: E ci credo che le foto sono in cancellazione: ha dichiarato che sono opere sue fotografie scattate negli anni '20! :-)
Quello che deve fare –ed è bene che lo correggegga lei, perché è lei l'utente che le ha caricate e anche per trasparenza nella procedura di cancellazione– è cambiare l'autore e la fonte. L'autore, quando conosciuto, va sostituito col suo nome altrimenti con {{Creator:unknown}}. La fonte non può essere {{own}}, ovviamente, bensì il sito web da dove è stata presa l'immagine o {{postcard}} se si tratta dello scan di una cartolina. La data non è 2018, bensì la data originale, altrimenti non si capisce più nulla, perché un file recente sarebbe sotto copyright.
Infine, se sono fotografie non creative pubblicate in Italia prima del 1976, la licenza è {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996}}. Se sono foto più recenti, allora è giusto cancellarle. Vedi per esempio File:Fortiliziodeimulini.jpg, dove ho corretto alcune cose.
Una volta fatto tutto ciò, i file potranno essere mantenuti. L'interfaccia può essere in italiano: c'è un'opzione nelle preferenze in alto. --Ruthven (msg) 08:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Ti ringrazio, utilissima spiegazione anche per me. Ciao --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Ringrazio tanto entrambi, non ero a conoscenza di tutte queste opzioni e sigle, ora provo a correggere. Grazie e buona giornata!!--Manuelarosi (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Giaccai and Ruthven: Scusate tanto se approfitto... ma cosa devo scrivere nel campo "Source" se l'immagine è stata scannerizzata da vecchi settimanali del 1952-53?. Prima di proseguire aspetto vostre (buone) nuove! Grazie.--Manuelarosi (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Manuelarosi: Se hai effettuato tu la scansione, usa pure {{Self-scanned}}, altrimenti {{scan|1=magazine|2=nome della rivista}}. Potresti scrivere queste indicazioni anche a parole tue, ma è meglio usare i template in quanto sono auto-tradotti in tutte le lingue. --Ruthven (msg) 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Merci pour vos deux mail que j'avais pas vus, une suppression d'image a bien été faite car j'avais téléchargé une mauvaise par rapport à la description. Quand aux autres de lac de Brienz (nombreuses) mon problème était que je les avais déjà téléchargées sur commons et quand j'ai voulu les télécharger pour le concours wikimedia ch, ça m'affichait "doublon" et donc j'en avais demandé d'abord la suppression sur commons pour pouvoir les verser sur ch. mais ça fait longtemps. Merci. Roxaneweb (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Une enluminure bien mystérieuse...

Bonjour, Ruthven.

Au cas où la notification ne fonctionne pas, je me permets de vous signaler mes interrogations dans la PDD correspondant au fichier Rolandfealty.jpg  :-)

Bien cordialement. --Guise (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

You forgot to remove the {{Subst:OP}} in files like File:Khải Định Thông Bảo (啓定通寶) - Art-Hanoi 03.jpg after adding the ticket 🎟 information which keeps them in categories like Category:OTRS pending as of 11 March 2018. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 04:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: ✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 07:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ho inviato risposta al suo messaggio con in allegato una liberatoria autografa di mia moglie, Caterina Di Fidio, unica erede della pittrice Carola Mazot e detentrice di tutti i diritti sulle opere e sulle raffigurazioni delle stesse, oltre al suo ritratto personale. Spero sia Sufficiente Carlo Gianneschi

Confermo e garantisco che sono l'autore dello scatto fotografico --Carlo.gianneschi (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

--Carlo.gianneschi (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Carlo.gianneschi: È quello che supponevo. Me lo hai confermato per e-mail? Così ho una prova scritta e mantengo il file. --Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete

[7] Tambo (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidiritti

Ti segnalo questa mia proposta --Los Vegas (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Los Vegas: Manca l'elaborazione :) --Ruthven (msg) 17:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Aiutami un po' che nun song capace Los Vegas (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Tralasciando l'elaborazione, come ti sembra? Los Vegas (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Los Vegas: eh, ma non so che vuoi dire/fare. Comunque non si era detto che assumevi un profilo basso e ti facevi dimenticare? Inoltre, per organizzare un progetto bisogna essere in parecchi utenti attivi, perché montare una nuova wiki richiede sforzi comuni e mirati. Perché non levi mano, cerchi di capire meglio quello che vuoi fare e nel frattempo accumuli modifiche costruttive su Wikiversità? ;) --Ruthven (msg) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Su Wikiversity sto lavorando tantissimissimo!
Comunque, credo sia giusto far vedere chi sono veramente, e cosa sto cercando di fare (poi non credo che i wikipediani sappiano l'esistenza di questa richiesta)
Comunque il progetto ha come scopo quello di pubblicare tutte le norme giuridiche, le quali:Costituzione, leggi ecc di tutti i paesi. Los Vegas (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Los Vegas: Guarda che Meta è seguito da tutti, sopratutto dagli admin e obbligatoriamente da tutti gli steward! Altro che "passare inosservato" :D Ti sei informato se è legalmente possibile? Ossia in quali paesi i testi di leggi e costituzione sono nel dominio pubblico? La proposta potrebbe essere bocciata perché semplicemente illegale in certe giurisdizioni. --Ruthven (msg) 08:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(rientro) In Italia è legale in quanto i media pubblicano le leggi prendendole dalla gazzetta ufficiale. Negli altri paesi non so, ma la cosa può esser risolta creando le comunità solo ove possibile. --Los Vegas (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Toolforge

Potresti venir npo' qui? a darmi supporto? ho bisogno di consenso per ottenere l'accesso stanno a fare di tutto per nn darmelo, per via del blocco su itwiki. --Los Vegas (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Los Vegas: Ma neanche io sono d'accordo per farti avere un bot: non hai abbastanza esperienza. --Ruthven (msg) 20:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Vabbè, ho usato un hosting gratuito... it:v:u:Bot Vegas --Los Vegas (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Copertine CCCP - Fedeli alla linea

Ciao, ho visto che sono state inserite due foto di copertine di dischi dei CCCP - Fedeli alla linea, File:CCCP - FEDELI ALLA LINEA.jpg e File:ORTODOSSIA II.jpg. Mi risultava non si potesse. Cosa si deve fare? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Capito. Ma non saprei da dove cominciare, cioè quali sono le motivazioni per la cancellazione? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 11:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, fatto. -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

File:20170314 155712 Kristina Pimenova 384x512.jpg

Hi, can you please reconsider you decision at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:20170314_155712_Kristina_Pimenova_384x512.jpg. There is no requirement to go through OTRS in Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Removal_requests. We do not force celebrities to jump through hoops to be heard. Lyrda (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lyrda:  We have not way to know that the mother of the child artist actually required the removal of the photo. She can (privately) prove that she is herself only through OTRS. --Ruthven (msg) 19:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
She can't, because that would reveal her e-mail address. The request has been confirmed by Kristina's executive producer. That should suffice. Lyrda (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lyrda: Ok, so let's have the executive producer write from an official and verifiable e-mail. --Ruthven (msg) 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ruthven, I have done so on 25 February but so far without response. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Well done. Depending on the queue, the waiting time for an answer can be of several weeks. --Ruthven (msg) 10:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Still waiting. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder Please wait. The average time for a first answer is 47 days. Besides, I will probably not be the one to check that ticket. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 07:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ticket#: 2018032110011865 (Dr. Luke Roberts)

Can you please quickly tell me what permission template I have to use for "Ticket#: 2018032110011865" and then add it to Category:Media contributed by Dr. Luke Shepherd Roberts (UCSB)? I want to start a massive import from the concerned University of California at Santa Barbara wbsite but don't know under what license the aforementioned OTRS ticket 🎟 should be processed and how to add the license, kindly leave the template in nlwiki on my talk page when you find the time to process this ticket, I don't want to create a mess which would require a clean-up from OTRS members later. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The ticket is being processed, and the average time for the queue is ~47 days. If the works are in the public domain –8th century– (2D representations of a 2D work), you can simply upload them with {{PD-old}}. --Ruthven (msg) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I've already imported all public domain works from the website, if I would import all few hundred images now and put the Creative Commons 4.0 license on a few hundred images but a different license would be taken from an OTRS member, would that require a lot of clean up or is there an automated way that the correct license will be added so if I would start importing the images now? As I will be more progressively busy in real life as the year progresses and this month is one of the few where I'm still able to make lots of contributions over some time. Believe me I don't want this ticket 🎟 to have any priority over others, I just wish to know which license I could use so I can start importing the images and add them to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 04:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Do not import anything else, as the ticket needs further verification. We'll ping you when it will be accepted. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 07:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll wait until then and will continue with PD-scans in the meantime. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Clear copyvio case, please look into this [8]. Flickr Acc made to just put up this photo. Request for speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.157.250.129 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mia richiesta cancellazione file caricati da me

Ciao Ruthven, non so se puoi essermi d'aiuto, ma scrivo a te per la questione: ieri ho caricato su commons 2 file, dimenticandomi di cancellare i metadata prima di caricarli: tramite questi metadata è possibile risalire al laboratorio e al computer con cui ho creato i suddetti file. Se per l'immagine non c'è problema alcuno, nel senso che si tratta di una struttura al microscopio di un acciaio, qualcuno potrebbe essere infastidito dal fatto che degli strumenti di lavoro vengano usati per creare immagini per commons.

E' possibile in qualche modo cancellare il file: la mia intenzione sarebbe quella di ricaricarli ma senza metadata? Saluti. --Melancholia~itwiki (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Melancholia~itwiki: Non c'è problema, ma forse la cosa migliore è che tu carichi le nuove versioni (con i metadata corretti – magari metti il tuo nome o username invece del laboratorio) usando la funzione "Carica una nuova versione di questo file" nella parte bassa della pagina e poi mi avverti, così che io possa oscurare le versioni precedenti. --Ruthven (msg) 17:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Buondì! Ho caricato le versioni nuove delle foto: si può procedere alla cancellazione! Grazie mille --Melancholia~itwiki (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Melancholia~itwiki: ✓ Done (potrebbe essere necessario ricaricare la pagina per vedere i cambiamenti) --Ruthven (msg) 16:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Visualizzazione/rotazione file

Ciao Ruthven, volevo chiederti un paio di cose che proprio non riesco a capire: 1. come mai nella Category:Industrial areas in Italy il File:Ariano Irpino ZI.jpeg compare nella versione originaria non aggiornata (vi è una nuvola nel cielo) e non nella versione attuale aggiornata (senza nuvola)? 2. è possibile chiedere la rotazione di un'immagine in senso antero-posteriore? Ad esempio nella Category:Pianerottolo d'Ariano train station il File:Disastro-ferroviario-pianerottolo-ingresso-della-0450bcac-72dd413a-8152-334fd386c61d.jpeg mostra in alto una galleria ferroviaria con a destra il fabbricato di stazione mentre, come puoi vedere dall'altra immagine, l'edificio dovrebbe comparire a sinistra. Ho cercato di applicarmi ma non sono riuscito a risolvere questi due problemi. Ti ringrazio se vorrai darmi una mano--3knolls (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@3knolls: Ciao. Per la foto di Ariano Irpino, hai riportato tu il file alla versione con la nuvola (Reverted to version as of 11:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)). Se non mostra i tuoi cambiamenti, non devi revertare all'impazzata o caricare in continuazione nuove versione del file, ma semplicemente svuotare la cache del tuo browser e/o aspettare che il software Wikimedia faccia altrettanto.
Per ruotare è semplice: devi attivare in Preferenze > Interfaccia: File e categorie > LinkRuota. Anche lí, la cosa non è immediata, ma prende circa 24h. --Ruthven (msg) 08:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Scusami ma non riesco a capire, o forse sono io che non mi sono spiegato.
Il 27 novembre ho caricato la foto con la nuvola; però fin dal 17 dicembre ho inserito una versione senza nuvola; poi a marzo ho inserito alcune altre versioni aggiornate (tutte senza nuvola) e anche nella versione attuale del 8 marzo la nuvola non c'è: è mai possibile che da oltre tre mesi il software non si aggiorna?
In quanto alla rotazione del file, a me non serve una rotazione di x gradi, mi serve invece un'inversione destra-sinistra (right-left flip), come se io guardassi l'immagine dal retro. È possibile richiederla?--3knolls (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@3knolls: Hai aggiornato la cache del tuo browser fra un caricamento e l'altro? Io direi di no, visto che sono state caricate tante immagini uguali credendo che nulla fosse cambiato. Per il "flip" non penso esista un tool per farlo: devi usare Gimp o un programma simile. --Ruthven (msg) 09:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Non soltanto avevo svuotato la cache, ma avevo pure tentato con altri browsers o con altri dispositivi, anche a distanza di settimane. Avevo quindi provato a caricare altre versione più leggere (in termini di pixel), credendo che potesse dipendere da questo, ma non ha funzionato, anche se non sempre accade che l'immagine non si aggiorni. Qualche volta si aggiorna, ma appare sempre e comunque non aggiornata, a meno che non si cambi risoluzione o a meno che non la si visualizzi cliccandoci sopra. È strano perché con altre immagini questo problema non si verifica. Scommetto che anche dal tuo computer compare la nuvola--3knolls (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
NIENTE PANICO! @3knolls: Dal mio computer compare la nuvola (nell'ultima versione, tutte le precedenti sono senza), ma se un comportamento ti pare strano, non insistere ed aspetta di capire che succede. Questo problema con le versioni aggiornate dei file è comune e dipende da Commons e/o dalla cache del computer. La versione corretta appare col tempo. --Ruthven (msg) 09:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

B. di Piné

Ciao Ruthven, ti ringrazio per aver corretto l'ortografia dei file di Baselga di Piné! Puoi farlo anche per l'ultimo rimasto, "File:Castel Belvedere, Baselga di Piné (TN).jpg"? 2A01:7C8:AAAE:2B3:9815:A38E:C344:6D9C 09:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 09:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ruthven, would you please be so kind and handle the cases
as well? Thank you. I don't get what is going on there and protected them precautionarily. Cheers, --Achim (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: I thought that, if an admin like you had deleted the redirects created after Arbalete's pointless renaming, they could have been moved back to their original name "Portobuffolé" with acute accent which is used in all wikis. Now that you know, would you be so kind to do it yourself for a reason of harmonisation with the main category please? However I'm not going to edit those categories again, don't worry!
2A01:7C8:AAAE:2B3:9815:A38E:C344:6D9C 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: On Portobuffolé I am less sure, because at least one institutional website [9] writes it "Portobuffolè", even if all the other sources write it differently. You should open a CfD. --Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Portobuffolé purtroppo è un caso complicato. Sul sito si trovano diverse grafie, basti pensare che nello statuto comunale c'è scritto "Portobuffole" (con l'apostrofo!) nell'introduzione, "Portobuffolè" nell'Art. 1 e "Portobuffolé" nell'Art. 2... Questo è uno di quei casi in cui chi ha redatto il sito del comune non ha prestato sufficiente attenzione alla grafia dell'accento, comunque se n'era già discusso anni fa sulla nostra wiki e si era stabilito di usare la grafia Portobuffolé, anche tutte le altre wiki tranne una infatti presentano questa grafia. E soprattutto anche qui le categorie erano scritte con l'accento acuto prima che ad Arbalete venisse la smania di cambiare tutti gli accenti dei comuni italiani da acuti a gravi
2A01:7C8:AAAE:2B3:9815:A38E:C344:6D9C 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, thanks, but a category redirect should be kept, either this way round or the other. --Achim (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: There is a long discussion on it.wiki. This email seems to settle the matter (for now): Datei:Email_der_Verwaltung_von_Portobuffolè_zur_Namensdiskussion,_8.6.16.jpeg. --Ruthven (msg) 14:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Portobuffolé ✓ Done. Ciao, --Achim (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Good morning Ruthven, I just would like to stress that at the moment the situation is confused with this issue of final -é vs. -è.
Here on commons at the moment we have Cirié related entries that uses final -é on the basis of the municipal statute and institutional site, and against the opinion of online dictionaries that have final -è (see here and here. On the other hand, we have Portobuffolé related entries that also uses final -é, but in this case against institutional website, statute (by the way statute cites a saying where it rhimes portobuffolè with caffè, clearly indicating grave accent) and the mail you mentioned above, in favor of the afore mentioned dictionaries which by contrast shows an -é.
Consistency wants that one of the two should be changed.
I also want to signal a discussion in progress on the matter on it.wiki here -- 151.82.35.136 14:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Perché mi scrivi in inglese? Balselga di Piné is not confused at all: it is written with the acute accent: é. For the other cities, it might be different though. --Ruthven (msg) 20:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Ciao Ruthven, I'm writing in english in order to be more easily understandable for those non-Italian users that participated to this discussion here above. :-)
Actually I didn't mention Baselga di Piné as I didn't analyse that situation. I just noticed the inconsistency I signalled above. My opinion is that institutional sources should be preferred, but in any case, whichever the decision commons.wiki users will take, what is not nice is the inconsistency of the rationale behind those two decisions, as one contradict the other. -- 151.68.97.92 06:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio on File:Чемпионат мира по СМН 2017.jpg

Hi. Thanks for your advice and vigilance. Nevertheless the Google search results especially the first one seems to have been published earlier than March 26, 2018, 17:53 unless you think that the "December 16" description by user, not confirmed by the EXIF, is a valid one. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

While I appreciate that you had good intentions with your recent deletion from my talk page, I wish you wouldn't do it. Even if it were an attack message, which this wasn't, I'm going to call it up to take a look, which takes longer than my just seeing it there and perhaps deleting it.

In this case, however, there is a current controversy concerning whether we should restore images from a flagrant bad guy. On the one hand, we don;t want to encourage him. On the other hand, refusing to restore good images which are useful for our purpose seems like cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

As a checkuser, I work to keep bad guys from doing bad things on Commons. Therefore I am perhaps better able than others to judge what to do with bad guys when they evade blocks. Even bad guys can do good things from time to time and I tend to believe that we should restore these images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Sorry if it disturbed you. With LTAs the usual technique is to rever all their edits, regardless the usefullness of them, in order to discourage their return. If someone is banned, it doesn't mean that he/she can do whatever they want just as an IP. Of course we can restore useful images (I did it myself) but never on a LTA request.
As a CU on Commons, you've surely more experience on UAs and IPs on Commons; but that doesn't mean more epxerience that any other user ;) --Ruthven (msg) 13:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't claim more experience or to be more important than any of my active colleagues, just that I think I have a better understanding of the bad and (rare) good that comes from banned users and how to deal with them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: We're not going to do a competition on who's has it longer, it sounds silly. But what if INeverCry or Audrey22 or any other LTA comes to you requesting to perform some job that they cannot do? If you work for them, they'll continue asking for more, coming back even if banned by the the rest of the community. The same will happen here: this guy is testing admins to perform his undeletions and, if someone refuses (or blocks the IP), he tries with another one. Now the lucky guy is you. --Ruthven (msg) 20:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Resurrezione Piero della Francesca post restauro.jpg

File:Resurrezione Piero della Francesca post restauro.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

Jcb (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanisław łukawski.jpg

The nomination was edited after the comments that the original reason was not valid. Another file uploaded by the same user had been deleted as a copyright violation before this was uploaded, and this only has Photoshop in the metadata and the date it was edited where the date of the photograph should be. Should the nomination be reopened? Peter James (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peter James and Sofiaaspe: It doesn't change to the rationale, and a Deletion Request would not solve anything. If there are proof for copyright ownership and/or personnal issues, they should be forwarded by e-mail to commons@wikimedia.org. --Ruthven (msg) 07:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Immediata

Ciao, quando trovo dei copyviol di immagini su Commons di solito chiedo a degli admin a caso di eliminarli per fare prima, oggi tocca a te, congratulazioni! :D Qui il file in questione. Grazie. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 23:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Phyrexian: Sai, esiste il template {{Copyvio}} che funziona benissimo lo stesso :) --Ruthven (msg) 07:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Grazie, sì sapevo, ma ho sempre avuto l'impressione che non funzionasse benissimo, ma se tu dici il contrario mi fido e prenderò a usarlo senza più molestare direttamente gli admin italiofoni. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 02:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Hi! I see that you deleted the file [[File:Gabriela profilbild.jpg]] on the grounds that the person in the picture is not notable. However, this politician has an article on Wp in Swedish that has been checked and approved for relevance by admins. Could you please explain then, why a politician who is relevant for an article is not relevant for a picture? Or, if the deletion was a mistake, could you please take steps to have the file undeleted? Idunius (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to intrude but I noticed this post and took a look at the deletion nomination page. When I click on the source provided there it brings one to this image on the attributed photographer's website with a cc-by-3.0 statement and link. Is that the same image? Did you miss something or am I not seeing what you have seen? Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Idunius: The photo is Uncategorized, which means: not notable enough to be categorised (or "I don't bother to categorise"), attaching no information to the image. The English description is unreadable (maybe it's not English? so select the correct language) wich doesn't help understanding why this woman should be on Commons. Thanks to @Ww2censor: , the copyright issue can be solved. I added the necessary templates to verify this permission. Please put the file in the relevant category at least. --Ruthven (msg) 08:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not upload the image. The person who did is obviously new here and chose the wrong lingo (it's Swedish, but I don't know how to change that) while uploading and did not add a category. I have added a correct category and thank Ww2censor for pointing out here that the copyright issue had been solved on the deletion nomination page prior to deletion. Thanks for restoring the image. Idunius (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Dennis Peron 2008 by Cary Newman.jpg

Did the author agree to allow either 360px or 500px? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: The authorisation is fine with the uploaded version(s). So I think that you can restore the 500px file. --Ruthven (msg) 08:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Image Trudeau

 Thank you. Ruthven du conseil , mais je vais pas donner mes coordonnées à des agents ORTS qui se cachent derrière des pseudos..tant pis..(meme si mon identité n'est pas tres compliqué a deviner si on cherche un peu)--Nicoleon (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoleon: En fait le service OTRS sert justement pour ça: les agents ont signé un accord de confidentialité et ne peuvent diffuser les informations privées présentes dans les courriels. De plus, leurs noms sont connus de WMF. --Ruthven (msg) 07:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: hmmm ..j'ai pas envie que tous les ORTS (.fr) puissent avoir accès à mes infos, je sais pas trop comment que ça marche si je me declare chez un ORTS hors france --Nicoleon (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nicoleon: En effet, tous les OTRS ayant accés aux permissions pourraient théoriquement avoir accés à l'information. --Ruthven (msg) 10:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Chiarimento su File del Quirinale

Ciao, ho visto che su Commons sono caricati molti file della Presidenza della Repubblica come ad esempio questo, tutti con quella stessa licenza. Volevo sapere se è possibile caricare qualunque immagine da quel sito con quella stessa licenza o l'autorizzazione di cui si parla è una per ogni file. --Pierluigi05 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pierluigi05: Il tema è delicato perché sul sito del Quirinale hanno cambiato licenza ed ora è in dubbio se i file si possano più caricare con licenza libera. Per prudenza, caricherei immagini di prima del 2014, ma puoi tentare lo stesso con file recenti. Usa però il template specifico. --Ruthven (msg) 09:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove photo from wiki commons

Dear Ruthvet,

My name is Adam, I would like to ask you for your kind help. I'm the creator of the page about Dan H. Yaalon. In short, Dan RIP was an outstanding professor in soil science. After Dan passed away the International Union of Soil Sciences decided to honer him with a medal on his behalf. I added a photo of the medal that was took by the guy how made the medal with his approval and for some reason it was deleted with this say:

(cur | prev) 19:13, 29 January 2018‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,202 bytes) (-143)‎ . . (Removing מדליית_המדען_הצעיר_ע"ש_דן_יעלון_–_צד_אחורי.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Ruthven beca...) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:13, 29 January 2018‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,345 bytes) (-142)‎ . . (Removing מדליית_המדען_הצעיר_ע"ש_דן_יעלון_–_צד_קדמי.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Ruthven because:...) (undo)

Any Idea way? What should i do in order to approve the photo and make it permanent at the page?

Many thanks,

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam0707 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adam0707: You can find the details of the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:מדליית המדען הצעיר ע"ש דן יעלון – צד קדמי.jpg. In two words: there is no proof that the author of the medal gave you permission to publish a photo of his work under free license. In order to approve it, the sculptor should send a permission to the OTRS service. He can also write in Hebrew at permissions-he@wikimedia.org. Basically he should use his work email to say "I authorise Adam0707 to publish photos of my work under the free license of his choice." --Ruthven (msg) 18:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion Request for Image

Hello Ruthven,

As requested, please find the ticket number from the automatic reply below:

Subject: [Ticket#2018042010006791] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission-for Kevin [...])

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2018042010006791].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team

Thank you so much for your help!

TurnerBrandCentral (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Benyamin Netanyahu, Nicos Anastasiades and Alexis Tsipras - Jan 28, 2016.jpg

You asked us to send mail to OTRS from photographer of Benyamin Netanyahu, Nicos Anastasiades and Alexis Tsipras - Jan 28, 2016.jpg. We told him to send mail to permissions and to use old ticket number in subject line. But unfortunatelly he sent mail with permission not using our old ticket number. I hope you still could find that mail.Vermed22 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermed22: Can you please give me:
  • The old ticket number
  • The date his e-mail was sent.
In that way I'll be able to track the permissions, and merge them. Thank you. --Ruthven (msg) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Old Ticket [Ticket#2018013010004118]
Mail by Avramides was Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:40 AM

Vermed22 (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Jimena Navarrete, Michael Wildes, 2010.jpg

Is it ok for me to add the OTRS ticket to the extracted images of this file which don't have it? The same goes from File:Madeleine Hartog Bel.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: It's an overkill. Generally having it in the source image suffices. --Ruthven (msg) 15:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. Of course when using CropTool it copies all the details over including the OTRS ticket, which is why I asked. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Parere

Ciao, scusa se ti disturbo (di nuovo). Volevo chiederti un parere. Da quanto sapevo, non è consentito cancellare un commento da una talk page a meno che non siano insulti o parolacce o simili. Posso chiederti, a te che sei terzo, se questo ti sembra ricada nettamente in quella categoria? --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 21:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Una giornata uggiosa '94: È un caso limite e qui, a differenza di it.wiki, è solo "sconsigliato" cancellare i commenti dalla propria talk. Quindi l'azione di Jcb non è irregolare in sé. Ciononostante puoi fare casino… ma dipende da quanto tempo hai e quante larghe sono le tue spalle. Sugli edit di quel file, mi sembra che vi siate chiariti alla fine (guardando le modifiche successive), no? --Ruthven (msg) 08:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Grazie. Allora figuriamoci, interverrebbe anche Jimbo Wales a difenderlo. Mi limiterò a lasciare un commento per segnalare l'esistenza di un edit cancellato, giusto per non passare da scemo (ma tanto senz'altro annullerà anche quello). Quanto al tempo, non ne ho e anzi spero di dedicarne sempre meno in futuro, possibilmente sbaraccando completamente da questa fogna il più presto possibile, perché i dieci anni di contribuzione che ho "festeggiato" ieri così felicemente sono già troppo tempo perso. Situazioni come queste sono sempre più frequenti e a 24 anni non posso permettermi di rovinarmi il fegato per giorni e notti intere, oltretutto per un'opera di volontariato dalla quale non me ne viene niente. Così come non posso accettare di fare la formichina che si sobbarca grossi pesi rimanendo impassibile quando un gigante decide di sparigliare tutto o di umiliarla. Grazie di nuovo e scusa il disturbo. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 11:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Una giornata uggiosa '94: In effetti, è meglio lasciar stare queste storie futili a chi ha tempo da perdere. La minaccia di blocco non sta né in cielo, né in terra e, al peggio, ti cancellano il file se non ha le informazioni necessarie a mantenerla. Ciao! --Ruthven (msg) 16:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

File:FCCI at HBFF-2016 - Centenary Tribute to Nabendu Ghosh.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests

Powerfulideas (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you for voting to KEEP the pic; it's very much original. This is Dalton from the Film Critics Circle of India, and the people in the pic are my very close friends, so I have their eternal permission too.

@Powerfulideas: No problem at all, it looked like a regular photo. About the potential personal issues, you may want to check the {{Consent}} template. --Ruthven (msg) 07:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Eldar Əzizov, Hacı Salayev, Musa Qasımlı Sumqayıtın Tarixi Muzeyində.JPG

Hi. This is my work. Delete it. Best regards, --►Cekli829 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cekli829: It was uploaded in 2013, so we cannot delete without the community consensus. Please fill up a regular Deletion Request. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Because I am the author of the picture. I want to be deleted. --►Cekli829 06:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ruthven. A week ago. Please delete these files.--►Cekli829 10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cekli829: I'm sorry, but Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eldar Əzizov, Hacı Salayev, Musa Qasımlı Sumqayıtın Tarixi Muzeyində.JPG is the only place where a deletion can take place in this case. --Ruthven (msg) 19:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lego brickfilms

Hi, thanks for closing this DR. Could you please kindly clarify why you think de minimis would apply to File:Lego put together.webm, File:Leonardo812 - Green Screen.webm, File:Stop Motion - City complete.webm, File:Hvad er open source? Forklaret i LEGO.ogv and File:What is Open Source explained in LEGO.ogv? The copyrighted artworks seem to me to be the main subject. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not what I saw. Following the rationale of the closing, these short movies can be accepted as de minimis. --Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, it does not help me much. Saying it's de minimis because it's de minimis does not explain why you consider it so. Taking for example File:Leonardo812 - Green Screen.webm, why do you consider de minimis would apply ? IMO the copyrighted artwork is clearly not a detail. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 11:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Racconish: These difficult closings are very subjective eventually: nobody wants to do them because of the rants, that always arrive after. Imo, the videos you shown are not centered on the Legos because there weren't first plans of the toys, but they were used not from a closer look to illustrate something completely different than the toys themselves. --Ruthven (msg) 11:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understanf what you mean by "first plan". Either in view of (1) the relative length of the copyright infringing segment or (2) the relative importance of the infringing subject in each photogram, the proportion is quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the conclusion that infringement has occurred. — Racconish ☎ 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I meant "a closed shot." --Ruthven (msg) 11:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The presence or absence or close-ups is not a jurisprudential criterion for de minimis, either in France, in the EU or in the US. The 3 criteria are quantitative proportion, qualitative proportion and transformative use. — Racconish ☎ 12:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Here it can be considered that the copyrighted object is de minimis, which is all the 3 criteria you gave, in that case. --Ruthven (msg) 15:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
And why is that ? Still looking at File:Leonardo812 - Green Screen.webm, the presence of the copyrighted Lego figure is by no means "incidental" per article 5.1.i of the European Copyright Directive. Again, I would appreciate if you would kindly explain why, in your opinion, a copyrighted object which is central in the film and present on each frame should be considered as merely incidentally present. The lack of close-ups is irrelevant. If you remove the figure, there is nothing significant left. It is not like a case of FOP where there is no other way of filming something else which would have been the central subject of the film. The Lego character is the subject of the film. — Racconish ☎ 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have re-nominated for deletion File:Hvad er open source? Forklaret i LEGO.ogv, File:Lego put together.webm, File:Leonardo812 - Green Screen.webm, File:Stop Motion - City complete.webm, and File:What is Open Source explained in LEGO.ogv. — Racconish ☎ 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Ruthven (msg) 18:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Пётр Буслов.jpg

Hi, It is image provided by the film director himself to the site kinopoisk.ru and to the wikimedia itself. Before deleting it you should of check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolinberg (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Same file?

Please see. Tyvm. --E4024 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@E4024: It's not the same file, but we still need the photographer's permission. --Ruthven (msg) 18:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mancata licenza

Scusa, ma come fai a dire che manca la licenza se il licenziatario in cc-by-sa-3.0 è il fotografo stesso? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: L'autore è tale Luca Sanguineti (vedi licenza), mica "Tullio Foto". --Ruthven (msg) 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: e io sono Sergio D'Afflitto aka Blackcat, non sempre il nome corrisponde all'account, buon senso, su :) . Basterebbe chiedere al fotografo in persona, che è il padrone dell'account... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
PS Poi per carità, sono io il primo a combattere i copyvio, basta che vedi il mio registro cancellazioni, però questi sono casi chiari di utenza che si è pubblicata il proprio lavoro.
@Blackcat: Ma può essere… o anche no. È che non lo so. Una mail a OTRS dall'indirizzo di lavoro e tutto si risolve. --Ruthven (msg) 15:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ma stiamo scherzando, vero? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blackcat: Assolutamente no! Se io mi firmo "Ruthven" a poi scrivo nella licenza "Ciro Esposito", ti sembra normale? Non vorresti fare qualche verifica? Comunque, se vuoi, puoi tranquillamente trasformare l'avviso che ho lasciato in Delete Request e fai fare ad un admin terzo. Io avevo messo l'avviso per evitare lungaggini. (e comunque il template è "No permission since", non mancata licenza: manca il permesso da parte dell'autore) --Ruthven (msg) 15:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ma santo cielo, siamo degli admin e abbiamo la responsabilità anche di vedere se una certa fattispecie è legittima, o se ci troviamo di fronte a un errore materiale. Io sono andato a vedere 'sto fotografo, cerchiamo di fare questo minimo lavoro di discernimento altrimenti non ci differenzia nulla da un bot. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blackcat: Ma siamo d'accordo. Questo utente ha però due caricamenti, due: uno in cancellazione e l'altro senza autorizzazione. Non è un granché come curriculum per fargli fiducia, non trovi? --Ruthven (msg) 19:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Santori e Carletti.jpg

Re your close here: don't things like this have to go through OTRS for verification? --Randykitty (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Not in this case: the photograph was directed by the camera owner. At OTRS they would repeat the same story, which is credible, and we assume goodfaith. It's a case of bystander selfie mixed with a work for hire. --Ruthven (msg) 08:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Aja drag queen in feb 2018.jpg

Hi Ruthven, I saw that you've updated the permissions template on File:Aja drag queen in feb 2018.jpg since OTRS received my e-mail. I'm not very active on the Commons and so don't have a good feel for many procedures around here, but I've been searching around for information to try to understand why the image I modified was tagged as needing permission in the first place. I'm the author of both the original and the cropped image, and I didn't need to submit any additional declaration of permissions for the original. After reading Commons:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary, it doesn't seem that the cropped image should need to undergo this process, either: it was uploaded by the author (me) and is definitely not of exceptional or professional quality. Is there something I've missed or misunderstood? Armadillopteryx (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx: I theory there are no problems. I am waiting before accepting the ticket because I want to understand why it was marked as "Missing permission" in the first place. --Ruthven (msg) 21:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thanks! Armadillopteryx (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Nominations

Hi Ruthven: To answer your question in a recent DN... I will ask for second opinion in some cases where I am unsure, there may be a grey area, and/or I've seen prior debate on the topic. I think this is better than unilaterally deciding and then finding out later there was something I missed. So when I phrase questions, or leave open ended statements in DNs, I have an opinion, but I hope to create a consensus. I am concerned lately about IP users doing nominations, sometimes the ones I nominate come from reviewing copyvios posted by anonymous editors - who may or may not understand Commons or may be playing games or pushing an agenda. I also "could" delete or nuke uploads without consultation; but I don't feel that's the role I have here. Instead I feel that if I have the slightest bit of lack of certainty that the image at least deserves 7 days to be looked at and suggestions for where to look and/or at what to look only make deletion nominations easier on the closing admins. Hope this helps ! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Hi, and thanks for the message. It surely would help more if I knew which dispute resolution are you talking about :) I crossed certain IPs doing improper deletion nominations, and certain ones on a crusade against some type of presumed copyvio… but I still don't see what you're talking about :) Sorry --Ruthven (msg) 16:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This was from February this year. I was clearing out my watchlist and saw it today, somehow missed it back then. No worries!! Just letting you know for future when you see my name. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Immagini della Presidenza della Repubblica

Ciao. Dato che sei l'autore del template, volevo chiederti un chiarimento sull'uso della licenza {{Presidenza della Repubblica}}. Le foto rilasciate nel sito Quirinale.it possono essere caricare su Commons semplicemente apponendo quel template? Per fare un esempio: questo caricamento è regolare? Grazie in anticipo per la risposta --Danyele (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ciao @Danyele: , quel caricamente sicuramente non è regolare, perché usa un template attribuzione dove sul sito è indicato che non sono permessi gli usi commerciali. Dovresti lasciare un avviso all'utente e proporre il file per la cancellazione (o magari me ne occupo io se ce ne sono altri). L'autorizzazine della Presidenza della Repubblica è poco chiara: esiste un ticket OTRS nel quale permettevano l'uso dei loro file con la sola attribuzione, ma hanno poi cambiato la politica del sito, inserendo la clausola non commerciale. Ad occhio e croce, l'autorizzazione sarebbe valida fino al 2014 ca., ossia fino a quando non hanno cambiato la politica del sito… ma una discussione sul bar italiano sarebbe da aprire su ciò (non posso decidere da solo sull'interpretazione di una clausola). --Ruthven (msg) 05:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this file from Italy able to be hosted under a free license

There is currently a discussion about this photo File:Centro storico a CL 060518 (70).jpg at VIC and if the photo can be hosted on commons. With how Italy treats FOP this one is beyond me. I hope you can take a look and give your opinion. All the best -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: Hi! FOP in Italy is surely not allowed for artworks, like sculptures, paintings, etc. This case is peculiar: the "monument" is apparently recent and shouldn't be allowed here, however it consists of an old oven painted in white, which is below the threshold of originality. --Ruthven (msg) 05:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Richiesta informazione

Ciao Ruthven, avrei bisogno di un'informazione e non saprei a chi altro rivolgermi. Vorrei capire se talvolta può essere legittimo caricare immagini protette da copyright: consideriamo ad esempio alcuni caricamenti dell'user:Hyeronimus: File:Basilica di Siponto (Manfredonia) 02.jpg, File:Manfredonia vista dall alto.jpg e File:Fenicotterirosamanfredonia.jpg, scaricati rispettivamente dai siti [10], [11] e [12] i quali portano tutti il simbolo del copyright. Vorrei dunque capire come mai sono leciti. Grazie e scusa per il disturbo 3knolls (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@3knolls: Il giorno in cui qualcuno scriverà: "Aiutami, sei la nostra ultima speranza (cit.)" sarò felice! :)
Per risponderti, è assolutamente vietato caricare fotografie coperta da copyright. Se vedi il disclaimer del sito, è scritto: "Tale materiale non può essere copiato, riprodotto, ripubblicato, trasmesso o distribuito in qualunque forma, anche solo parzialmente, senza l'autorizzazione della Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Puglia."
Quindi, ti invito a procedere alla richiesta di cancellazione mediante template {{Copyvio}} per tutti i caricamenti del genere che incontri (valuta bene però, ossia guarda se alla fonte non vi sia una licenza libera). Grazie --Ruthven (msg) 14:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@3knolls: Ricordati anche di notificare l'utente. Ho fatto io in questo caso. --Ruthven (msg) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Per cortesia, in che modo dovrei notificare l'utente? Tu hai usato Speedywhat con Autotranslate dopo aver cancellato i files. Io invece (che non sono admin e non posso cancellare) quale template dovrei usare?--3knolls (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@3knolls: Si, abbiamo poteri speciali :) Per i copyviol, si usa {{Copyvionote}}. --Ruthven (msg) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


These 2 Eurovision images

Dear Ruthven,

Can you review these 2 images of the Eurovision winner? I cannot but you can since you are an Admin here.

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: It's ✓ Done. But it's not urgent to perform license review in general: eventually it wil be done by someone. --Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Input on DR Consolidation would be appreciated

I'm not aware on what is the proper protocol for consolidating DRs of this magnitude, but I'm very close to being blocked for it. If you can share your views on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Creation of page I would be very grateful. -- SLV100 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: If you're not aware of the protocol, do not touch anything. Administrators close the DR properly. Now just wait for the pages to be restored/edits reverted (I think somebody is doing that right now) before commenting in the DRs further. Thanks for the notification Btw. --Ruthven (msg) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. -- SLV100 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Shakeela.png

Why did you delete this image without any evidenceLuckyulinga (talk) Luckyulinga (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Luckyulinga: Because it was copied from the web, like the other images, or –more probably– a screenshot. --Ruthven (msg) 08:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Undelete in ... categories

Hi Ruthven! You used includeonly on your undelete category on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Clown_with_a_Black_Wig_(1930),_of_Walt_Kuhn.jpg... was this by accident? This means it will not show up in the category; only pages that transclude that DR (which will be the DR log archive page) would show up. Secondly, where did you get 2020 from? I took the liberty to change it to 2026, but was curious as to your reasoning. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Storkk: Ooops, I got confused with the "noinclude". For the date, I got the painter's deathdate, which from the discussion appears to be 1949: 1949 71 = 2020. --Ruthven (msg) 08:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, no worries. Given that it's probably a US work, I think 70 pma does not apply, though... so it's either PD if copyright was registered and renewed or becomes PD 95 years after publication. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk: It is not a published artwork, it seems a painting to me. That's why I think it's more appropriate the whole Pd-art/PD-old template 70y pma. --Ruthven (msg) 12:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand that there's a lot of confusion surrounding exactly what constitutes "publication" for a painting, but I think the date of publication for an artwork is taken as the date it was first displayed to the public. Regardless, though... it's a painting by an American and currently in the US... without evidence it was first published outside the US, I don't see how it could possibly be undeleted in 2020. Could you point to what you think the appropriate line of COM:HIRTLE would be? My view is that since we haven't searched for registration/renewals, we assume it was both registered and renewed and so the appropriate line is "1923 through 1963 | Published with notice and the copyright was renewed". Storkk (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk: True that copyright law in the US is a real mess! :) You're probably right, unless we search for a renewal of the copyright without finding it (in that case, the file can be undeleted under {{PD-US-not renewed}}). --Ruthven (msg) 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Standard permission

In an e-mail you sent to Mr. Bruce Griffith you provided him with a standard permission letter for the OTRS, may I copy it into a user sub-page and modify it for future reference so I can send it to other people interested in sharing their images with Wikimedia Commons? I have been attempting to make a standard "give permission" letter but the one you created looks quite fine. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: No need to copy it, you can find the template at Commons:Email_templates. --Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: , thank you very much. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

AVVISO DI CANCELLAZIONE

Ciao Ruthven, ho ricevuto sulla mia pagina di discussione il seguente avviso dall'utente Ytoyoda: I realize copyright of 2D recreations of 3D objects differ from country to country, but I believe these are new enough to be still under copyright.

Quindi verranno cancellati, cosa si può fare per mantenerli, ovviamente se si può?MacMoreno (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@MacMoreno: Bisogna argomentare. All'utente sembra che sono opere derivate da sculture (le coppe) sotto copyright. Non che non l'avessi detto nel laboratorio grafico a cosa questo tipo di richiesta ci esponeva… Dico la mia, ma poi un admin terzo deciderà. --Ruthven (msg) 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Quindi devo aspettare? L'utente mi chiede di argomentare a mia discolpa. Io già ho serie difficoltà in italiano e sono un cattivo avvocato di me stesso figuriamoci poi argomentare in inglese.MacMoreno (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@MacMoreno: Se vedi, ho già risposto io. Puoi anche scrivere in italiano, volendo. --Ruthven (msg) 19:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ciao@Ruthven: ancora non ho risposto, volevo fartelo leggere in anteprima.

I disegni dei Trofei pubblicati, hanno solo la finalità di accrescere i contenuti di Wikipedia e sono senza fini di lucro. Ho messo a disposizione le mie buone capacità di disegnatore, alla comunità, come tanti di Noi lo fanno con foto e testi. Ritengo che questi disegni di Trofei differiscono dai veri trofei tridimensionali, anche se gli aspetti d’insieme sono simili, non hanno proporzionalità rispetto all’originale e i particolari delle decorazioni non sono uguali ma ricordano semplicemente quegli elementi. Ovvio che dipenda da te questa scelta (essere o non essere). Queste riproduzioni possono essere considerate come OPERE PARODISTICHE e non copie. MacMoreno (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@MacMoreno: A parte le prima frase sui fini di lucro, penso che vada bene e che centra il punto. Anche "Ovvio che dipenda da te questa scelta" andrebbe levato, perché la decisione finale spetta ad un admin e non alla persona che ha proposto la cancellazione. Mettici anche un {{vk}} all'inizio. --Ruthven (msg) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Ok toglierò le frasi da te indicate e pubblicherò la risposta. Grazie. MacMoreno (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Ciao Ruthven@ Secondo la tua esperienza, quando saprò se le coppe verranno cancellate? grazie per l'attenzione.MacMoreno (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ciao @MacMoreno: ! Ad occhio e croce non verranno cancellate, quindi tranquillo. Ultimamente le cancellazioni stanno prendendo un po' di tempo a chiudersi perché nessuno se le sobbarca; circa 2 mesi. --Ruthven (msg) 13:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted by mistake

Greetings and thank you for closing the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:barbarabrannon that @Alexis Jazz: and I so thoroughly discussed a while ago. You wrote in the summary, "[…]Kept: per discussion; deleted the other files", however you mistakenly deleted the file File:Avenger Field, Sweetwater, Texas (3).jpg that we both decided to keep on Commons after reaching a consensus. Could you please kindly restore it. Thank you in advance, --Taterian (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That's right, that image was a DW of File:Jacqueline Cochran 1940.jpg and everything else in it would be DM anyway if it's not PD-USGov. So it should be kept. - Alexis Jazz 21:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Taterian and Alexis Jazz: I was sure that I would have missed someone in such a long discussion. Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 06:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No problemo, dear Ruthven, and many thanks for restoring it! (And special thanks go to Alexis Jazz for appearing at a hearing!) --Taterian (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Texts by Dr. Luke Roberts

In the e-mail 📧 Dr. Luke Shepherd Roberts also gave permission for the texts on his website (or released under the same rights), for that reason I imported some of his files like File:Denkomanbai - Dr. Luke Roberts 01.jpg with the full descriptions as it would make them easier to find and more useful for future reference, however I can't clearly find this permission back in Template:East Asian Cash Coins, is it implied or should you confirm it? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: That's true. It has been corrected. --Ruthven (msg) 07:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you 😊 very much. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

File:AnthonyAustinStreet.png

You tagged this for review and the source does not link to the image, so I can't confirm the copyright. However, your first edit summery stated "Free license on the source" but I don't see it. Shall I just fail it or create a deletion nomination? Ww2censor (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I think that we just have to find the link to the portrait, as all the material from the Library is published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. --Ruthven (msg) 05:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Grazie mille

Thank you very much for processing the OTRS ticket from Dr. Luke Shepherd Roberts, all of his texts and images are now imported to Wikimedia Commons and future generations of numismatic aficionado's will be very grateful that you helped out with the ticket and templates.

Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing CfDs

Hi, Ruthven. When you close a CfD where the category is kept -- for example, Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Christ Chalkites -- please remember to remove the CfD template from the category. I removed it from the one I just mentioned, but I'm not sure how to track all the unsuccessful closed discussions to see if any more need removing. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for closing so many recently! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: This one must have slipped. Adding the archive in the talk page as well (which has to be put as well). Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 10:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Stained glass

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Stained glass windows: I won't try to argue against this in general, although for what it's worth I think that in this case in English "stained glass" is more common than "stained glass" even as an adjectival phrase, but some of the resulting moves are certainly wrong. For example, in Category:Epiphany Parish Episcopal Church (Seattle) - stained glass, now moved to Category:Epiphany Parish Episcopal Church (Seattle) - stained-glass, "stained glass" is a noun, not an adjective. I'm sure there are others. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Too late! You should have argued while the discussion was opened. For that category open a "category for discussion" and, when consensus will be built, we'll change the name. There are too many categories to check during this CfD, I'm sorry but I cannot check it one by one. In that case, you can simply and boldly do the changment yourself, if you're 100% sure that it is correct. --Ruthven (msg) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion overtly mentioned that this should not be done where this is a noun. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Perfect. There are a lot of commands still to be executed in User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Please check the ones where it's a noun (and remove them); I'll check as well. Thanks. --Ruthven (msg) 17:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

a3cb1

sakve ruthven, ho avviato una discussione, e vorrei anche la sua opinione,,, la rchiesta non consisteva nel dire che ero sbloccato, ma nel far notare anche ad altri amministratore la seguente questione--95.245.76.135 21:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Quando sarai sbloccato, potrai tornare a fare richieste. Nel frattempo seguo la discussione. --Ruthven (msg) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

intendo andare infondo alla questione, non mi sembra giusto però, se mai come andamento di commons bisogna confrontare le modifiche e i contributi che si fanno, e non le richieste, dato che si tratta di fare richiesta agli mministratori--95.245.76.135 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Non è giusto che tu violi le regole costantemente. Te l'ho già spiegato Alexander, non hai nessun privilegio rispetto agli altri utenti rispetto alle regole che ci siamo dati. Le devi rispettare come tutti quanti. --Ruthven (msg) 21:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
non ho mai detto niente di ciò io, non ho alcuna ambizione, non ho mai detto che ho dei privilegio o chiedo delle grazie,non mettetemi parola che non ho mai detto o pensato--95.245.76.135 21:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
…e allora la regola è che gli utenti bloccati non possono più intervenire. Inutile che ti spieghi il perché --Ruthven (msg) 21:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
allora se sarà cosi nonostante la sicura assirazione del mantenimento (cancellato) dei file,, anche se si dovesse aspettare un anno o due, la questione purtroppo cadrà nel dimenticatioi, per favore fate in modo che ciò non accada per favore--95.245.76.135 21:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

w:Alexandre Du Mège

Surely "infamous" is a peacock word that should require a citation or verification of some sort. BTW, I will send you an email this evening. Ww2censor (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: It seemed to me a good occasion to use that word, given that we're talking about a famous bas-relief, which is also a forgery. :) Improving my English skills! --Ruthven (msg) 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe "infamous" is ok considering the commentary about the bas-relief". Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Probabile copyvioler seriale

Ciao, occchio a User:Paride1990; vedendo che ha caricato foto che avevano una "firma digitale" tra i dati EXIF ho fatto una ricerca on line arrivando qui. Ho messo per ora la richiesta di cancellazione per una foto ma sono abbastanza certo non sia l'unica (bassa risoluzione docet). Buona cancellazione.--Threecharlie (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: Toh, chi si vede! Come va? Li ho messi tutti in cancellazione, ed ora li cancello pure. --Ruthven (msg) 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RBINFO.png

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:RBINFO.png

You undeleted the additional image but not the image in the section header: File:RBINFO.png. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:  ✓ Done Thx --Ruthven (msg) 03:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Dobbertin (1908).jpg

Hi, This is acceptable under {{Anonymous-EU}}. And please wait for 24 hours before closing a request. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Tu aurais pu l'indiquer dans la demande de restauration, d'autant plus que ces photos anonymes sont souvent contestées. Vu que tu n'as pas récupéré le fichier toi-même (tu es admin, après tout), j'ai interprété que tu n'étais pas sûr de ton intervention. Salut --Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Je n'ai pas restauré le fichier moi-même, car j'attends toujours 24 h après la dernière intervention, sauf quelques cas évidents. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

tracciato del contado del molise

Buongiorno, volevo chiederle il permesso di pubblicare in un libro la sua immagine "tracciato contado di molise ". Scusi il disturbo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.32.70.26 (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
L'immagine Tracciato Contado di Molise.svg si può pubblicare tranquillamente in un libro. Sarebbe gradita una menzione del tipo: "Mappa da Wikimedia Commons", ma non è obbligatorio. Grazie --Ruthven (msg) 09:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sarà fatto. Grazie --93.32.70.26 10:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Files with missing permission in Category:Clara Vogedes

Hi Ruthven, as a member of the OTRS-Team, I would like you to check a ticket an some files for me.
Most of the files inside the category have this OTRS-Ticket, but some not. I saw that u put this ticket in. If possible fix the files with missing permission. I can not do it.

Ticket-No: 2018021510002325
Pictures in Category:Clara Vogedes Pictures:

This file has been deleted already. If the ticket is good for this file too, can you make a rollback for this deletion?

Thanx in advance. Regards Rafael Zink (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rafael Zink: The ticket is being processed: files are being uploaded, but OTRS permission have still to be applied and/or which files are authorised have to be determined. The last email exchange is just from yesterday. So, please, before nominating for deletion/undeletion, wait a little while. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 08:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to nominate for deletion. I want the opposite way. Thanks for the info. Rafael Zink (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rafael Zink: Ok, so few days more, and we will undelete everything that has to be. In any case, File:Cl Vogedes Affiche expo Buc.jpg is an advertising leaflet, so I doubt that it will be restored because out of SCOPE. --Ruthven (msg) 08:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: There should a newer license have arrived the last days. Can you check and give permission for those pics in the Cat. What about the deleted ones? can you undelete the ones with permission from uploads page User_talk:François_Brion? Regards Rafael Zink (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rafael Zink: Certain licenses arrived and were added to the files. Deleted files will be restored when an acceptable authorization has been processed. --Ruthven (msg) 06:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: OK. Thanx. Can u leave a notice about restored files here. I probably do not mention it. regards. Rafael Zink (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)"Fontäne in Séguret" und "abstrakte Landschaft" sind schon in meiner Datei. "Paris, Seine-Kai" war sogar 2 x da, aber unter anderen Namen. Soll ich es hochladen? Alle Lizenzen waren wahrscheinlich schon erteilt. Ich lass sie aber noch einmal einholen. "Rose (im Singular) in Phiole" - Ich muss leider aufhören. - Wenn Du inzwischen Lust hättest, Reihen aufzustellen? Gruss Ute

Martelli Bros.

Hola. He visto que has autorizado un ticket en esta imagen y me preguntaba si podrías revisar este otro ticket, relacionados con lo mismo. Disculpa la molestia. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Ningún problema. En estos casos, donde el ticket para la imagén está aceptado ya, hay sólo que juntar los dos tickets (merge). --Ruthven (msg) 06:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Por juntar te refieres a fusionar? Nunca he hecho eso ni sé si puedo hacerlo. Seria algo como lo que hacer aquí, supongo. Lo peor, es que creo que esos permisos no están bien. Viéndolos detenidamente, la cuenta no está asociada a la página web, por lo que todos deberían sufrir la misma suerte. Y yo tan contenta que anoche habíamos bajado a 980... Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Exacto! Hay que fusionar los tickets. Puedes hacerlo tu también, pero cuidado que se te "pega" el ticket ;) Ruthven (msg) 08:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

...senza parole...

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Daniela Sabatino, FW Brescia Calcio Femminile 08 2016.jpg.--Threecharlie (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tra l'altro, dato che quest'anno la società ha desìciso di non iscriversi al campionato se secondo te il permesso è relativo alla pagina/link si potrebbe prendere anche quelle di questa stagione prima che spariscano, che ne pensi?--Threecharlie (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Threecharlie: La PdC ci sta tutta. Dov'è l'autorizzazione? Ti ricordo che il ticket OTRS va inserito in ogni voce da un utente autorizzato, altrimenti il caricamento è altamente sospetto. Se mi ricordi il numero di ticket, controllo i permessi anche per le altre stagioni. --Ruthven (msg) 10:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Guarda File:Cecilia Salvai, DF Brescia Calcio Femminile 08 2016.jpg che ce l'ha ed è dello stesso gruppo.--Threecharlie (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Threecharlie: Allora, magari indicami tutti i file ancora senza permesso di quella "infornata", così sistemo le autorizzazioni. Si possono caricare in CC by-sa 4.0 unicamente i file presenti in http://www.bresciacalciofemminile.it/prima-squadra/rosa. Se hai intenzione di caricarne di nuovi, dimmelo, che preparo un template su misura. --Ruthven (msg) 10:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Quindi non avevo torto a pensare che se è indicata quella pagina non ha anche una temporalità, come del resto nel caso di altre autorizzazioni, quindi legate solo a quelle della stagione 2016-2017. Se capisco il meccanismo cerco di spegarlo semplicemente anche ad altre società che si sono dichiarate, sempre a parole, di rilasciare volentieri le immagini delle loro giocatrici, ma dato che ho intenzione di far loro visita prima dell'inizio del campionato vedo se riesco a portare a casa qualche risultato (e punto anche a quelle storiche delle ex). Mo guardo se per caso ne avevo dimenticata qualcuna senza il template.--Threecharlie (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
però, dai, permettimi una riflessione, ma possibile che qui in Commons prima si manda in cancellazione e poi si chiede info? Non sarebbe più politicalmente corretto andare nella talk di un utenza e dire, "guarda, ho visto sta cosa strana ma dal momento che il range delle foto siumili hanno il permesso non è che per caso te lo sei dimenticato?" Tutto sto integralismo proprio non lo capisco, in it.wiki, e non sono certo il solo, per capire chi abbiamo davanti guardiamo i contributi, sarebbe ora di dare un segnale all'adminship che ad accettare decine di migliaia di immagini con un bot che stanno poi a languire in categorie come Category:Churches senza che quasi mai nessuno vada a dare un'occhiata mentre fanno i cacaspilli ad utenti che si smazzano si rischia che in Commons lavorino solo i bot (e col cavolo che le immagini dei niubbi i bot le trovano e le categorizzano adeguatamente).--Threecharlie (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Threecharlie: Fai conto che l'utenza che ha chiesto la cancellazione è relativamente nuova. È proprio il progetto a permettere tanti abusi, per quello c'è spazio per cancellazionisti ad oltranza.--Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge help needed

Hi, admin. Can you kindly merge the two cats mentioned in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Esmahan Sultan Mosque under the name Category:Esmahan Sultan Mosque? Thanks in advance and cheers. --E4024 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@E4024:  ✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 11:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Stranezza...

Ciao, sarei curioso di capire se tu riesci a modificare le categorie in File:Beata Vergine Maria del Rosario, oval window (Concadirame, Rovigo).jpg; a me esce sempre [WyOxngpAICEAAI22@4IAAABB] 2018-06-15 12:31:42: Errore irreversibile di tipo "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" su questa e su altre due relative alla chiesa scattate lo stesso giorno.--Threecharlie (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: Anche a me dà un errore. Si tratta di una corruzione nel Db. O si apre un ticket su phabricator, o si aspetta che lo sistemino.
PS: Non mi hai detto nulla più delle foto del Brescia Calcio. --Ruthven (msg) 12:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Perdonami, non mi ero reso conto che non avevo "finito il giro" di tutte quelle caricate in quell'occasione; hanno lo stesso problema della mancanza del template OTRS File:Stefania Tarenzi, FW Brescia Calcio Femminile 08 2016.jpg e File:Alessandra Bolchini, GK Brescia Calcio Femminile 08 2016.jpg, mentre resto in attesa della tua opinione sulla possibilità di prendere quelle di questa stagione. Altra cosa, hai visto che ti ho pingato in it.wiki?--Threecharlie (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Threecharlie: Per quelle di questa stagione c'è un problema: la pagina web usata l'anno scorso non esiste più. Andrebbe chiesto alla squadra il permesso per la pagina http://www.bresciacalciofemminile.it/prima-squadra/ oppure un permesso più generico per "le fotografie delle giocatrici in Prima squadra dal sito www.bresciacalciofemminile.it". Magari se gli ricordi dell'autorizzazione in CC by-sa 4.0 dell'anno scorso, sarà più facile ottenerlo. --Ruthven (msg) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Mi sa che è un guaio, ho idea che la società sia allo sbando dopo aver ceduto il titolo sportivo al Milan... Ci provo ma temo ci sia poco da fare...--Threecharlie (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Threecharlie: Il contatto dell'anno scorso ce l'hai ancora? --Ruthven (msg) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha cambiato società...--Threecharlie (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This ticket

here Have started some discussion on the OTRS list. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: I cannot find the e-mail. Why don't open a new case here? --Ruthven (msg) 07:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Issues are basically those discussed here. And in such a case with so much disruptive editing is a signed piece of paper sufficient? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: I still don't understand where have you started the discussion. Was it on Otrs-permissions-l? Wrt to the ticket, at the beginning the behaviour wasn't disruptive, then it became worse when the socks compulsively continued to write to OTRS and to modify the relative categories. I also think that I blocked them in some occasions. In any case, the disruptive behaviour has nothing to do with the permission. --Ruthven (msg) 07:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The permission provided appears to be just a photo copy of a letter. The signature is claimed to be from the "owner" but does not originate from the owner's email address. With all the disruption I would not be the least surprised if the signature is forged.
Started the discussion at [email protected]
I could open a discussion here but no sense having it in another spot. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: I see. This list is for "info-en" agents, and you're not supposed to share "permissions" informations there. I'll see if I can remove your messages (but I fear it's too late). --Ruthven (msg) 08:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No none public details of the sender included. Do not think it can be removed. Can open it on OTRS wiki if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay have moved the discussion to OTRS wiki Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: It's ok like that. I answered you on OTRS wiki. Let's hope that we can close this case --Ruthven (msg) 08:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Art-Hanoi images you've missed

Please see User talk:Jcb and check his deletion logs, also please search for any images from Art-Hanoi with "Subst:OP" still in them to avoid another incident like this, it's already affecting Wikipedia's look at https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiền_tệ_Việt_Nam_thời_Nguyễn&type=revision&diff=40722470&oldid=38434419 for example. I thought 💭 that you already added the permission. Anyhow it would be great if you or Jcb could undelete them so i could clean up this mess at the English and Vietnamese Wikipedia's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The best thing is that you check the deletion log yourself, and provide me a list, so I can check the files. I remember that at that time, I added the OTRS tag to all the files in the authorised category, but everything is possible. --Ruthven (msg) 06:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I prepared this list on my phablet:

Unfortunately I am very busy now in real life but if you want I can check all the OTRS maintenance ⛑🏻 categories later today to see if I have missed any others (or simply use the search function) to see if there are any others to prevent such an event in the future. I'm so happy that you created a template for the other import otherwise this could've potentially have been more work. Thank you for your time, I know that you're also just a volunteer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please also check these search 🔍 results as it concerns quite a lot of images that are still "OTRS pending" and very much in use in articles on Wikipedia. (See also: Category:OTRS pending as of 17 March 2018. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve checked all OTRS Pending categories for you and the ones with still images from Sema’s Art-Hanoi in them are Category:OTRS pending as of 13 March 2018, Category:OTRS pending as of 19 March 2018and, Category:OTRS pending as of 20 March 2018,. I don't think that I've missed any, but when you're done with them I will check just to be certain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Donald Trung: I'll wait few days for Jcb to restore the other files. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 12:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not aware of files that still have to be restored? Jcb (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: If all the files have been restored, we can then consider this episode closed. Thank you! Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 13:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Aceh Sultanate.svg

Hi, Ruthven. Have you by any chance read the discussion page of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Aceh Sultanate.svg, before closing the DR? The problem is not a sword but a user's insistent abuse of the Turkish flag or flag of Turkey. That Aceh flag does not have the Turkish flag within its elements, bus something similar to it; perhaps an older Ottoman flag, as shown by me. You may not have noticed the other deleted files of this uploader, personal attacker, and very possible sockpuppet master; they have an obsession -other than insulting people who DR their files- to invent flags based on the flag of my country and nation. (Probably some nationalist agenda...) Would you please review your close? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@E4024: The image can stay. In case of abuse, the user can be blocked. If there is a problem with the flag, just add {{Fictitious flag}}. (if the template is removed by some users, it will then help us in identifying a SP) --Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with you in the essence of this issue and I'm very sad for this closure. Having said that, you should at least make, as an admin, and minimum courtesy requires this, the "__ne deyirsen e peyser blet indonsiadan saa ne gidillaq blet, qehbenin dal ayağı blet, görüm senin dalına oddu şiş bassınnar blet Sebirkhan (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)" invisible. Or better make the dirty talk invisible, leaving the signature or a note that these words cost a month of block to whomever -sorry I cannot say "user", that could mean you and I, we are all in the same group- seems to be accustomed to insult (see the history of my TP) others. FYI, if I'm still here in spite of this presence, because I do not want to leave the place unattended. I respect Commons. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@E4024: You've the right not to agree with me, but being saddened by it seems a little excessive, don't you think? For the sentence of Sebirkhan, I don't understand Turkish. It is an insult? Where it is written? --Ruthven (msg) 12:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I am saddened rather easily. Why do you think the name you mention was blocked a month? BTW thank God in Turkish (I should add "of Turkey") we don't use that ugly words. --E4024 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

OTRS MAMCO

Ciao. Sono stato messo da User:Ilario a gestire un po' la liberatoria del MAMCO di Ginevra per l'edit-a-thon in corso nel week end. Passiamo da OTRS in Italiano, se ho capito bene. Entro breve appena il responsabile ha fatto mente locale dovremmo inviare una mail.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

La mail la sto preparando in italiano, sarà inviata da un indirizzo del MAMCO di Ginevra, va bene come indirizzo permissions-it(at).wikimedia.org o vedi anche [email protected]?--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Vedo che è stata mandata con un titolo un po' generico, solo la licenza nell'oggetto. Comunque viene da g.landlot[AT]mamco.ch che è il resonsabile delle relazioni esterne. Non potevo far mettere in allegato le foto nella mail perché sono tiff pesantissimi, comunque c'è l'elenco di opere ritratte, la tipologia di immagine e il numero esatto. Appena ho il numero ticket carichiamo. Chiaramente se lo abbiamo ora possiamo riportare i dettagli meglio con i curatori del museo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: È arrivata una decina di email. Penso che inizio settimana prossima saranno lette e processate. Grazie --Ruthven (msg) 14:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
decina? Sono solo due. Una preliminare e una in cui ho specificato meglio l'aderenza ai documenti relativi alle foto liberate. Altre mail dal MAMCO sicuro non siano più vecchie? Lo sospetto perché hanno liberato altri singoli file in passato. Quindi, ricapitolando: in OTRS ci sono solo due mail di oggi, che io sappia: una spedita quando la persona in ufficio se ne andava perché poi non la vedevo oltre, dove ho riportato gli artisti, il numero totale di file e le liste dei file di archivio in pdf. Una seconda mia di specifica dopo ulteriore valutazione dove ho indicato i dettagli delle 43 immagini richiamando i numeri esatti dei file pdf dall'archivio.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Se hai processato la richiesta, fammi sapere se rispondendo non mi hai messo in CC. Nel caso, son pronto qua appena hai fatto con le tue tempisitiche. Grazie.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
ci sono aggiornamenti?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: Nel frattempo puoi caricare o far caricare i file su Commons, inserendo {{subst:OP}} in ogni pagina. L'autorizzazione sarà aggiunta quando il ticket verrà processato. --Ruthven (msg) 10:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
ok.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Fatto tutto, grazie ancora. Ho mantenuto nel titolo i numeri dell'archivio usati nel ticket.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruthven/Archive_5&oldid=323607429"