User talk:Fetchcomms

Thanks Thanks for chiming in at the Clay Duke Gunman image. LadyofShalott (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Happy to help. ←fetchcomms 01:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Banners of Fundraising for 10th b'day Hi Fetchcomms, If is possible, I would love to have the source files of that four images of you: Fundraising 2010 banner gift two.png, Fundraising 2010 banner gift.png , Fundraising 2010 banner cake two.png, Fundraising 2010 banner cake four.png, to transform then in 10th b'day banners to Wikimedia Portugal event (our event site is http://dez-anos.wikipedia.pt/ ). Could you please send me the editable versions of the files to beria.lima wikimedia.pt? Or if you have time to do and patience, i could tell you what should have in the banner and you do it yourself XD Let me know of your answer please. Béria Lima msg 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Which file format would you prefer? I can do .psd (Photoshop), .xcf (Gimp), .jpg/.png/.gif/etc. but not .svg. ←fetchcomms 01:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) GIMP. I forgot to say that... i don't have photoshop, so must be gimp. Béria Lima msg 03:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Well, i don't know if you send it, but i still don't receive anything :S Any problem? (sorry for asking so much, but still need to be changed and after go to sitenotice, and we have not much time for that) Béria Lima msg 22:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, just got on, busy few days :P Sending now! ←fetchcomms 03:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Copyright violation? Fetch comms, why have you marked Témpera 1961 as a copyright violation? Motstravail I don't recall which image that was—was it the painting? If so, the original painter (not photographer) or current copyright holder needs to email permissions-commonswikimedia.org specifically releasing that artwork (not the photograph) under a free copyright license, such as the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0 license. An example statement of release can be seen at this page. ←fetchcomms 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Martin H.'s talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.   Tip: Categorizing images Hello, Fetchcomms! Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them. Here's how: 1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense: 2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page. [[Category:Category name]] For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code: [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]] [[Category:Comets]] This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets". When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk. CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Image:AB PPC.JPG was uncategorized on 14 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Image:Intypedia - Alicia.png was uncategorized on 4 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC) File:Hypsibema_missouriensis_Powell_Gardens.jpg   File:Hypsibema_missouriensis_Powell_Gardens.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Squamous Cell Carcinoma.jpg Hello Fetchcomms, I believe something went wrong with this edit. The new text describes a different image.--92.205.31.46 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC) You're right; the original source link was wrong and I must not have noticed the two pictures were different. Everything's fixed, now. Thanks, ←fetchcomms 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Please provide a policy Please provide a consensus, policy, or any discussion to backup this prodding of pictures for deletion based on a lack of (supposedly required) OTRS ticket. Authors will not be forced to jump through hoops to give permission for their photos; they posted them online on a forum, and the same user that posted the photos then gave permission to Haljackey to upload these photos under the licence given. - Floydian (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I couldn't find where the forum user specific the specific free license that the image was uploaded under, and that's what is necessary. If there was a specific release of permission (in which the photographer named a license, not just "sure, you can upload it to Wikipedia"), then I'll let your reversions stay put. (But you shouldn't have done that ... what if you'll need to re-revert yourself?) Commons:Permission states, "Commons requires explicit assertion of permission". OTRS is, obviously, not required, just that explicit assertion, which I couldn't find. OTRS is just preferred because it's permanently archived, while that forum could go down for good and the permission lost. There were a couple images that did have OTRS permission, and I left those put; however, the uploader put incorrect OTRS tags on another image or two, which I also removed (and hope you did not revert, because that would be restoring a false tag). Note there are two main photographers: Adam Colvin (from the forum) and Mathew Campbell (from I have no clue where). Could you confirm if Campbell also gave explicit permission somewhere, and link to it for me? Note that Colvin's Flickr images (e.g., [1]) still say "All Rights Reserved". I hope this clarifies my actions, I'm not sure why you sound angry, and I still can't find the explicit granting of permission required. If you can't find such a permission statement, either (for each of the photographers, of course), then I'll have to re-revert your undoes, unless you want to do that :). Regards, ←fetchcomms 05:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I've contacted the two authors and requested they fill out an OTRS license. (Do they need to fill out one for every single image?) What other form permission is deemed acceptable? Haljackey (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC) To me, explicit permission would also be an author emailing me and saying "You have my permission to use any of my photos in any way" (to which I do not want to force them to then fill out a form and email it. My word is good enough), or a person in real life telling me that. If the hard copy of permissions are lost, then why do we start worrying? If someone comes forward saying "thats my image, take it down", then we do that. The onerous shouldn't lie on the generous. I apologize if I came off abrasive. However, the latest string of copyright issues that have propped up on commons have been rather ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. Not allowing pictures of Burj Dubai/Khalifa because of freedom of panorama, for example? I think we're standing on our tip-toes for no reason. I did not revert the OTRS ticket, as I can't see them and I assume since you can that you know what you're talking about. I only disagree with deleting images when a trusted user with no history of copyright issues has indicated that they've personally been given permission to upload them under a certain licence, whether or not we have that documented for our eyes. - Floydian (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I understand your frustration, but the policy is clear. The point of Commons is that is be a repository of free images (not much different from the free content objectives over at Wikipedia), not images that we believe will not give rise to copyvio claims (or that creators might later demand we "take down", a risk which undermines the whole purpose of the project). As ridiculous as I think it is for some countries to have not built FOP-type provisions into their copyright laws, we need to respect that fact -- there is a lot of litigation in Europe where building owners have made copyvio claims. As for third parties giving permission, the simple fact is that I have seen way too many users here on Commons, some with a lot of edits to their name, make outright lies as to the origin or permissions for certain photographs. The other big problem is that creators will often given vague permission for an image to be uploaded, not understanding that they are freely licensing their work (for commercial works, derivatives, etc.), so OTRS acts as a needed safety-valve that enables the project to verify that creators understand precisely what they are releasing. While I know you from Wikipedia, Floydian, and know you to be a trusted user, and one who would be clear with creators as to the meaning of a free license, I have discovered over time that the OTRS rules exist for a reason. I find FOP and OTRS and the like to all be an incredible hassle, but I have made my peace with it because I have come to see the need. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Our servers are in the United States, so those litigations are the responsibility of the user not checking with the respective laws of their country. We have plenty of pornographic images which are forbidden in several nations. Should we remove them? No! Of course not. This is not a case of "Lets just upload images and hope no claims come up", this is trusting a user, and assuming good faith that if they upload an image with an author other than themselves credited, that they have spoken with the author an obtained permission. Again, the "policy" that backs up tagging these pictures is proposed. - Floydian (talk) I really don't know what you want--this is the principle under which Commons has operated for at least several years. Again--contact the general counsel if you disagree, because he ultimately makes the legal decisions, but we always require a permission statement under a specific named license", which was not present in this case. I'm asking another user to see if they can better clarify this situation. ←fetchcomms 15:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I want a policy that says, verbatim, that images can be deleted without discussion solely on the basis that they lack an OTRS ticket. If this is the principle under which Commons has operated for at least several years, then this should be relatively simple to find, no? If you believe the photo is a copyright violation, it should be nominated as such. Until a policy is provided, I will continue to undo the tagging of these images for deletion; the permissions statements are very plainly placed on the photos: Creative commons. - Floydian (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Firstly, Creative Commons is not a permission statement; it is a license. A permission statement is something like this. Secondly, the photos are not copyright violations; they are simply missing explicit permission. The policy, after consulting several other users, is COM:SCOPE#Evidence, which states: In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified, along with the original source where the file is a derivative work. Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence. ... In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained. (emphasis mine). Regarding deletion: Commons:Deletion policy says, Images missing source or licensing information should be tagged {{subst:nsd}} (no/missing source, tagged by date) or {{subst:nld}} (no/incomplete licensing information, tagged by date) or {{subst:npd}} (no/missing permission, tagged by date). Please notify the uploaders that you have tagged the image as well (see notes on the templates after tagging a file with them). After this they will have 7 days to fix the information. If it is not fixed after a week, the file is then eligible for speedy deletion. If sufficient license and source information is provided, the tag should be removed. (last emphasis mine). I hope this answers your concerns, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to find it earlier. But now, it should be clear that the policies a) requires that "the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate ... that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence" and that the "burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that ... any required consent has been obtained"; and b) allow for the speedy deletion of images missing explicit permission after seven days from the day the tag was placed. It's easy to undelete images once the permission has been confirmed, whether via OTRS or an explicit statement like COM:ET on the forum. Also, if you're wondering about enwiki's policy, w:en:Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses says, If a source does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, the source must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it is not the case, it is to be assumed that it is not unless verification or permission from the copyright holder is obtained". Regards, ←fetchcomms 02:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Haljackey, just tell them to send one email that lists all the pictures' names on Wikimedia Commons. Separate emails aren't needed. Tell me when they've sent the permission in to OTRS and I'll verify it all because OTRS is backlogged. Floydian, yes, I agree it's very much a hassle (and FOP laws are very annoying indeed), but legally, it's just what we have to do, and what the policy is. Thanks for understanding, everyone. ←fetchcomms 12:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) You should have some sort of confirmation from the authors at permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org and if not they should be sent soon. I asked them to reference all the images but I don't understand why that's needed. Once an uploader (me) has been trusted by an author, then they shouldn't have to fill out an OTRS document or similar every time I upload a new image. As mentioned above, assume good faith, especially since content is regulated by a mutual agreement between the photographer and the uploader. Please understand that these guys are going out of their way to share their work on Wikipedia. Heckling them to provide unneeded bureaucratic evidence not only slows down the flow of information but can get to a point where it isn't worth it. I've received replies from them such as "why?" and "this is very confusing". Anyways I'm beginning to rant a bit. Hopefully the issue will be resolved soon. If I did anything to jeopardize the validity of the files I apologize. Where do we go from here to get these photos off the 'to be deleted' list? Haljackey (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC) This words what I've been trying to say very well. When someone is generous enough to donate their photo collection, we tell them "fill out form 18b sir" - Floydian (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Haljackey, OTRS is not required. We require an explicit release under a specific Commons-compatible license; if they had done that on the forum, there would be no issue. Again, the AGF is not the issue here (nor is it legally backable); what is the issue was the lack of an explicit release of permission. In fact, it's not so much I don't trust you were given permission by the photographers, but simply that we cannot verify under which license they released the images under (because that was not in the forum link). Regarding the list of all the images: again, I can license three of my photos under one license and twenty under another. We need to know which images they want licensed under license X. Otherwise, someone could claim, "Oh, they just released every single photo they ever took under license X, so we can use it commercially, etc.", which may be bad as CC licenses are not revocable (once you release it under that license, anyone can use it under those conditions, even if you don't want commercial usage later on). And no, they don't have to send in an email for every single picture or list the name of each one; they can say "All pictures of [whatever subject]", or "All pictures attached to this email" (if they chose to send OTRS the pics directly, some people do this), or "The pictures in this set on my website", or whatever. However, as I was unsure exactly what groups the pictures were in, I asked for file names so it's easy to tell which ones are released under the appropriate license. ←fetchcomms 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Floydian, we ask them to fill out what is legally necessary. Once again, if you have an issue with this, please seek the advice of the general counsel, who is more qualified than me to tell you what is required. But I've already provided the policy backing above, so I'm the wrong person to complain to. ←fetchcomms 01:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC) File:E_Nomine.jpg Hi Fetchcomms. In instances like this it is better to use no permission since it looks more "innocent". A source and author is provided, just no evidence for that permission. Thanks, --ZooFari 03:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Ah, OK. Usually I do that, but copyvios are quickly deleted ... while the no permission/no source backlogs stretch on forever. ←fetchcomms 04:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC) File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.   Grand-Duc (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Oh look, ten seconds of editing fixed the issue. Not even sure why I was informed; I just reverted a different upload on that file once ... ←fetchcomms 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC) File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg   File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Grand-Duc (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Picture of the Year voting round 1 open Dear Wikimedians, Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria: Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL). Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors. For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year. To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013. Thanks, the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year Notification about possible deletion   Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Affected: File:Victims of Communism Memorial - Washington, D.C..jpg Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Notification about possible deletion   Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Affected: File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg Yours sincerely, Myrabella (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Notification about possible deletion   Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Affected: File:Kailashnath Mahadev.jpg Yours sincerely, Eleassar (t/p) 09:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Inactive Image-reviewers Hello Fetchcomms, there is a discussion about a request regarding your image-reviewer userright, which have never been used or not used recently. You can participate discussion in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Inactive_Image-reviewers. This is just a notification of discussion you may be involved. Best regards, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I have removed you from several groups per this discussion. When you return to editing, you can apply again at the relevant pages. Thank you for your contributions to Commons. Green Giant (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC) A question about copy rights Hi, I work for a political party in Tunisia. I was assigned to look for images to put on a timeline about events which occured since the tunisian revolution started. I would like to know if it is possible to use this photo: File-French_support_Bouazizi.jpg The text with the image: Protests erupt in Tunisia following Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Sidi Bouzid. More than 330 Tunisians were killed and 2174 injured by security forces. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.3.250.10 (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC) File:Ali Abdolrezaei.jpg File:Ali Abdolrezaei.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.   Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) File tagging File:Demonia Concord boot.jpg This media was probably deleted. Thanks for uploading File:Demonia Concord boot.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Demonia Concord boot.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.   BevinKacon (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)