User talk:Abzeronow

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Abzeronow!

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

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

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

Note: Archive for 2018-1st half of 2019 at User:Abzeronow/Archive1 Archive for 2019 to 1 half of 2023 will be at User:Abzeronow/Archive2

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

PD-art Gent

Hi Abzeronow, thanks for you help with MSK Gent. Can you please use {{PD-art}} like this when you correct the license? I'll see if I can undelete some more of these files. Multichill (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll add that to files from MSK Gent that don't have a frame. Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, plenty of files in need of a category, see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=23589062 . Multichill (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll work on adding categories throughout this week for those MSK Gent files. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi Abzeronow, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

School of Athens and PD Art

I saw that you tagged File:Schoolofathens.jpg as a copyright violation, mentioning that "Photograph is presumably all rights reserved". Per COM:ART the photograph can have no independent copyright as it is simply a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art. Given that the painter died in 1520, the photo of the painting is in public domain. C messier (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There appeared to be some 3-D aspects in the photograph which is why I thought that PD-Art did not apply. Abzeronow (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello

I uploaded a photo to Wikipedia and was going to consult you about something. I found the photo online and contacted the owner. When I talked to him, he said that I could use the photo royalty-free and that would be fine, he even sent me the photo himself (it's in his instagram correspondence). However, he said he would be happy if I gave the name of the person who took the photo. And I wrote all these details in both the description and discussion part of the photo. I can even send you my correspondence with the person who took the photo. I ask you to approve the photo on the site.

I wish you a good day and good health.

I leave the link of the photo here as an attachment:

File:Arda Güler in Fenerbahçe jersey (2022).jpg Mintone97 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Photos that were previously published online must have the photographer contact COM:VRT to confirm that they wish to license their photograph under a Commons compatible license. It also sounds like he was talking about your personal use of the photo. Abzeronow (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

More photos of Sándor Bojár

Hi!

Please take a look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:František Velecký.JPG. Thank you! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll notify the uploaders of the additional files and add the DR to the files shortly. Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Lotta Svärd badge

The file: Lotta Svärd badge.svg should be deleted: author of the logo died in 1958, undelete in 2029. 2001:999:504:141F:F88C:4591:8CB0:A204 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Filed a DR. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Flickr licence reviewing

Re File:Ce soir, -paris s'est mobilisée lors de -EarthHour en éteignant -LaTourEiffel -Cities4Climate (25913677225).jpg

Please note that Flickr users can change the licences they offer content under. If the material was available under a free licence at the time it was uploaded here, then it's still acceptable here. This is normally checked by Flickr reviewing soon after upload (why we need 'bots running quickly) and a review at that time is considered reliable afterwards. Flickr also offers a 'License History' link (small link low on the page) which can show this history (although it has some limitations).

In this case, the licence was originally a free licence, but was revoked on 28 April 2022. However CC licences are irrevocable. Although the material is no longer offered under that licence on Flickr, any previous downloads remain validly licensed. Thus this file should not be deleted.

Also please be careful with speedy deletions. These are only for use when the case for deletion is clear. "Speedy" deletion is misleading here: it's not about doing it more quickly from any sense of urgency, it's about being able to do so because the case is clear-cut (and thus there is little credible reason to question it). If the situation isn't clear-cut, and an apparent lack of licence for a file that has already been here two years unchallenged isn't clear-cut, then it should go through regular DR, not speedy.

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: , Even though I've been on this site for almost five years, the meaning of speedy deleting as you just articulated hadn't clicked until you said it. I do try to be careful with that, only speedying obvious copyvios like very recent movie posters and screenshots from video games or TV programs and when a uploader clearly wants their own file deleted. I'll definitely be a lot more careful in how I handle future cases in which the Flickr license changes in between request for license review and when I do the review. Thanks for your message, I will take your words to heart. I will also try to increase the number of files I license review so that Flickr backlog gets further reduced. Abzeronow (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Seed catalogs...

Thanks... I am going to take another look at these once I finish the current batch of Petscan items I am checking. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Any chance you could check the licenses and for notices on the items in

https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=23977891 and https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=23943907 and remove the post 1964 items that do have notices?

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I could probably check the first within a few days which I will start doing today. The latter is going to take some time (1 week or 2 weeks). @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Do you see a copyright symbol on the 1964 to 1977 issues. I have been looking at a few and don't see one, maybe I am missing it. If you find one, let me know which page they add it to, and I will look again at that specific page, for the issues where I do not see one. There is no renewal notices that I can find and I looked up to 1994, but sometimes they are under a parent company name. For issues up to 1989 you had 5 years to register. After 1989 all issues are automatically copyrighted. Should we make a list here of what companies we find no symbols and no renewals? Or do we mark them directly in the entry? --RAN (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's what I am checking.. and in respect of a few of them I HAd seen a notice of the form : Copyright Name 1929 , so I tagged all the post 1928 images for a specific firm, on a precautionary basis, until they can reviewed individually. I have no objections to fast tag removal if you can't actually find a notice, provided the licenses get updated accordingly and the files are moved to an appropriate year category.

  I am however finding/confirming considerably more files that have no notices than ones that are mislabeled however.

  As an aside - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2FHenry+G.+Gilbert+Nursery+and+Seed+Trade+Catalog+Collection%2F&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=other , give around 53,000 images, based on current evaluations, that means about 25,000 or so items needing to be checked. It is not possible for a single contributor to evaluate more than about 100 images on reasonable time scale.. This needs support from a large number of other editors, or an automated effort....

  ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Found a copyright notice on page 2 of File:1946 catalog of fruits (IA 1946catalogoffru19town).pdf. Filed a DR, but non-renewal should obviously be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

=No symbols or renewals

• Henry G. Gilbert Nursery
• Tingle Nursery

My request for adminship

Hello! I want to thank you for your participation and input in my recently failed request for adminship. I take every word everybody said in the most constructive way and it is my intention to not only do my best for Commons (as long as time and real life allows me to), but to continue learning and helping out whenever I can. I very much appreciate your support, even though it was pretty obvious my request would fail, but I understand those concerns and considerations and will take them at heart. I hope to see you again, collaborating around Commons. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully your next request goes better. You'd make a good candidate with some more experience. Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified people

Hi Abzeronow, maybe you can help identify the three gentlemen here or here? GeorgHH • talk   22:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still working at it. I think the man at left is William Boyce Thompson. The man at right resembles Will H. Hays but I'm not certain. (EDIT: Man on right could be Hermann Hagedorn. The ears definitely match a photograph found with a Google search) @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): for a second opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, man at left is William Boyce Thompson and man at right is Hermann Hagedorn. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/121822506/roosevelt-memorial-committee-photo-by/ (Uploaded as File:Roosevelt Memorial Committee, photo by International Film Service.jpg). I'll try to figure out who the man in middle is. @GeorgHH: Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Is this the same guy: Hermann Hagedorn? --RAN (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, the 1964 obituary in the New York Times discusses his connection with Theodore Roosevelt. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/28/archives/hermann-hagedorn-biographer-of-theodore-roosevelt-is-dead-author-of.html Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• If you want another challenge try: File:National Negro Business League Executive Committee LCCN2014688320.jpg, I added clues in the category, just like you did above. --RAN (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lotta Svärd

How do you do? Could you please explain why did you nominate these file to be deleted? Sincerely, Kwasura (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, your drawing was a derivative work of the Lotta Svärd design created in 1922 by sv:Eric Vasström (1887-1958). Finland protects works for a copyright term of Life of the author plus 70 years so 2029 is when that becomes public domain in Finland. The design is public domain in the United States as it was made available to public in 1922. The DR for it has the Undelete in 2029 category for it so it will be restored to Commons in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But it was I who created the .svg image, not Eric Vasström. I do understand that Mr. Eric Vasström owns what he created, but so do I. Please advice. Kwasura (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read COM:DW. Yes, your drawing would have its own copyright. The underlying copyright is not yet expired in Finland. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Underlying copyright of my drawing? --Kwasura (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your drawing is based on the insignia of the organization right? http://www.alternativefinland.com/lotta-svard-yhdistys/ "Probably the most important, and at times controversial, insignia for the organization was Lotta-pin designed by Eric Vasstrom and introduced in 1922. The main motif of the pin was a blue “hakaristi” (Finnish variation of swastika) and with a heraldic rose in every corner." @Jameslwoodward: to check for ToO. If you believe deletion of your drawing was in error, you can always make a request at COM:UNDEL. Abzeronow (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Abzeronow, let us think logically. A person creates drawing, then he uploads it WikiCommons, then its get deleted for violating the copyright. How it is even possible is beyond me, as I am an author of the drawing. It looks like the common sense is not so common anymore. It is bizarre to have a conversation of this kind. Looks like everything (roses, crosses, colour blue, silver metal) it copyrighted regardless of the creator. I guess Eric Vasström will have to wait unit 2029. But I will have to die first, and then someone else will have to wait 70 years after my death before uploading my file. And he probably will not have any right to create his own drawing, because it will violate Eric's and mine copyrights. And it will go on and on until someone will stop this nonsense. --Kwasura (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Kwasura, copyright law can sometimes be a pain. Copyright terms are too long, and there aren't enough countries that have a robust Freedom of Panorama exception. But here, we have to respect copyright even if it seems illogical. When you uploaded your drawing to Wikimedia Commons, you as the copyright holder licensed your work with an irrevocable license that allows commercial use and derivatives to made of it (the only restriction on derivatives is that they would have to be as freely licensed as yours, that's what ShareAlike means) and reusers would have to credit you in a reasonable manner that does not imply that you endorse their work. So 2029 is when your file gets restored and any issues with that would be unlikely unless someone reuses your drawing without crediting you. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Kwasura, your SVG has a copyright, but your drawing is a derivative work of the original created by Eric Vasström. Therefore it has two copyrights -- yours and the one that belongs to Vasström's heirs. As Abzeronow has said, the copyright for the original expires in 2029. I think it is probably above the ToO unless the Finnish ToO is very high. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I created SVG to be in the Public Domain. I guess I have a copyright, never thought about it. But anyway I didn't uploaded an original drawing of Eric Vasström, I created and uploaded my own. It sounds like I do not own my own work. Don't you think it's a nonsense? My work is mine by definition. --Kwasura (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• But you can't create something to be public domain if it's inevitably based on source material that isn't itself available for use. That's the case here, until 2029, when the original copyright belonging to the Vasström estate expires.

Possibly this isn't 2029. Maybe Vasström released the copyright before that (which happens a lot with logos, especially through governmental bodies), but you'd have to research that yourself.

Incidentally, the logo appeared (for Lotta Svärd) in 1921. It's itself derived from use by the naiskagaali (Women's Kagal) before this – at least the blue hakaristi. The hakaristi derives from the fylfot of medieval European heraldry and has different proportions to the Sanskrit swastika. Hakaristi were well known in Swedish (thus Finnish) heraldry and were used by von Rosen, who usually gets the credit for introducing [sic] "the swastika" [sic] as a Finnish military badge. Finland did not use swastikas or their proportions until the overlap with the German Reich began (and even then, not always).

Also the roses are slightly incorrect. These are defined as "heraldic roses", which is a fairly broad term. However the classic rose of medieval heraldry, certainly as used in Sweden and Finland, has internal sepals that give it the appearance of a five-pointed star. The rose being used here (SVG clip art?) is a double rose, which isn't normally used in heraldry and is typically associated with the English tudor rose; the double rose there is bi-coloured and has political significance for the Tudors. But that's not applicable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Kathryn Lasky

Hello, I added an image of Kathryn Lasky to Commons. I've found it on the net, and this picture is copyright free for sure. My problem is that I didn't find the precise licence of the image, so I preferred to keep this part empty. But now, the image could be deleted, and I don't want that. Do you know how could I find the precise licence of this image, please?

Thank you, and have a good evening! :) Pelalion (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any dedication to the public domain on the website so I doubt this photograph is "copyright free". I also don't see a Creative Commons mention anywhere so it probably cannot be hosted here. I'll convert it to a DR though so maybe a suitable license could be discovered. Abzeronow (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding edit to File:Kasperavičius's plane accident, 1939.jpg

Hi! I'm looking at this edit, which inserted the claim that the file was not in the public domain in the United States on the URAA date, despite being published first in 1939. Lithuanian copyright presently grants Life+70, though that law was passed in 1999. Is the basis for the claim that the picture was published under old Soviet copyright laws (i.e. publish+25) until 1999, and thereby was in the PD on the URAA date even if the 1999 law restored Lithuanian copyright until 2009? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: , the edit had PD-1996 on it. And reading w:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights that said that in 1996, Lithuania was 50 pma which I had assumed meant publication plus 50 years for anonymous works, and it seemed likely that the photograph was published before 1946. So the thought process was "published with anonymous author before 1946, therefore public domain in 1996 when U.S. copyrights were restored, and again became public domain with 70 pma". Abzeronow (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

File:JMR2018.jpg

EXIF lists this as a screenshot, and the Flickr uploader is on the Questionable list for Flickrwashing. Tineye doesn't turn up a hit. Abzeronow (discusión) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hola, esta imagen fue colgada por el dueño de la fotografía en su cuenta de Flickr, con los permisos correspondientes. ¿Me puedes explicar el motivo de su solicitud de borrado? porque sinceramente se me escapa. Un cordial saludo,--Hard (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Industrial solid potassium sodium silicate.jpg

Hi. On May 24, you reviewed the flickr upload File:Industrial solid potassium sodium silicate.jpg and tagged it as license review passed. But it's pretty obvious flickrwashing - a cursory glance of the flickr user's uploads shows advertisements for handbags, various promo photos, a photo collage of Michelle Obama, and other things obviously not the uploader's original authorship. --B (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It had Camera EXIF on Flickr. Even if the account is iffy on the other stuff, the EXIF is solid on this file. Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

But if the person is uploading random stuff they found on the internet, the fact that there is EXIF data doesn't mean it's their EXIF data. --B (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Banksy Love @ Big Ben

Banksy Love @ Big Ben

I don't understand your reversion. The image is unambiguously a reproduction of Banksy's work, with only a very marginal development. The emphasis is clearly on the Magrite reference. Please explain. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a short piece of text. I'm familiar with the works of René Magritte, and if you think this text is above the ToO in the UK, I'll file a DR. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As the text at template:non-free graffiti says,

Non-free graffiti
This work prominently depicts a work of illegal graffiti which might not be in the public domain and has not been released under a free license.
Occasionally graffiti will be kept, using the claim that an author might be rejected any copyright relief based on an illegal act; however, there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti.
Official Commons policy is Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, which declines claims such as "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." or "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is".
Complex understanding of the law may be required to determine whether the graffiti in this work would actually be eligible for copyright enforcement.

It is not just the "words as words" are the issue, it is their presentation. Same as Ceci n'est pas un pipe: the words are banal, the art is in the presentation. This reminds me of a case I debated with the help desk a few months back, [Tannenberg_Bold_(typeface). I argued that a set of letters can't be copyright. The helpdesk clarified that the copyright lies in the expression of those letters, not the letters themselves. Which I should have realised. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion request for the file has been started: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banksy Love @ Big Ben - Flickr - Kris Krug.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo Deletion

I uploaded a photo of Curley Weaver a while back (Curley Weaver 2.jpg) and it was deleted. I am somewhat confused as there is an identical Curley Weaver photo in Wiki Commons (Curley Weaver.jpg) albeit it is of much lower resolution. The photo is obviously public domain. If the photo that I uploaded is the same photo as the one that is regarded as being public domain, then it therefore is also public domain Pencapchew1988 (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pencapchew1988: First, I will give you a belated welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Yes, you are correct that File:Curley Weaver.jpg exists and is essentially a lower resolution version of the same photograph, I was unaware at the time I made the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Curley Weaver 2.jpg that it was there. The reason why I came across your file in the first place was that it didn't have a license for the file, and I was trying to find out more information about the photograph through the DR. The only information I had was that it published in 1928, the Wayback Machine link through the other file now has given me the information that it was from a promotional photograph. I had already set the photograph for undeletion on January 1, 2024 when all 1928 published works become unquestionably public domain in the United States, but it's possible that the copyright for this has been long expired due to formalities. I'll do some research to see if I can restore the photograph sooner Abzeronow (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

After checking the registration of photographs for 1928 and the renewal of photographs in 1955 and 1956, I don't see anything with Curley Weaver, and after asking someone to double check, they couldn't find any mention of a photograph with him either. I'll restore the photograph, fix that file's information as well as the other file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Africae romanae Urbes.jpg

Question -- been a while since I checked. How can I see that deleted file? Agamemnus (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Since I can't find an example of it being used on a Wikipedia page and there's no Wayback Machine link to the file, the only way you could see what it looks like would be to request temporary undeletion. The file has unsourced satellite-like imagery of Northern Africa, possibly from Google Earth. Abzeronow (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atwngirl‎

Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atwngirl‎. It was a long discussion with lots of moving parts, but ultimately it was a good thing because it pretty much sorted out everything except for two files. I agree that RAN deserves most if not all of the credit for sorting things out. I do have a request for you though. Maybe as the closing admin, you could post a message on the uploader's talk page explaining why you closed the discussion as you did and some of the things they could do to avoid something similar from happening in the future. I'm not asking you to scold the uploader, just perhaps explain that photographing or scanning a photo doesn't typically make it one's "own work" and that the copyright status of the original work is what needs to be assessed; moreover, just because they're not able to "see" a copyright notice on the image they scan, doesn't automatically mean it's without copyright protection.

Anyway, if you look at the user's talk page, you'll see others were questioning their uploads and use of category pages even before this DR. The uploader appears to be some sort of local historian who is really only active on Commons, but mainly edits irregularly, often with really long breaks in between. When they upload files, they seem to upload lots in a sort span of time, pretty much all licensed that same way, without really worrying too much about how accurate the licensing they choose is. It would be nice if they would slow down a bit and ask for assistance prior to uploading stuff when they're not reasonably sure about a file's licensing. Attempts have been made to explain as much to this user before while at the same time also being encouraging, but sometimes it seems as if they're not really understanding what's being said. Their uploads have stopped, but that could just be because their taking another break from Commons. However, their last edit was to a category page that basically seemed oblivious to recent discussions about their penchant for using category pages as quasi-Wikipedia articles. Even though these were discussions that they knew about, they seemed to have went back to what they were doing before without any regard for the concerns that had been raised by others. So, my concern is that they may decide to do the same with the next bunch of images they upload and simply continue on as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I posted a message to the uploader's talk page. I've been following the discussion. Hopefully, they will avail themselves of help with their files if they require it. I guess we'll see if we will have to do similar whenever they decide to upload the next batch of images. Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Category

Hi! I've created this category. Unfortunately I'm unable to license-review these files. Can you please gradually check licenses for these files? Thank! Юрий Д.К 18:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll start license reviewing these photographs today. Hopefully I'll finish doing these within a week. Abzeronow (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• • I don't understand why you failed LR. The Flickr license history clearly shows free CC licenses. Юрий Д.К 19:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes, but your upload is after the license was changed. The 3 that I marked also had an explicit non-commercial restriction in the metadata which indicates the author always intended to license them under a NC restriction. My understanding of Flickr uploads is that we can keep ones uploaded before the license was changed since the license is irrevocable, but we cannot upload after the license change. I'll get a second opinion on this though. @Mdaniels5757: Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

      Hm, I'm not sure. I'd take them to a deletion request (not speedy). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

      • Deletion request started on the three files Commons:Deletion requests/File:6 Days Bremen 2014-1.jpg. I won't take any action on the others until DR is resolved. Abzeronow (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Askolovitch Claude.jpg

Hello. You deleted a picture called askolovitch claude.jpg, saying that might be a Copyright violation, and referring to this site: https://indigenes-republique.fr/letrange-islamophilie-de-claude-askolovitch/ . But this picture belongs to me (I am Claude Askolovitch), it was taken in 2010 by my girlfriend. I used it on my twitter profile, and some sites just used it without asking permission [1](I am a journalist and writer). I did not mind, it is a nice photo! You can see some old tweets with the picture on this page [2] I wanted to use it on my wikipedia page... Is it a problem? What should I do? Thanks. Poumpy (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Claude, if your girlfriend still has the original EXIF data for the photograph, she should contact COM:VRT (the French language version is COM:VRT/fr) since as the photographer, she'd be the copyright holder. That would be the easiest way to restore the file. Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

request

{{Edit request}} , hello. please add this: """""-->[//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Speedywhat/tr <bdi class="language lang-tr" lang="tr">Türkçe</bdi>] <b>∙</b> <!--""""" to: Template:Speedywhat , down below "ru" section.... thanks. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I'm not experienced at editing Templates. Abzeronow (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

my brother, it is not that hard. you just gonna copy that: -->[//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Speedywhat/tr <bdi class="language lang-tr" lang="tr">Türkçe</bdi>] <b>∙</b> <!-- and paste it there:

OH, İM SORRY, wait...

you should paste there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Speedywhat/lang&action=edit

my bad.... wrong page.... you should do it in Template:Speedywhat/lang not Template:Speedywhat that is really my bad....

and.... put it there, right below "ru" section. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Jaroslav Benda DR

"Dutch FOP covers it." I'm really interested to know exactly why you thank that's the case when the guidelines are pretty clear that images taken inside of museums, churches, and that are of 2D artwork don't qualify for FOP and the images of the windows qualify under all of those since their 2D works of art in a church that's inside of a museum. That seems like a pretty clear cut case of something not qualifying for FOP if there ever was one. Thanks.. Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There is precedent that church interiors are covered by Dutch FOP as public places. I'll probably start a VPC thread on it so this nuance of Dutch copyright law is put on COM:Netherlands. Indoor places where a fee is charged to enter are not covered by FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. If you want to start a VPC that's fine, but the stipulation has to do with both if the place charges a fee and whether the public can be denied access to it based on private law grounds. Both have to satisfied though and Regardless of if churches are free or not, the last time I checked people don't have unfettered access to them since the clergy can deny service to anyone they want to. Even if I grant you that images taken inside of churches are PD though, as I've already said here and in the DR the Comenius Museum where these images were taken is a museum housed in a building that use to be a monastery. So it isn't a church to begin with. I also assume they charge people a fee to enter the museum and can deny access to members of the public based on private law grounds. Which is why Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands makes it clear that "museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18." So go ahead and do a VPC thread for churches, but there still wasn't grounds to keep the images in this case. So I'd appreciate if you changed your decision since it was clearly wrong. Otherwise I can ask about it on the copyright board, but I don't feel like I should have to since it's pretty obvious museums aren't covered by FOP since they aren't public places according to the guidelines and law. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: So should I just re-nominate the images for deletion or what? I'd appreciate an answer. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If you feel you must, go ahead and re-nominate. Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice about undeletion request

Hi!

I noticed that you closed this UDEL as not done because it was related to a blocked user.

According to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_93#Uploads_by_blocked_user and this old Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/04#Request_for_comment:_Deletion/undeletion_of_uploads_by_banned/blocked_users then "Block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on its own is not a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion.".

I was not aware of this RFC/concensus untill recently so I imagine other users missed that discussion too. --MGA73 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the linked discussion. I often feel conflicted concerning the public domain files of this user, they often have their socks request undeletion (I have received communications from socks of the LTA). I'll try to keep the RFC in mind, but I'll also try to keep the other policies of Commons in mind as well. Abzeronow (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Great! I also felt conflicked so thats why I asked about it and someone pointed me to this old RFC. I think that Commons is not like Wikipedia, so we collect photos/media. So for exampe we do not care about if we get them from a company or an artist who want to promote themselves. If they are notable we accept them and then Wikipedia can care about neutrality when using the photos :-) I also feel that if a blocked user have contributed good media we should keep them but we should be extra careful if uploader is blocked because of copyvios. --MGA73 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Terence Crawford

I did not know I'm new to upload mb. JNOJ1423 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read COM:L, it gives useful information on what you can and can't upload. In regards to File:Terence Crawford 2023.jpg, Getty Images strongly enforces their copyright, and they don't freely license images. If you have any particular questions, I'd be happy to help. Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Cropped versions

Hello, thank you for restoring this orginal file, File:Photos-Celebs-attend-the-GQ35-Most-Influential-Young-Indians-909-2.jpg. Could you also restore its cropped versions? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. @Yann: , could do you the license reviews? Abzeronow (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Please Assist me re: Image ToddRathner2023.jpg removed? Please advise.

Hello,

An image I own the copyright to and allowed to be posted in an article about me was deleted, although I provided copyright proof of ownership. Did I provide the poster with insufficient proof? I can provide any proof required to have it reinstated as I do own the copyright. Would you be willing to tell me what to do? I am not an active editor and created this account just to try to resolve this. I would truly be grateful if you'd provide me with some direction. I don't understand the rules and policies. I tried to do what was needed but it was deleted anyway. Please be kind enough to tell me how I may comply. Please help me restore this image.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully

Todd J. Rathner SpeakEasy0556223 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@SpeakEasy0556223: , please visit COM:VRT, it will have instructions for you to follow to verify permission for the file. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting a move

It was suggested to me at w:User talk:Veverve#Vatican City to move File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg, please read the discussion. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse in 2024

The entire Mickey Mouse character does not become free in 2024; just the Steamboat Willie movie and any aspects of the character present in that movie. Additions to the character made in later movies/cartoons remain under copyright for 95 years from their publication -- so for example, a changed general appearance for Mickey would still be under copyright after 2024, and if any subsequent works incorporate that changed appearance, they are still derivative of copyrighted aspects of the character. So it will be a slow, year-by-year injection into the public domain, and not all at once. This is in reaction to the change you made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif should probably have an Undelete in 2037 date, though perhaps once enough characteristics become PD it could be earlier than that. But, the early Mickey Mouse looked different, and it will only be works solely derivative of that early Mickey version which become PD next year (if they had otherwise expired due to lack of notice or renewal). I seem to see this mistake being made a lot; the Warner Bros vs Avela case made pretty clear that character copyrights can come in many layers, as each movie can add another layer of elements to the character, and each layer expires based on its own publication date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Yes, you'd be correct that only the 1928 designs on Mickey enter the public domain and the Appreciate America title is probably based on a later design that would enter the public domain later. I'll fix it tomorrow, I probably need to research Mickey Mouse designs (I am not an expert in that) to determine a more appropriate undeletion date. The actual restoration date is probably between 2024 and 2037, but I'll put 2037 if I can't justify an earlier date based on the design used in it. Thanks for taking the time to message me. EDIT: I've set a new undeletion of 2035 based on this being a DW of the 1939 design. Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, great, thanks. That sounds quite reasonable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

File still under discussion has been deleted from article

Hi Abzeronow, you suggested that I should reply the request for deletion of the image ref. a prisoner in Quiriquina Island Camp after the 1973 military coup d'état in Chile. Which I did. I did my best to present my case, and I am still investigating on the issue "extension of the protection of copyright in Chilean legislation". To the best of my understanding the Discussion of the said request has not been closed. However, the image has been already deleted from the article Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Why? Thanks in advance for a reply Gypsy784 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not delete it. The photograph would still be in copyright since 1973 plus 30 was 2004, after the copyright term extensions. Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Problem being that:

a) the image was removed 17:03, 10 September 2023‎ from the WP article Marcello Ferrada de Noli, for the reason "Copyright violation: Scan of a newspaper published in Chile in 1973. The copyright protection for anonymous works is 70 years in Chile." ("deleted by Túrelio).

b) I did reverse it, explaining that the request for delete was currently still under discussion.

c) However the above, my edit was anew removed, nearly immediately, giving the reason, "it isn't" (by user Sumanuil).

For clarity, this is the link to the Revision history of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcello_Ferrada_de_Noli&action=history . Here I have referred to the three most recent edits.

What shall I do, you think? Could you perhaps help me to restore the image in the said article in a safe procedure, to prevent it is put away anew? And also, would it be possible to ask an administrator to decide whether to approve or not the request for deletion?

Sorry for taking your time on this. I know that the fact I am new in Wikimedia Commons it is not an excuse for the problems I have caused. Next time I would upload an image I hope it will go better. Thanks again, Gypsy784 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ernie O'Malley Image deletion

Dear friend,

You contributed to a discussion that led to the retention of this image which is in the recently upgraded (to GA standard) article:: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ernie_O%27Malley_Prison_2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_O%27Malley

Recently, a bot deleted the following image from the same article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ernie_O%27Malley_Four_Courts.jpg

I have located another version of this (Four Courts) image here: https://www.theirishstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/EOM-at-4-Courts.jpg

and the owner of that page has emailed me to say that I'm welcome to use it but that he does not own the copyright or know who does.

What is the best way for me to proceed, may I ask? Images are an opaque issue to me on Wiki Commons and Wikipedia.

Thanks very much for any advice you can offer Billsmith60 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: A person deleted the Four Courts image, not a bot. The new image looks like it was published before 1928, if you just want to use it for Wikipedia, then I suggest a local upload to English Wikipedia using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload as that photograph would definitely be public domain in the United States. Commons would require it being public domain in Ireland too which I cannot tell just from the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Billsmith60 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete Guitar-scale-minor-chord-5-3-1-x-x-x 13.svg

Hello! I had a mistake in the deletion request. File:Guitar-scale-minor-chord-5-3-1-x-x-x 13.svg is a duplicate of File:Guitar-3-string-minor-chord-x-5-b3-1-x-x.svg and should be deleted. Sorry about the confusion. — Hunsvotti (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hunsvotti: The second one is a later file, is that one correctly named? Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the second one is correctly named. I accidentally duplicated the titles when I uploaded the files. They should be named by the interval numbers or x's from top string to bottom. — Hunsvotti (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

License checking

Hi Abzeronow, would you mind to check the License of this photo? Thanks in advance. CFA1877 (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

License review tagging

Hello, could you add review tags to those recovered photos just in case someone is ignorant of our discussion and license history feature.Thanks in advance. COM:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Can_1972_(Heinrich_Klaffs_Collection_102).jpg Larryasou (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I already added the Flickr-change-of-license one, and the license review ones as far as I know, cannot be configured to say that on upload date, that license was valid. I'll add them to my watchlist in case someone doesn't know how Flickr license history works. Abzeronow (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I got it. Thank you! Larryasou (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Photographs by Heinrich Klaffs

Hi Abzeronow, you commented after the closure of this DR that the files were restored and noted that “Flickr license history shows that these had a valid license at upload”. This feature, however, that allows to examine the Flickr license history was just added recently and wasn't available in 2016 when the DR was processed. You are right that valid license reviews shall not be ignored where present without good reason. But right now your comment sounds as if you complain that the admin who deleted these files also overlooked the Flickr license history. But this is not the case. Perhaps it is best to reword your comment to avoid this misunderstanding. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll amend the comment to reflect that license history was not available in 2016. 2 of the files that I had restored did have license reviews from 2010, but since they were deleted with VFC, I suspect the admin didn't see that they had those license reviews. Abzeronow (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --AFBorchert (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Introducing FOP in South Africa

A wikimedia group Freedom of Panorama ZA, was established in 2017, to fight for having freedom of panorama in South Africa. If you're interested, you may have a look on it. They also protested at the Union Buildings to urge the parliament to introduce FOP. A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Pocket Atlas of the USSR, 11th ed., 1940

Hello Abzeronow, you closed this DR with an unfounded assumption, that there aren't any credited individual authors. Please see page 3 here and find there appropriate credits: Executive editor V. N. Pavlovsky, Senior cartographer N. N. Ksyunina, Technical editor Matisova T.V., Artist Ilyina N.V. There is no any evidence, that these people died more than 70+4 years ago, so these maps are no way in PD. Komarof (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I had said "It appears that there aren't any credited individual authors as far as I can tell". I tried searching for the Atlas itself in web search which did not credit anyone, and I cannot read Russian. Thank you for this information (which I did not have when I closed it). Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

COM:EVID + COM:PCP don't allow to keep files without clear evidence. --Komarof (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/File:Emblem of West Bengal.svg

Hello @Abzeronow You closed this UDR by believing unscrupulous claims by Günther Frager that this file was not in public domain and it was published after 1963. I had given every possible claim for these files that they follow all copyright laws of India and Wikimedia Commons, and gave plenty of arguments to support them. Please see [3], and find the appropriate copyright rules stated by Government of West Bengal — the intellectual property rights owner of these files. You didn't even contact the original author @Mouryan (who self-drew these vectorised images from the official government sample), who could give a proper explanation for the given case.

Do you mean that now, all the West Bengal related articles will stay emblem-less? It is true that the West Bengal emblem was launched in 2018, but all other states of India, whose emblems are uploaded in similar style and license info are still present in WikiCommons in the pretext of being PD, even though all of these logos were made after 1963, in the 2000s and 2010s. Those files aren't deleted. Why?

Why didn't you compare these three files with each other, as I said?
1. File:Emblem of West Bengal.svg with File:Seal of Maharashtra.svg
2. File:Emblem of West Bengal.png with File:Seal of Maharashtra.png
3. File:Flag of West Bengal.svg with File:Flag of Maharashtra.svg.

I had even mentioned that the person Sbb1413 who nominated the files to get deleted as per deletion request, himself says that he should have not done so, and instead amend the licensing info — offsite discussion:  [4]. These files deserve to be undeleted and restored. It is completely unfair. Please look into the matter.

Rourib.2004 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I support the undeletion of the logos. I shouldn't have nominated them for deletion *weeping, slapping my head*. I have read the copyright policy of West Bengal Government and I would restore the logos if I were an admin. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Please look into the matter now. The deletion nominator himself says that he shouldn't have done so. Rourib.2004 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The emblem itself is not public domain, and I've read the West Bengal Government copyright terms, I think when those were brought up sometime earlier this year or late last year (EDIT: found that discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/02#Creating_a_new_copyright_tag), the terms were found to have a no derivatives portion to it, which goes against Commons licensing. @Jameslwoodward: for a second opinion on the West Bengal copyright terms. As for Maharashtra, if there is evidence that the seal is not public domain, please present it. I can start a DR for those files. Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Yeah, please. Do the same for the Maharashtra one, they are no saint and the emblems of all states of India have been made in the recent times, not before 1960. Why only West Bengal should suffer?

On a second note, @Abzeronow, can you please give a solution for this matter? If those West Bengal files can't be restored, can they be re-uploaded with correct licensing info, or the previous ones's licensing info being amended to meet copyright regulations? The state article and the related articles certainly cant exist symbol-less, which hinders it's sanctity and officiation. Rourib.2004 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Awaiting your response, on the Maharashtra files. Rourib.2004 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The copyright terms on the cited page includes "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." That is a limitation on the use of the files which we do not accept. Material on Commons must be free for ANY use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The statement sounds like the one in {{GODL-India}}, which has been heavily discussed over the years. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow @Jameslwoodward Can the files get restored under the {{GODL-India}} tag? It seems possible as per the cited link by Government of West Bengal.

CC: @Sbb1413 Rourib.2004 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

{{GODL-India}} does not contain the "no derogatory..." language I cited above, so it is not relevant to this discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your closing argument at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of bechuanaland protectorate.png

Hello Abzeronow,

You have closed this deletion request as kept, with the argument that the image (which I believe to be a hoax, and I think so does the nominator) is in use on the Chinese Wikipedia. I don't understand how that is a valid reason to keep a hoax image. Could you explain the argument please? Renerpho (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am tagging Fry1989, as the user who nominated the file for deletion, to ask them if they may know why this image should be kept. Renerpho (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho: , Commons policy is that files in use in Wikipedia mainspace are automatically considered in scope COM:INUSE. I would suggest opening up a discussion in the talk page of zh:英國保護國 and explain why the image is a hoax. I could ping some users that can write in Chinese if you want. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: For the moment, I have marked the file as a possible hoax on the file page (in analogy to the previously kept likely hoax File:Solser-en-Hesse-op-Anker-record -Bij-den-fotograaf.- 1909.ogg). I would like to hear the original nominator's comment before I start discussing this on another project. Should the image be added to Category:Hoaxes, like (for example) File:HazelCarter.jpg? Renerpho (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. You could also categorize it as a fictitious flag if you believe it was never used. Abzeronow (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Which category would you suggest? I only find Category:Fictional flags of China and Category:Fictional flags of Vietnam, but nothing for other parts of the world. As for the validity of the flag: Nobody really knows if the Bechuanaland Protectorate ever used its own flag (probably not), or what that flag would have been. You'll find several designs online; some fantasy, some of unknown origin. For an example, see this one on r/vexillology. Most of them ultimately lead to unreliable sources. Renerpho (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If I should guess where the Wikimedia file came from, I think someone looked at flags of other similar entities, saw that most consisted of the standard Union Jack in the upper left corner with a COA to the right, and made such a flag, with no regard whether the result was historical or not. Renerpho (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I see that the image has been deleted a few days ago, with reference (but no direct link) to this discussion on your talk page. Is there a way to include a permalink to this discussion to this page? Renerpho (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the DR speaks for itself, it was kept while it was in use at Chinese Wikipedia and deleted as out of scope when it was no longer used (which was the correct decision). Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in/contribute to in a photo contest

English

Dear Abzeronow,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Spanish

Hola Abzeronow,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese

Óla Abzeronow,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre Pluralidade de Corpos nos esportes!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports Sunshine Fionah Komusana (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grad-Cronaca.png

Hello Abzeronow,

Please do delete (speed is needed) this file because I made a mistake uploading it : the PD-Italy Commons rules needs that a photograph has not to be an artistic creation wich is clearly the case here. So please remove this item.

Best regards. Tisourcier (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tisourcier:  Done. Abzeronow (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A big thank's !

Have a nice evening. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Cameron Rowland in front of audience at Columbia GSAPP (cropped).jpg

File:Cameron Rowland in front of audience at Columbia GSAPP (cropped).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: <Person shown did not consent to publication of image and requested image to be removed>) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : GSAPPstudent.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Image hiding request

Hello, can you please hide the image content (or whatever it's called, I'm not quite sure) of some revisions of File:VS Code (Insiders).png, namely those before (and including) the revision 10:32, 8 December 2020? They show some unidentified code that would probably constitute a COM:DW, and either way it would probably be above TOO. Thank you, —MATRIX! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 13:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hid 7 revisions. Abzeronow (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Salakot Arch

Hello. I noticed that you deleted images showing the Salakot Arch. Well, I must say that while a copyright law for buildings was passed in the Philippines in 1972, the law certainly does not apply to all buildings built in that year onward. Also, the other reasons given by the nominator in the request are not concrete proof of copyright. 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:81 15:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright is generally automatic for countries that are part of the Berne Convention and that includes the copyrights of architects. The burden of proof is also on those who wish to keep the file, and that was not met. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be willing to procedurally close Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2008 in Thailand so I can nominate the images for deletion in smaller batches per the discussion. Otherwise I guess it just be closed at some point in the future per the normal process, but @Cavarrone: seemed to be particularly triggered by the whole thing and I don't really want to hurt their clearly sensitive feelings by keeping it open after they made it clear they thought the whole thing was disruptive just because I didn't just do 50 separate, individual DRs. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Trouble afoot

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nickelodeon Foot Logo (1984).svg... I think 1984 is just the date in which Nickelodeon started using the Balloon-font logo style - that is, this is a variant of the 1984 logo, which may have been created any number of years later. That said, I have no idea when this variant came into being. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into it further. If I find it's after 1989, I'll delete it. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: , it looks like this was circa 1992. The 1980s logos did not have a registered trademark mark on them from what I can see, and the logo is similar to a logo that dates from 1992. Deleted it as 1992 is post-1989. Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. May I see where you got this from, and what is the similar logo you're thinking of? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In this page https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Nickelodeon/Logo_Variations#Other, there is a feet version https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Nickelodeon/Logo_Variations?file=Nickelodeon_1984_Feet_5.svg#Other that says used in Gymnast ID from 1992-1996. I'd have to look up where I found other logos like the 1989 anniversary logo. Abzeronow (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Workshop 2013.jpg

Please educate me. Rather than my starting a DR. I'd like to learn why this file, with a photo of a prominent work which is copyright is not a copyvio, please. Once I know then I will be better able to see what is and is not a copyvio. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: , I guess I probably should have added a note that the file has VRT permission. A VRT member had a undeletion request for the file, saying the heir granted permission. Abzeronow (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Let us assume VRT were not involved. In that instance would I be correct that this would be considered a copyvio? 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, if this didn't have VRT permission, I'd have considered the photograph to be an own work, and I'd have filed a deletion request for the painting as the photo is a derivative work. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. This makes a lot of sense. Every day is a school day. 👍 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of homes destroyed in Rolling Fork, Mississippi.jpg

Why was it deleted??? There was 2 keep to 1 delete (the nominator) and the image was under a Template:PD-NWS license, where NOAA says all images not marked by a copyright symbol are public domain. I believe the deletion was a mistake, especially since there was a majority keep in the discussion. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agreed with the nominator that the license is overly broad, and it was not proven that GettyImages and the photographer donated the photograph to the public domain. It was not made explicit that Getty Images did so, and so following COM:PCP, I deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to note for the complete future, I strongly protest the deletion. You basically overruled a consensus from July 2023 with this deletion and you went against the copyright license which was provided, proving it was PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you feel my decision was erroneous, feel free to make a request at COM:UNDEL. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)