User talk:Warfieldian

about your warnings

The warning on this file [1] is wrong. It's a building made during the 19th century. so please do not warn more than necessary. Otourly (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ad van den Berg.jpg

This file is a cutout of File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg which is a free image released to Commons. Pictures released on Commons can be edited freely. SpeakFree (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

user jerone2 please do not delete this image

File:CDIC-IMG 8333.jpg

Thank you for your concern regarding File:CDIC-IMG 8333.jpg, but thus is not a meaningless name: CDIC means "Chaland de débarquement d'infanterie et de chars" and is the name of the ships featured on the image. Since "Toulon harbor.jpg" is not a very good description for this file (it shows a small detail of the harbour (and I prefer English spelling anyway)), I have reverted to the original name. Rama (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Currituck lighthouse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments next time F8, ISO 100 and 1/250s, but QI and good though --Carschten 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Patroller !

Counter Vandalism Unit

Hi Warfieldian !

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller ! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.

We could use you help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by patrolling an Anonymous-edits checklist and checking a day-part.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage or ask for help on IRC in #wikimedia-commons. Ben.MQ (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mariah Carey We Belong Together Angels Advocate US.jpg

Hello Warfieldian. I uploaded the above image from Flickr, but I had to rotate the photograph before uploading it. I was wondering if you could check the photograph's license in case the bot fails (which I'm pretty sure will, as I have modified the original photograph). Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done  Warfieldian (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Warfieldian. Novice7 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Blues Brothers.jpg

Taht picture was taken in Australia. Notice the tags: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjoewhereyougoingwiththatguninyourhand/59196376 ~~

TUSC token 38ac465669d425113bcb3acb7d8d509c

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Academia de Música - CNM.jpg

It seems you've put this image under copyright violation, when it isn't.

I'm very unhappy about how "wikimedia patrollers" act. They seem to think the more images they delete, the better they are.

I was honest in saying the image didn't belong to me, when other people say it's their OWN and don't get their image deleted.

I hope you reconsider your "action".

Eduarda7 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you got me at all. I agree that you apply these measures, but not like this.

Sorry, but I have to ask (since you "forgot" to tell me): How can I "prove" that the image is under a free license?

Eduarda7 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The image is under a free license because it is on a site!

IF it isn't under one, then this is illegal too (same image on two different sites):

http://esperandoleitor.blogspot.com/2010/06/starry-night-1889-vincent-van-gogh.html

http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/elem/elem67.html

I'm sorry for bothering you further, but this is just unacceptable. I tried to upload that image EIGHT times, just because it wasn't on Commons and there was no indication. Then, finally, I was able to upload it at here.

But now, to "prove" the image's under a free license, I have to contact the institution and FORCE them to write something and lose time??

I'm sorry again, but if you could use your good sense, you would see there is no reason in this. How can someone want to use Wikipedia if they are continually "blocked"??

Eduarda7 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't quit that easily.

I will ask again: how can I prove it's under a free license? (Those "links" you gave me were just things to read, they didn't help at all!)

Eduarda7 (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you anyway for your help. Eduarda7 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Upload these phosots if you can please! [2]--Asj wichi (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Brenchley

Hi Warfieldian,

Was File:William Arthur Brenchley 1863.jpg found on Flickr? If so, do you have a link?

The same uploader has placed two other images on Commons as the same man. None of them match. One is an image of Ulric Dahlgren (File:UlricDahlgren.jpg) where the user merely took the image from here and uploaded it with the new name. He created the article on en Wikipedia with the clearly-named Dahlgren photo before uploading his renamed version File:Col.William Arthur Brenchley.jpg and claimed it came from Flickr (his review failed). His other version also failed his claim that it came from Flickr for File:William Arthur Brenchley.jpg.

I'm trying to determine if the article is a hoax. I haven't found anything on the article subject and he doesn't appear to be in the reference cited. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, none of the files that he has uploaded have contained a flickr link and that is why they all failed review. He placed the flickr review tag on them when he uploaded them but made no claim to Flickr as the source in the file description. I doubt they were taken from Flickr. Warfieldian ^(talk) 02:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...I misunderstood that he was claiming they came from Flickr. I've nominated the article for deletion here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:DanaGioiaNEAchairman.jpg

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

—LX (talk, contribs) 15:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ficheiro:Beyonce NYC.jpg

Permission has been sent to OTRS.Jonathas Davi (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File: Wrapdress.jpg

About the personality warning you placed on the file: I followed all the links and read up on the subject, but it isn't clear what I'm supposed to do in response. This is my first time uploading a Flickr file, so I'm unfamiliar with all the ins and outs of it. Am I supposed to do something about the personality warning? Or is the file OK as it stands?

Sorry about duplicate rename request of ANZAC biscuits.JPG

Sorry about the repeated request for renaming ANZAC biscuits.JPG. I didn't realise the request had been declined the first time, because I was a bit confused about how the file was managed between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, but it's been explained to me now. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Panoramio images

Hello Warfieldian

Could you please have a look at Category:Panoramio review needed. Most of them are images about Slovenia where the FOP isn't available. I have reviewed some images but I want to ask you for sure--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoangquan, thanks for letting me know about those. It looks like it will take some time to look through those. Several look like they might not be de minimis and still within copyright with Slovenia's lack of usable FoP. It looks like copyright expires in Slovenia 70 years after author's death. Warfieldian ^(talk) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please feel free to mark some panoramio images if you have some time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

stupid bot ;)

Hi Warfieldian, thanks for reviewing. Of course I would have done myself - but I like the bot more. :) Do you know what the problem of the bot at File:Kidnappers arrested Rio.jpg (and the others of this series is? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah... probably this: Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images#Flickrreview_bot_again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Panoramio

Suddenly this category is full of images again. I marked 22 but I don't have more time. Everyone is happy to mark flickr images but they forget about panoramio or picasa sometimes. Its unfortunate. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for marking many of the images. Unfortunately, I was busy today with work. Usually a few of the trusted users like Logan, wwcensor and Hongquan mark a few panoramio images but that's about it. An Admin might mark a few too but not many. Not too many trusted users seem to know about panoramio. Thanks again. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Flickr

Thanks for the message. Please help me then how we can identify these pictures are not thierown picture. I checked before uploading that license is valid for commons. anyway I shall take care in future. Once again thanks.--RajeshUnuppally (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to be proactive in keeping improperly licensed images off Wikimedia Commons. You can check on TinEye.com to see if the image has been published elsewhere and is not likely created by the Flickr account holder.Warfieldian ^(talk) 18:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming my mistitled file

everything's okay now :-)
Have a nice week --Saviour1981 (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:JasonBonham2010b.jpg

Help me out here please. You have confirmed that this file is available "on Flickr under the above license on that date", but "there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license". It seems it cannot be both. Is there some other permission that is needed for some reason?--Sabrebd (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The image is listed as CC licensed on Flickr. However, the author is listed as chickswithguns but the watermark on the image has (C) as Karen Curley. So, even though the license on Flickr is CC, there is no way to be sure this is valid given the watermark demonstrating that the photographer Karen Curley is the proper copyright holder. You would need to go through COM:OTRS to find out how to contact the photographer and obtain permission to distribute the image on Commons or you could use OTRS to contact the Flickr account holder and see if they have some kind of blanket licensing agreement with their photographers. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but as a point of fact the watermark says copyright Karen Curley/cwgmagazine.com, which I took to be a claim of copyright for the magazine, not necessary the person. This is not an argument for "other stuff exists", but I notice this picture File:Taylor Momsen - Warped Tour Kickoff.jpg was uploaded by an admin User:Tabercil (no watermark here, but the same claim of authorship), so I will probably enquire as to whether any additional permission was sought for this. Beyond that a look at the OTRS details suggests a pretty horrendously complex and time consuming process. I am also not clear as to whether I need to contact the account holder on Flickr (that obviously works with a licence change) or separately by email (since they is no way of knowing if the account holder really is the magazine), so it would probably really help if you could clarify that for me. I will have to think about whether it is worth the candle, or just to settle for a third rate image or, as is all too common, none at all.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a fairly common problem that images are uploaded with a valid Flickr license but have watermarks that suggest that it may be copyrighted by someone other than the FLickr account holder. After looking at it again, you do make a good point about the image appearing to be copyrighted in the watermark by the photographer and the magazine. I think this actually does make an argument that the cwgmagazine holds the copyright or is at least authorized by the photographer to license it under CC. I'll remove the 'no permission' tag. Thanks. Warfieldian ^(talk) 16:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I may send the magazine an informal email in any case just to check on whether they are the holders of the flickr account and the status of the pictures. I will let you know if I gain any relevant information.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of my request as image reviewer

You think I am a fool. I waste my lot of time to find the images for wikipedia. Days and days months and months. Without perfect reasons my many upload are deleted. They blocked me because of socket puppet of sridhar100. Yes I am the sridhar100. They blocked my first account for vandalism. I requested many times but they wo'nt hear my words. They completely block from wikipedia. I create many accounts. But they also closed as socket puppets. I requested them to complete my article but they refused and taught me like as a fool. That day I feel very sad so I want to retire and abandon all my projects. I closed all my accounts and retired. But In telugu wikipedia the other member requested to rejoin. So I want to work only for telugu wikipedia. My recent uploads only for telugu wikipedia. By your decision I feel very sad. I work for wikipedia by wasting my lot of time. But every where I am refused and abondoned. I tired and agree your decision. If any mistakes or any grammar errors forgive me.--Sridhar1000 (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are a fool but I don't think you meet the requirements of a trusted user based on your history of repeated copyright violations. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Министерство культуры Туркменистана.jpg

Today, this ministry was renamed, and the building remains the same! so I do not see any reason to delete a file! http://www.turkmenistan.gov.tm/?idr=1&id=111017b

Hi! Thanks for contributing this photo to Wikimedia Commons. The reason this file was nominated for deletion is because Turkmenistan has no Freedom of Panorama provisions in their copyright laws and, sadly, this building falls under unacceptable copyright restrictions of no commercial re-use. You can read a little more about the problem at COM:FOP. Thanks again for contributing. Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I Turkmen, and I do not understand why you're oppressing my country and do not let me upload photos??--Yomut (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not oppressing your country. Please see here for an explanation about why your country's copyright laws restrict images of architectural works on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks! Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

can ship anything under the PD, once the copyright laws we do not have to Turkmenistan!--Yomut (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that the building is under Public Domain than that is incorrect. Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ладно удаляйте мой файл--Yomut (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can't delete your file. I just nominated it for deletion. You can comment on the deletion on the deletion page but after consensus is reached, the decision to delete or not will be made by an administrator. Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's difficult to argue in English =)--Yomut (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly understand that. I would find it difficult to argue in Russian.  :) Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AJAX patrol

Hello, I see that you use AjaxPatrolLinks. I have good news for you: AJAX patrolling is now in core! On Wikimedia projects, it should arrive with MediaWiki 1.21wmf5, between 2012-11-26 and 2012-12-5. You should disable this gadget when the new feature change is enabled, because it will become redundant and to avoid double patrolling. Thanks, Nemo 08:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Crosley Field left-center and scoreboard.jpg

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

23.29.187.238 09:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

why did you delete my picture Warfieldian

File:Bobby in the far east.JPG , i mean i took it myself and released the rights to wiki commons and it met all the policies of wiki commons ? just don't understand why you deleted it , please do advice me on how to upload or put a picture on wiki commons

files on wikimedia commons should have educational value. Examples of images that typically do not have educational value: private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere. Warfieldian ^(talk)

Doctored Stalin-Lenin.jpg

Hi Warfieldian, please have a look there: File:Doctored_Stalin-Lenin.jpg#additional_Information. I am not renewing the renaming request, but nonetheless the case of this file is strange. --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Whatisahokie.jpg

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

Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

your rfa

Hi Warfieldian, don't be too disappointed about the course of your rfa, please. Just engage more in meta work, especially DRs, over the next months in order to gain more experience. Then, your next rfa will surely be successful. --Túrelio (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to express the same sentiment. Wanting to contribute makes you a valuable member of the community, not having a mop, so please stick around. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:HomeFromMarket.jpg

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

Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Langsdorff.jpg

Could you add a more detailed source? It says that the photo was taken before 1912, but there is no information about when or where it was published. It looks like a scan of a publication, so it is definitely a published photo, but it's not possible to tell whether the publication was before 1923 or not. Also, as the photo shows a German man, it was likely first published in Germany, which requires information about the photographer. For example, if the name of the photographer was given in the image caption in a book containing this photo, or if the name of the photographer was revealed in any other context within 70 years from the first publication, then we need to verify that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Langsdorff.jpg

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

Stefan4 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Warfieldian. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Raffaele Sollecito

It's a screenshot of this videoclip http://www.radioradicale.it/scheda/437489/processo-per-lomicidio-di-meredith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito-e-amanda-knox-assolti at minute 12:26 That website report this tag: «Salvo dove diversamente specificato i file pubblicati su questo sito sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons: Attribuzione 2.5» ("Unless otherwise specified files on this site are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5") There were so many reporters and photographers that day, all close, so the picture looks like any other shot; there will be thousands of similar images in Italian newspapers, and each with a different author.--StefanoRR (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That site releases clearly all the material under creative commons. Because you have ignored this thing by deleting the file? that site releases clearly all the material under creative commons. Why you have ignored this thing by deleting the file? These files are normally on Wikipedia Italian, which is very selective on regulation of licenses.--StefanoRR (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent nomination for deletion

You have recently nominated File:Санкт-Петербург, Тихвинское кладбище, могила А.Н. Есиповой.JPG. This photo is part of WLM-2015 in Russia. The organizers keep track of potential non-FoP photos and will take care of them in due course. We will appreciate if you consider the discussion here and refrain from nominating any further WLM photos before October 31. Such nominations have negative impact on the WLM contest. Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We would also appreciate if you do not make mistakes when writing the name of our country. It is not only a matter of respect, but also the way of keeping track of deletion nominations related to Russia. Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Really? admonishing someone for an typo in a deletion request? Give me a break. Warfieldian ^(talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)