User talk:Ellywa/2021

License Review (Youtube)

Hello, would you be able to review the licenses of the following files?

• File:Soeki2015.png
• File:Soeki1.png
• File:Soeki2.png

Thank you in advance, Joofjoof (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Joofjoof, the images you took from the Youtube film are derivative works of the original artworks of Soeki Irodikromo. I am afraid, although the film has been licenced as CC-BY-SA, these images are not free. As the artist died in 2020, it will be a very long time until these portraits can be published with a free license. If you know them, you could contact the heirs of mr. Irodikromo; they will posses the copyright. Please ask them to write a permission to the OTRS sytem, while listing the images as you listed them here. This is the instruction in Dutch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS/Toestemming_foto_vragen . On Commons you can find the instruction here: Commons:Email templates. Sorry to disappoint you. We will have to delete the images if permission is not received soon. I will wait a bit however. I hope to hear from you soon on this page, so I can help with the OTRS tickets. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. This are the rules in Suriname: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Suriname. Elly (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ellywa for your review. I will see what I can do. Joofjoof (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Schilderij Jan Luitzen

Beste Ellywa, op 13 februari heeft Wilco de Vries per e-mail de volgende foto: File:2021 Luitzen, Jan (Vries) Back to Cobra 1 (a).jpg van een schilderij van Jan Luitzen ter publicatie op diens Wikipediapagina aangeboden. Wil jij de OTRS permissie regelen? Bij voorbaat mijn hartelijke dank. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Beste Piet.Wijker, ik heb het ticket aangetroffen in het systeem, ticket:2021021810009352 en een antwoord gestuurd. Ik neem aan dat het snel in orde komt. Voor de preciezen onder ons is het nodig direct toestemming te ontvangen van de kunstenaar zelf. Met vriendelijke groet, Elly (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Beste Ellywa, het was juist op verzoek van de kunstenaar zelf dat de afbeelding van een van zijn schilderijen van jaren geleden werd vervangen door de afbeelding van dit nieuwe schilderij van hem. Hij stuurde mij hierover bijgaande e-mail:

Jan Luitzen

Bijlagen do 18 feb. 19:31 (3 dagen geleden) aan Piet

Beste Piet,

Op mijn Wikipedia-pagina staat nu een foto van een oud schilderij. Ik heb een foto van een nieuw schilderij: zie de bijgesloten afbeelding. Zou je het oude schilderij willen vervangen door deze foto? Foto gemaakt door mijn broer. Ik vraag hem zometeen weer om een toestemmingsbriefje voor publiceren te sturen, net zoals eerder bij de portretfoto… Onderschrift bij de foto wordt:

Back to Cobra 1, 2021, acryl op linnen, 100 x 120 cm.

Vast dank. En groet!

Jan

Ik ging er vervolgens van uit, dat de e-mail van Wilco de Vries qua tekst voldeed aan de voorwaarden die Wikipedia stelt voor publicatie. Die week m.i. niet af van de vorige keer, toen diezelfde Wilco de Vries een foto van Jan Luitzen ter publicatie instuurde. Liggen de voorwaarden hier dan anders, omdat het ditmaal om een kunstwerk van de kunstenaar zelf gaat? Gaarne nadere uitleg hierover, waarvoor bij voorbaat mijn dank. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Het is meer dat de preciezen op Commons graag een toestemming direct van de kunstenaar willen zien. Ik zelf wil Wilco de Vries en jouzelf heel graag geloven dat jullie mondeling of per mail toestemming hebben gekregen van de kunstenaar; beter is de toestemming direct op OTRS op te slaan, om problemen te voorkomen. Een dik jaar geleden hebben we behoorlijke problemen gehad namelijk omdat uploads met een niet 100% sluitende toestemming verwijderd werden. Dat is vervelend voor alle partijen. Kleine moeite om het nu volgens de regeltjes te doen lijkt mij. Dat is dus eigenlijk de verandering, door schade en schande wijzer geworden dus. Groet, Elly (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oké, helder. Dan zal ik Jan Luitzen vragen, of hij de eerder door Wilco de Vries ingezonden e-mail wil aanvullen met de door hemzelf afgegeven toestemming en die als zodanig opnieuw wil insturen. Bedankt voor de uitleg en groet, Piet.Wijker (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Beste Piet.Wijker, inmiddels is het helemaal in orde! De toestemming staat op de bestandspagina. Hopelijk volgen er meer kunstwerken op Wikipedia van hedendaagse kunstenaars. Met vriendelijke groet, Elly (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Mijn hartelijke dank, Ellywa. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Andrea Ghez from a youtube still.jpg

File:Andrea Ghez from a youtube still.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is a copyright notice on the page where this image and video appears, and there is no evidence of permission to use under an acceptable free license. source=https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/03/bakerian-lecture/ Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

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

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 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Elly Dekker

Beste Elly,

Dank je voor het plaatsen van die portretfoto, je bent me voor. Ik wilde haar nog vragen naar het jaar, hoe weet je dat het 1998 was? Vriendelijke groet, Hansmuller (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Over correspondentie via @wikimedia.org worden door de vrijwilligers geen mededelingen gedaan. Wij hebben daartoe een vertrouwelijkheidsverklaring ondertekend. Elly (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, je hebt het haar waarschijnlijk dus gevraagd. De datum is trouwens geen auteursrechtenkwestie. Vriendelijke groet, Hansmuller (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Eigenlijk vraag ik om de bron van een gegeven. Daar mag - moet? - je trouwens wel op antwoorden. Fysische groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

De bron staat in het OTRS ticket. Je kan dat als je mij niet gelooft navragen bij iemand anders van het OTRS team. Ik verzoek je met klem om te stoppen met je gedram. Anders zal ik ook op Commons een blokkade voor je aanvragen.

Het lijkt mij goed als je je gedrag met user:Vysotsky bespreekt en evalueert. Hij heeft aangegeven hierover te willen nadenken, zie zijn opmerking bij het blokverzoek tegen jou op NL Wikipedia.

Nog een persoonlijk woord: Hans, ik begrijp gewoon niet wat er met je aan de hand is. Er valt op geen enkele manier constructief en probleemloos met je samen te werken, zelfs niet over een eenvoudige foto als die van mw. Dekker. Ik lig er echt wakker van. Bespreek het please met Vysotsky. Elly (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File-moving concern

Hi Ellywa,

Regarding your rename of File:Ammonia3D.png to File:Ammonia-3D-sticks.png, I'm not sure that it was very ambiguous, or that simply adding "sticks" made it overwhelmingly better. Not a big deal, certainly not enough to bother undoing it. However, the user who requested it had just prior violated COM:OVERWRITE against an existing file at that location. These two behaviors: bad overwrites and requesting renames that are at the edge or just beyond what speedy-rename allows, both in the context of chemical diagrams, are strong symptoms of a long-term cross-wiki sock-drawer. Please let me know if you see it happening so it can be handled administratively here and on the other affected wikis. DMacks (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be more alert for this kind of abuse. Elly (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

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

Ellywa, 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.

odder (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Odder: . I'll start reading the links you gave me. I love this French apple pie. Elly (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The_Last_Suit_poster.jpg

Hello, I'm not sure where to send this question, I would like to understand why the film poster File:The_Last_Suit_poster.jpg was deleted. All the other film posters published in Wikipedia have the same situation as this file, how come they are not deleted too ?. Thank you.Makers267 (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Makers267: , the poster is deleted from this website, Commons, because publishing the poster without permission is a violation of the copyright of the designer and photographer. You may try to upload the poster locally on English Wikipedia in a low resolution. On that website it will be accepted as en:Wikipedia:Fair use. But you have to add a rationale. And you cannot use the poster on other language Wikipedias. Elly (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Oude DR / YouTube review

Hi Ellywa,

Ik wilde zojuist een Mass DR indienen, om erachter te komen dat ik dit in februari al had gedaan voor dezelfde set afbeeldingen. Zou jij een naar dit verwijderverzoek willen kijken? We hebben een fikse backlog (waar niet) bij de reviews van de YT video's, en ik kom daar blijkbaar na een half jaar nog dezelfde afbeeldingen tegen... Beetje frustrerend. Ciell (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ciell: . Ik zal er wat bij zetten, ben zelf met DR's bezig van november 2020. Ben nog lerende... kost me veel tijd, maar tot nu toe geen commentaar op wat ik het gedaan. Elly (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sommige oude DR's zijn inderdaad een flinke kluif, precies waarom ze er al zo lang liggen... fijn dat je dat oppakt. Ciell (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi Ellywa, can you please remove this speedy request? It's nominated (on the list) since 4 of 5 july, but it's still there. Now it's a speedy too, but it's a pricavy issue. Thanks (bedankt) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think an image needs speedy deletion if it is here for 13 years. In addition, privacy issue is not listed on Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. It already is a normal DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dave Mustaine en lester.jpg. Elly (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: , Ik had te snel gelezen. Het DR was al ouder dan 7 dagen, dan kan het gesloten worden. Ik heb nu beide personen van de afbeelding afgeknipt (met de crop tool, die is best handig), en alle oude versies zijn verwijderd. Het probleem van de uploader is opgelost zo lijkt mij. Groet, Elly (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bedankt, daar zal de uploader blij mee zijn! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot van een NPO-uitzending

Hi Ellywa, zou jij naar dit verzoek willen kijken? Volgens mij is hij erg straight forward, ik kan alleen niet mijn eigen DR's gaan afhandelen natuurlijk... Betreft ook ticket:2021052410009782 . Ciell (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

gedaan, dat had wel "speedy" mogen zijn... Wat een achterstand als zelfs zo een simpel verzoek blijf liggen. Ben zelf bezig met de DRs van november. Vind het leuk om te doen, die ingewikkelde kwesties. Elly (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

IA mirror related deletion requests..

The category concerned is - Category:IA mirror related deletion requests and is used as tracking for DR's related to Fæ's IA Books project and other related

It was created when I was nominating a LOT of items that had been uploaded as part of Fæ's IA books upload project, and earlier FLikr uploads.

The subcats are /kept /deleted and /restored, for archiving of requests that had been resolved as kept, deleted and subsqeuntly restored 9due to expiry or more information coming to light.)

The DR's are put in the Category when the DR is filed (typically because analysis of the meta-data and scans of a work) suggested a file wasn't correctly licensed), and archived to the sub-cats when the DR is closed. The archiving is so that the previous precedents for deletion (or retention can be looked for.).

Related categories (which may also need to be periodically reviewed, but for which DR's are not yet necesarily filed.)

• Category:Internet Archive (renewal check needed) - Items where a check for a copyright renewal is needed.
• Category:Internet Archive (potential copyvio)‎ Items which are a potential copyvio (based either on metadata or information in the work).
• Category:IA books copyright review automatically suggested - Items where a copyright statement was found in a work which might otherwise be licensed as PD.

Various collections uploaded under the IA books projects, may have their own review categories.

The main categories for the IA books uploads are:

• Category:Books uploaded by Fæ (which is what most of the IA books project uploads are tracked with.)
• Category:IA books harmonization See - User_talk:Fæ/IA_books#harmonization and the pages for the related 2015 project.

Sorry if this creates a LOT of work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: , thank you for your kind and clear explanation. As a beginning admin I had no idea what this was about. Perhaps you can put this text on the top of the categories. Well.. the work, its a lot as you say. Up to now I find it interesting. Currently I only handle DR's of material from Non_USA countries (unless very simple ones). I do not have enough knowledge of the complex USA situation. Elly (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well. The situation with the US - Anything published by a US author in the US prior to 1929 is likely PD. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Help...I'm falling into the US copyright discussions

Aha.. thats sounds simple... so we could continue the discussion on the DR of Oswald, created 1927, for another year. To finally keep it. Thats also a good solution to a LOT of work is it :-)? Likely? Elly (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hernoeming afgewezen, van mogelijk auteursrechtelijk beschermd bestand

Hoi/hallo Elly(wa), ik wees gisteren een bestand af voor hernoeming. Bij een gelijke bestandsnaam moet het bestand op Wikipedia (in dit geval de Engelstalige) veranderd worden en niet op Commons. Echter is het een kopie van het bestand op Wikipedia, waar copyrights op rusten, maar dan net even wat groter en wat minder pixels. Of het dan meteen copyrightvrij is, vraag ik me af. Misschien wil je meekijken? Zie Commons:Village Pump en mijn OP. (je hebt al een aantal maal goed geholpen en de huidige reactie van iemand, kan ik niet echt iets mee). Groet, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elly (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Bedankt Elly, ik zag het verschil niet goed. Op sommige dagen zie ik niet het hele beeld, althans op alle dagen, maar sommige dagen heb ik er meer last van. Maar goed, het is opgelost! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wat lastig zeg, goed om te weten. Groeten van een eeuwige brildraagster (-6). Elly (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Min 6? Zo dat is sterk. Ik heb alleen leesbrillen van -3 tot -4. Bij mij mist er een stukje links aan beide kanten, maar de oorzaak ligt elders. :-) - Groeten, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad close of DR

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Latin small and capital letter dotless i.jpg you made a poor closing decision. Please reconsider it on the DR’s own merits yourself (by merely reading it again) and reverse the closing if you agree with my aseessment. It would be a switfer outcome then by means of an undeletion request. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: . I restored the images and the DR so another admin may take the final decision. Elly (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

More works of Jacob Ydema

Hi, recently five more works of Jacob Ydema have been uploaded, and in the mean time the uploader has declared to work under another username [1], to posses the copyright [2] and to be in email contact with you [3], which is confirmed by you adding a permission ticket to one of the five files [4] five days ago. Now could you close the deletion requests of two of the four other images still open, see [5] & [6], since you seem to have all the data required to do so. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning, I wasn't aware of this. I will contact the copyright holder for these images. So "permission pending" for now. Elly (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Leyou Logo

Hi. Thanks for closing the Leyou Logo DR. I think you missed one of two files up for deletion, namely File:Leyou.jpg. I hope you can delete this one as well. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks so much! My mistake. Elly (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

where?

• Ellywa, where is File:Eurodam Flag Tallinn 12 July 2013.jpg ?

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@PjotrMahh1: , yes near the tower, with a flag of my country (which has FOP luckily). I think the tower on this image is De minimis. The tower itself is not present on Commons, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tallinn TV Tower. I did not invent COM:FOP Estonia. It is very sad so many countries have no FOP, but we can't change this :-(. Elly (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ne, det with the tower in the background in this picture and in the corner was an Absolut, Deletion request! Das ist schon ein Missbrauch, a misuse of rules and misuse of Estonian FOP, thanks,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If you do not agree with the interpretation, please ask for undeletion here: COM:Undeletion. Elly (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ellywa, I agree with interpretation, deletion, with you, I don't care, det with the fog in front of TV-tower was Spaß only, these photos are of bad quality but I need these flags for my list 2013 on my talk page, topic ==Cruise ships in Port of Tallinn - Tallinna Vanasadam in 2013==, you can see there all the cruise ships visited Tallinn in 2013,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC) + See positions 171 and 173, there are in red through deletion, I will find any time to repair det. Aber das macht echt Spaß!--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting "sammlung". You will manage to make the series complete, I'm sure, by fogging :-). Viel Spasz! Elly (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, unfortunately, this mission was impossible, the flag or civil ensign should be photographed, LIVE, on the same day of visit and at the stern mast, not at the top mast, thanks and best regards--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons without common sense

I felt that my file uploaded file was deleted without commo sense! Jonipol.fortaliza (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You did not comment on the Deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Number Triangle - Birth of New One.pdf since December 2020. If you want to share your knowledge about Number triangles, I would suggest to edit en:Triangular array. But you are welcome to ask for undeletion of the file at COM:UNDELETE. Elly (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate reply, I thought I had made a comment on the deletion request but I can't find it now. Anyway, I appreciate now how you respond with suggestions to improve on my intent to share. Jonipol.fortaliza (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

PD EU Audio deletions

Hi, Elly. I see you have posted on my page about a number of audio recordings being deleted due to copyright reasons. Thanks for doing this. When I originally uploaded these files, pre-1972 audio recordings were not subject to federal copyright in the US and it was Wikipedia's policy to accept pre-1972 EU recordings which were in the PD in their country of origin. In 2019 (if I recall the year correctly), the MMA/CLASSICS act retroactively created US federal copyright for pre-1972 audio recordings. This was discussed then at the Village Pump by a number of users including myself. So I am aware that these files should no longer be stored on US servers (and so on Commons), and thanks for removing them in line with the new US law. You will find many more examples of audio files which need this treatment in the PD EU Audio tag category. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you message. I did not like to delete this beautiful music at all, but it has to be so. This concerned Commons:Deletion requests/File:W. A. Mozart - Così fan tutte - Act 1 - 01. Ouvertura (Böhm).flac. Currently I am working on these old delection requests. I am glad you take this so "sportingly" (This is a Dutch saying, probably not valid in English; I hope you will understand). The lists might be convinient if the Americans ever change their law. Elly (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As an American I doubt we will change our laws. As a European citizen as well, who is currently living in Canada, I doubt either the EU or Canada will remove these files from the public domain, and so they can be preserved on the Canadian and EU servers of IMSLP. Unfortunately almost everything in Category:PD EU Audio will need to be deleted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "southlakes-uk"

Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "southlakes-uk", but I'm afraid you misread my summary of the CC-status and flipped it around - the three files you kept were the ones that should have been deleted, and vice versa! --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: , thanks so much for checking my work. My sincere apologies. I will restore the deleted ones and delete the three others. Elly (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate the work! --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Delition of image File:Indian dancer III by Stuart Wolfe.jpg

Hi Elly, I myself took this picture in the artist's Berlin workspace. He knows and supports that I use this and all other photos of his work on German and English Wikis. I already cleared the situation in December, 2019 and left a comment linked to an portrait of the artist showing his permission: The artist, Stuart Wolfe, confirms by means of a photograph in his atelier the own works of Wikipedia author "Smokeonthewater" and permits the use of files listed in Wikipedia: https://my.hidrive.com/lnk/aC4UL8Uc I am really disappointed that the statet rights are in doubt over and over again by other admins who are obvisouly not informed. Smokeonthewater (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I can imagine this. I decided to keep the image on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indian dancer III by Stuart Wolfe.jpg, because I found your way of proving the artist agrees convincing. But indeed, it can happen again that the image will be nominated for deletion because of copyright. You did not act the usual way. The problem is that the file page does not show that the identity of the artist is confirmed. It only shows a link to a photo. It would be good to solve this forever. My advice to you would be to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with Stuart Wolfe in CC, with an attachment in the form of the photo of Stuart Wolfe holding the permission statement. Please include a list of the images you uploaded to Commons. Probably the volunteers of COM:VRT will ask Stuart Wolfe again whether he agrees with the CC-BY-SA license. If he confirms, a link will be added to the images which links to the emails in the VRT system. And you will be happy forever after :-). Kind regards, Elly (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Please stop asking for a description of a deleted image"

Ehhh, "{{Temporarily undeleted}}" literally exists for this and as for disputed coat of arms, the rule is adding "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" and not deletion. As for the Wikimedia Commons not being a source, books uploaded here are used as sources at Wikisource.

Also, I think that you failed to comprehend why I asked for a description of the file, as the file name could have been inaccurate and rather than this being the coat of arms of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina it could have been the insignia of the Republican Guard or another military organisation. A file should not be deleted because of an inaccurate file name, only renamed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You also didn't address the claimed coats of arms of the Republic of Cochinchina from both the De Rode Leeuw website (a well-researched heraldric website that is commonly used as a source both here and at Wikipedia) and at Ethnia, these two (2) sources are much more recent than a claimed book from the 1960's by a user that literally denies photographic evidence as "a source". You simply stated that the Wikimedia Commons itself is not a source (which is untrue, if someone uploads an old book about heraldry here that book can be used to make derivatives from, in fact such things are the rule and not the exception). Why such hostility against giving a simple description of an image? I have never seen admins unanimously refuse such a simple request until this specific coat of arms. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

Odd question, but I saw that you rolled this edit back and then reverted it with no edit summary, what happened here? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

a mistake with my mobile phone. Sorry. Elly (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Closing UnDRs

Elly-- those of us who are regular contributors to Undeletion Requests have an informal rule that unless the result is completely obvious -- usually because it's a request to undelete an image that hasn't been deleted, we wait 24 hours from the the initial posting before closing the UnDR. Your closure of the request for File:Sonkor D. Rudro.jpg was only four hours after the posting.

This is partly because a colleague might have something useful to say and partly, in cases like this one, to give the requester a chance to tell us that, despite appearances, it is a selfie and he is notable.

And, by the way, thanks for starting off with a bang on your promise to work on DRs -- in a little over three months you're two thirds of the way up the all time list of Administrators' deletions -- see Commons:Database_reports/Users_by_log_action.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I was so shocked that I immediately undeleted the file, but this was not your intention. I will take care now. Thanks, I do my best, the work is interesting. Elly (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hubert de Vries' De Rode Leeuw website

Could you please explain to me why Hubert de Vries' De Rode Leeuw website is a bad source for the Republic of Cochinchina coat of arms but acceptable for "File:Imperial Seal of the Mughal Empire.svg", or should this file also be nominated for deletion? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Deine Löschungen weil kein FOP in Deutschland

Hallo Ellywa, Deine Löschungen die letzten Tage sind ja interessant. Du beziehst Dich auf Wikipediaeinträge zum Beleg dafür, dass etwas gelöscht werden soll. Du machst genau denselben Fehler wie der Löschantragsteller. Anstelle das Gesetz und die Rechtsprechung in Deutschland heranzuziehen und auf dieser Grundlage zu belegen, dass die Löschung gerechtfertigt ist, nimmst Du (übrigens jahrelang nicht mehr aktualisierte) Wikipediaartikel. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Asurnipal, I suppose you refer to deletion of photos of stained glass windows, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Joachim Klos made by Joachim Klos (who died in 2007). If you do not agree with my decision, please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE, so other collegues can give their opinion. You can also start a general discussion about the interpretation of COM:FOP Germany in the Village pump. My interpretation of COM:FOP Germany is that these images cannot be kept. The only solution would be to obtain permission of the persons (probably relatives of mr. Klos), who now are the owner of the copyright. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I searched for some more examples, to show I took a similar decisions as other admins:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained glass windows of St. Gallus (Frickenhausen am Main) - deleted
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marc Chagall in Mainz - panoramio.jpg - deleted
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained glass windows of the Apocalypse of St. Gertrud (Schuld) - deleted
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:WertheimKatholischeKrankenhauskapelleL1020190 (2).JPG - deleted

Elly (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Elly, Wikipediaartikel sind kein Beleg dafür, ob etwas dem nationalen Recht konform ist oder nicht. Die Löschung durch andere Administratoren sind auch kein Beleg dafür, dass diese richtig gehandelt haben, sondern es zeigt sich seit Jahren, dass hier alle Administratoren nur anhand von (teilweise auch veralteten) Wikipediaartikeln Löschungen vornehmen. Nicht aber anhand der nationalen Rechtslehre, Rechtsprechung und Rechtslage. Dass FOP nicht in Kirchen gilt ist ja logisch, das steht ausdrücklich im dUrhG so drin. Das FOP nicht gilt bedeutet aber nicht, dass es nicht andere Rechtsgrundlagen gibt, durch welche diese Bilder im Einzelfall unter Umständen behalten werden können. Auch die Löschantragsteller berufen sich immer nur auf Wikipediaartikel und nicht auf die Lehre und Rechtsprechung und das Gesetz in Deutschland. Und eine solche Vorgangsweise sowohl bei der Löschantragstellung als auch bei der Löschung ist einfach bereits dem Grund nach falsch. Einzige Grundlage für die Prüfung zur Löschung eines Bildes kann das Recht des entsprechenden Landes sein, niemals ein Wikipediaartikel. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Asurnipal, the administrators on Commons have to base their decisions to delete or keep an image on the policies and description of the laws of various countries as available on this website. I am citing Com:deletion requests: "It is not the task of the closing admin to engage in detailed legal or factual research in order to find a rationale to keep the file. Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept. Deletion requests are not the place to attempt to change Commons policy <skipped irrelevant part>. Please use the Village Pump or the policy talk page if you wish to propose a change in policy." So please start a discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama to change the policy. I hope to have helped into a direction to avoid similar situations in future. Elly (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Elly, ich nehme dies zur Kenntnis und dass somit weiterhin auf ohne rechtliche Grundlage (no:FOP in Germany) Entscheidungen gefällt werden. Ist eben so bei Wikipedia. Löschanträge ohne jede rechtliche Grundlage werden von Administratoren auf veralteten Wikipediaartikeln entschieden ohne Prüfung der tatsächlichen Lehre, Rechtsprechung und Gesetze oder möglicher Ausnahmebestimmungen. Und Diskussionen auf Commons talk:Freedom of panorama mit Leuten zu führen, die oft keine ausreichende rechtliche Ausbildung haben, erspare ich mir. Da kommt nichts dabei heraus, ausser ewiglange Diskussionsseiten. Das wissen wir beide. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Elly, nochmals, Wikipedia ist keine zuverlässige Quelle. Löschungen aufgrund von COM:FOP Germany sind keine und haben keine Grundlage in WP. Wenn Du hier was löschen willst, dann geht das nur anhand des Gesetzes des Landes, der Lehre und der Rechtsprechung. Alles andere ist unrichtig. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Asurnipal, then again from my side, of course WP or Commons is not a source. But as an admin, not a specialist in German (Lander) law, I must stick to the guidelines for deleting a file. I hope you will understand. I personally find it a pity the images of stained glass, from inside a church in Germany, cannot be kept on Commons. Please add your opinion to Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Germany. Then you can help this issue forward. Elly (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Elly, wenn Du kein Spezialist für deutsches Recht bist, dann lass diese Löschungen durch Adminstratoren machen, die dieses Wissen haben. Nochmals, FOP (§ 59 dUrhG) ist keine Grundlage für Löschungen innerhalb eine Kirche in Deutschland. Dieser Löschantragsteller macht schon die ganze Zeit fehlerhafte Löschanträge. Ein solcher Löschantrag ist fehlerhaft gestellt und sollte daher zurück gewiesen werden. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you fulfill my kind request please? Elly (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Liebe Elly, da wir beide wissen, wie es abläuft, hat dies keinen Sinn. Es werden mE Dir sehr viele Admin-Kollegen beispringen und noch mehr Leute, die keine Ahnung vom Gesetz, der Rechtsprechung und der Rechtslehre in Deutschland haben, dann wird das ganze totdiskutiert und Deine Entscheidung am Schluss bestätigt. Also lasse ich es ganz einfach, bin enttäuscht, dass jemand, der selbst sagt, er kenne das Gesetz, Rechtslehre und Rechtssprechung in Deutschland nicht und Wikipedia als Quelle heranzieht, solche Entscheidungen trifft. Ist eben so bei uns. Dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass ich nicht immer wieder darauf hinweisen werde, dass nur jemand Löschungen vornehmen soll, der von der rechtlichen Grundlage was versteht. Und dass solche Löschanträge mit falscher rechtlicher Grundlage gleich am Anfang selbst gelöscht gehören. LG, Asurnipal (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You are quite pessimistic about the outcome of such discussion. The wikimedia chapter in the Netherlands sometimes helps to involve a lawyer in such discussions to find the final word. Perhaps Wikimedia Deutschland could do the same. If not, there is no solution. Elly (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Nederlandse atletiek Beverwijk, 500 meter Joep Teldnoy voorop, Bestanddeelnr 916-7962.jpg

Beste Ellywa, zou jij enkele correcties kunnen aanbrengen in File:Nederlandse atletiek Beverwijk, 500 meter Joep Teldnoy voorop, Bestanddeelnr 916-7962.jpg? 500 meter moet 5000 meter zijn en Joep Teldnoy moet zijn Joep Delnoye. Bij voorbaat mijn hartelijke dank. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Beste Piet.Wijker, bestandsnaam is gewijzigd. Groet, Elly (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fijn! Dank je wel. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Nationale Atletiekwedstrijden te Haarlem, Snep van Gers, Bestanddeelnr 919-4692.jpg

Beste Ellywa, ik heb er opnieuw een gevonden waarvan de kop niet klopt. In File:Nationale Atletiekwedstrijden te Haarlem, Snep van Gers, Bestanddeelnr 919-4692.jpg moet de naam Snep van Gers worden verbeterd in Henk Snepvangers. Zou jij ook dit voor je rekening willen nemen? Bij voorbaat weer erg bedankt. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Beste Piet.Wijker, gedaan. Als het goed is, kan je het voortaan zelf doen als je fouten ziet, want ik heb je dat bitje kunnen geven als "bestandshernoemer". Groet, Elly (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Beste Elly, mijn hartelijke dank, zowel voor de gevraagde correctie als voor het geven van de mogelijkheid om het voortaan zelf te kunnen doen. Mocht ik daarover, al doende, op dingen stuiten die mij nog niet duidelijk zijn, kan ik daarvoor dan bij je terecht? Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

uiteraard kan je dan bij mij terecht. Als je het leuk vindt als tijdverdrijf is er ergens een categorie met verzoeken voor titelwijzingen. Elly (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Foto upload kunstenaar auteursrechten

Dag Elly, wij zijn de familie van Albert Bockstael en wij werken aan de Vlaamse pagina over hem. Wij trachten al 2 weken een foto op wikipedia te zetten en die wordt altijd geweigerd en u slaagt erin om dit te doen en we zijn niet zo tevreden met de foto. Wie heeft u de toestemming gegeven om deze foto's online te zetten van de familie aangezien wij de portretrechten bezitten? En van waar heeft u deze foto's? Vriendelijke groeten--Lamaisondanslinfini (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Beste @Lamaisondanslinfini: de foto van nl:Albert Bockstael die ik voor de duidelijkheid hiernaast heb neergezet is toegestuurd door iemand met de naam Gavots. Dit is vermeld op de pagina van de foto, File:Albert_bockstael-1634023801.jpg. De foto is geupload via de website https://www.wikiportret.nl, waar iedereen zelfgemaakte foto's kan uploaden. De vrijwilligers van het VRT-systeem, zoals ikzelf, verlenen hulp bij het plaatsen van de foto in Commons (deze website waar foto's worden gehost) en op de artikelen op Wikipedia. Voor een door iemand zelf gemaakte foto geldt dat het auteursrecht bij die fotograaf ligt. Dezelfde persoon heeft nog een andere - zwartwit- foto ter beschikking gesteld, die staat hier ook bij. Ik kan op Commons geen activiteiten van de gebruikersnaam Lamaisondanslinfini vinden. Tegen welke problemen loopt u op? N.B. u kunt alleen foto's uploaden die u zelf gemaakt heeft, dus geen foto's van een andere fotograaf uit een archief. Dan zou die fotograaf namelijk toestemming moeten geven voor de licentie die hier geldt. Als u op "help" klikt, links in beeld, kunt u daar meer informatie over vinden. Met vriendelijke groet, Elly (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. even een ping naar User:Chescargot, ik zag dat deze persoon u helpt met het artikel.

Op verzoek heb ik de foto van het artikel verwijderd, via Wikidata. De foto's blijven op Commons echter wel behouden, er is geen reden om ze te verwijderen. Elly (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Er is 10 jaar verschil tussen de twee foto’s. De zwart-wit foto is midden jaren ’70 genomen en de kleurfoto is van 1983 exact. Die is gemaakt door een fotograaf aangesteld door de kunstgalerij op de vernissage, ik was zelf aanwezig op dat evenement van 1983.

Het zijn duidelijk 2 foto’s getrokken door 2 verschillende personen. De zwart-wit foto is alvast een betere foto, maar representeert niet zijn persoonlijkheid. En de kleurfoto is gewoon lelijk.

Wij zouden graag rechtstreeks met Gavots communiceren, en we zouden graag weten met welk recht dat hij die 2 foto’s geplaatst heeft, maar wij vinden geen spoor van het profiel. Wij zijn ondertussen al jaren hiermee bezig, wij zijn niet alleen familie maar ook experten en aangesteld door de families Vandenhaute-Bockstael zelf als curatoren. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.105.96.252 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ik kan u geen gegevens verstrekken van Gavots. Mijn werk op het mailsysteem is strikt vertrouwelijk. Als u svp een mail wilt sturen met uw contactgegevens naar info-nl@wikimedia.org met vermelding van Ticket#2021101210005281 (Dat is zeer belangrijk, anders kunnen wij uw mail niet terugvinden) zal ik Gavots vriendelijk verzoeken contact met u op te nemen. Bedenkt u echter wel dat we hier met zijn allen werken aan een vrije encyclopedie. Niemand is "eigenaar" van een onderwerp, en niemand heeft daar een monopolie op. Als u dat wilt, kunt u beter een eigen website ontwikkelen. Vriendelijke groet, Elly (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Beste, we wensen duidelijk dat de foto in kleur verwijderd wordt. De auteursrechten zijn hier geschonden. Ik denk dat u het ook niet fijn zou vinden moest er een onaantrekkelijke foto van u die totaal onrelevant is voor het artikel op het internet zou belanden, nietwaar? Wij hebben het volste recht om dit zo te eisen omdat wij familie zijn en daarom de erfgenamen over zijn patrimonium, inculsief de rechten over het afbeelden van zijn portet. Het zijn duidelijk 2 gescheiden foto's en dus 2 fotografen, wat al een schending is van auteursrechten want deze persoon kan niet beide foto's gemaakt hebben. Gavots weet ook duidelijk niet in welk jaar deze foto is getrokken, het zijn foto's die minstens 10 jaar verschillen in tijd terwijl dat hij ze beide vernoemt in de jaren '80. En plus staat er niet eens gemeld, zoals eigenlijk verplicht is, wordt de fotograaf niet vernoemd. Dat is toch in tegenspraak met jullie beleid?! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.105.96.252 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

U kunt de foto nomineren voor verwijdering, de link staat in de PC-versie als u op de foto klikt links in beeld. Uw toon begint mij echter behoorlijk de keel uit te hangen. Ik voel mij aangevallen, terwijl ik gewoon mijn werk doe als vrijwilliger. Zonder groet, laatst staan een vriendelijke groet, het lukt u immers ook niet een vriendelijke groet uit uw toetsenbord te persen. Veel succes met "uw" artikel, ik laat mij niet voor karretjes spannen door u verder. Elly (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wiki-portwine

Hello, Ellywa! Concerning this DR, please note that File:Taylor's Chip Dry White Port & Tonic.jpg seems to be still to be deleted, and that File:Quinta de Vargellas.jpg left a redlink at pt:Estação Ferroviária de Vargelas (shouldn’t CommonsDelinker remove it?). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, how strange. Usually when finishing a DR with a list of files, all are deleted. Apparently one was overlooked (if an automatic process can overlook something). I also removed the other image from pt. WP. Thanks for checking my work. Elly (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Albert bockstael-1634023801.jpg

File:Albert bockstael-1634023801.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!

94.105.96.252 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your deletion

There's a discussion about this deletion of yours on cy-wiki. Can you give reasons please why 'No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom' is relevant to this image? Thanks.

Secondly, deleting the image name from the cywiki cy:Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin by CommonsDelinker did not happen, as you can see by the red link on the right. Can you now delete all such redlinks caused by CommonsDelinker before it makes any further deletions please. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Llywelyn2000, the deleted image shows a window of a childcare/nursery in Cardiff covered with a clearly copyrighted sticker, of contemporary design. The photo was taken from outside. A photo taken in such a situation cannot be licenced with a free licence according to COM:FOP UK. Permission for publication would be required from the designer of the sticker or some other owner of the copyright.

Regarding your second remark. I am not the operator of Commons Delinker. It might be a bug or hickup of some sort. I will delete the red link for you in this case. Regards, Elly (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick response.

Do you have a link to the Commons Delinker talk page pls? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Goodmorning Llywelyn2000, you may find the user page on Meta: m:User:CommonsDelinker. The lower section shows a link to give feedback. I sincerely hope somebody can provide an alternative image for the article about Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. Elly (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think of looking on Meta! Thank you very much! And all the best! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Images of Evry Cathedral

Dear Ellywa: I am puzzled why you deleted the images of Evry Cathedral, by architect Mario Botta and photographer Pino Musi. Both Mr. Musi and Mr. Botta told me that they gave gave permission in writing to Wikimedia Commons via Upload Wizard. Could you double-check on this? Both the photographer and architect were pleased with the article. Many thanks. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the message that the architect, Mario Botta, sent to the Permissions site.

From: <removed> Subject: Images of Évry Cathedral for the English-language Wikipedia Date: 2 February 2021 at 14:57:37 CET To: <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Cc: "David Siefkin" <removed>

I hereby affirm that I, Mario Botta, the sole owner of the work depicted in the media as shown here, have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work, as shown here: <1_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><2_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><3_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><4_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><5_Evry-roof_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><6_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><7_Evry-apsidal-area_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><8_Evry-altar_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg><9_Evry-celebrant-chair_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg>

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. The photographer, Pino Musi, should also be given credit in the caption. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Mario Botta, the Copyright holder February 2, 2021

Firma-posta

I hope that, based on this permission granted, the images can be restored. The article really needs them. Thank you, David Siefkin (siefkindr̊yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiefkinDR (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

While you were editting, I composed this answer on your original message. I deleted the images, because no mention at all was made of a VRT ticket on the file pages. Being a VRT agent I now looked in our system and found indeed two tickets, Ticket:2021020210008105 and Ticket:2021021210005321.

Ticket:2021021210005321 contained permission of the architect for the images, but not of the photographer. It concerns these images:

• File:1_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:2_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:3_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:4_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:5_Evry-roof_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:6_Evry_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:7_Evry-apsidal-area_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:8_Evry-altar_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg
• File:9_Evry-celebrant-chair_photo_Pino-Musi.jpg

Based on this - the missing permission of the photographer - the permission is not complete, so the deletion is imho required (no. 5 was deleted apparently).

The other ticket:2021020210008105 contains permission of the architect as well as the photograper and concerns these images:

• File:1 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:2 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:3 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:4 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:5 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:6 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:7 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:8 Evry Cathedral.jpg
• File:9 Evry Cathedral.jpg

These files were nominated for deletion by me (not deleted yet). These indeed have a correct licencing and a template, which I overlooked, I will correct this and remove them from the DR, my apologies for that.

I will reopen the first mentioned ticket and ask again for permission. Perhaps it was overlooked because they thought everything was in order, due to two similar email threads. Elly (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward William Spencer 10th Duke of Devonshire.jpg

Hi Ellywa, shouldn't that be undeletion in 2023? 1952 (year of death) + 70 + 1 as usual, because the term of protection lasts until the end of the year? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 22:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

yes of course. Corrected, thanks. Elly (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

derivative work of copyrighted original design

Ellywa, since this was deleted File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.svg

this should also be deleted because it's an exact copy. File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.png

Please see this deletion request out there since Feb. 2021. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.png

Both fell under "derivative work of copyrighted original design" found on http://www.guaynabocity.gov.pr/post/guaynabos-city-hall/

Regards, --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for your message, keep up the good work! Elly (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikiportrait hulp gevraagd

Hallo Ellywa,

Via via allerlei gezoek ben ik bij jou terecht gekomen. Ik heb een portretfoto geüpload van Bram de Graaf. Ik heb nl. een artikel over hem gestart. Daarvoor heb ik eerst contact gezocht met deze persoon zelf. En verzocht om meer info omtrent geboorteplaats en data e.d. Daarbij ook een verzoek in gediend of hij een foto kon leveren die geheel rechten vrij moest zijn om voor Wikipedia bruikbaar te zijn. So far so good. Binnen 24 uur had een positieve reply e-mail van hem terug met de gevraagde gegevens en foto!

Ik hem op Commons geplaatst

Bram de Graaf

, maar je voelt hem al aankomen... brrrr rood stempel!

Nu zag ik bij Anya Niewierra, een artikel ook door mij gestart, dat er opeens een foto bij stond. Zo kwam ik via Wikiportrait bij jou terecht, maar daar krijg ik ook geen voet aan de grond. Hoe nu verder? Ik heb de mailwisseling met Bram de Graaf nog en zou die als bewijs kunnen sturen, maar waarheen, naar wie? Hopelijk weet jij een oplossing.

B.v.h.d. Algont (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Dag Algont, wat bedoel je precies met "bij wikiportret krijg ik geen voet aan de grond?" Heb jij voor mij het ticket#, dat zou je moeten zien in de mailcorrespondentie. Verder schrijf je bij de foto dat je toestemming hebt gekregen. Zou je die mail (incl. de header en het mailadres van de heer De Graaf) kunnen doorsturen aan permissions-nl@wikimedia.org? Hier staat trouwens de te doorlopen weg, zou je opnieuw beginnen: nl:Wikipedia:Contactpunt/Toestemming voor gebruik afbeelding vragen, of als je nog eens zoiets aan de hand hebt. Geef hier even een seintje svp als je een mail hebt gestuurd, dan kan ik die opvangen op het VRT-systeem. Groet en succes, Elly (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. een veel voorkomend misverstand is dat de persoon op de foto de auteursrechten bezit; dat is niet het geval, althans meestal niet. Als je niks formeel regelt heeft de fotograaf de auteursrechten. De toestemming voor gebruik moet dan ook komen van de fotograaf. Elly (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

De mailcorrespondentie komt er nu aan Elly, ik druk binnen 1 minuut op verzenden. Alvast bedankt. Mvg. Algont (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Algont, je hebt een aanvullende vraag over de fotograaf van de foto als het goed is in je mailbox. Ik heb ook de file pagina van de foto veranderd met "VRT Received", dat geeft wat meer rust. Even afwachten of er een reactie komt. Ik behandel de tickets niet 24/7 maar wel meerdere keren per week. Elly (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Top, Elly, hartelijk bedankt voor je hulp. Mvg. Algont (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 夜来南风起

Hi Ellywa, is this deletion a mistake? As you mentioned in the closing that "Deleted: per nomination and per COM:SIG China, signatures from China are copyrighted", however the all of the signature are for South Korean entertainers instead of China. From my understanding and intepretation of COM:SIG South Korea, it stated that "Not OK for calligraphic signatures", however the deleted files/signature are not of such. Here is a Google Images search of Korean calligraphy. — Paper9oll 14:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paper9oll, thanks for you message. Always a good idea to check my actions. Nobody commented on the request, submitted by SCP-2000. The name of the uploader 夜来南风起 was identified by Google translate as Chinese, two of the filenames indicated it was Chinese. However, when looking again, I note that some signatures are from Taiwan (Not OKAY per COM:SIG Taiwan) and four are indeed from South Korea. I will undelete these. Then it can be discussed again whether these images can indeed considered as calligraphy. Ellywa (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ellywa Ok thanks, I didn't notice it until the bot removed in from the articles in English Wikpedia. Will discuss it on the nomination page. — Paper9oll 00:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Bluball2.jpg

File:Bluball2.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!

Yann (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Onno Tamminga Alberda van Rensuma

Hoi Ellywa, je hebt File:Onno tamminga van alberda heer van scheltema nijenstein en rensuma ca 1710 oudste zoon van mello alberda-1593015710.jpeg geüpload en zoals je in de filenaam al aangaf zou dat schilderij rond 1710 gemaakt zijn. Je hebt vervolgens hier die afbeelding gebruikt bij een persoon met dezelfde naam die in 1754 geboren is. Dan lijkt mij dat die 1710 niet goed is òf dat het om een ander persoon gaat. De opgegeven link naar het Gronings Museum werkt helaas niet. Kun jij nog eens kijken wat hier fout gaat? - Robotje (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

dank voor het signaleren. Mijn fout. De foto van het schilderdij is met de titel geupload via Wikiportret. Ik heb het bij de verkeerde persoon geplaatst. Op nl:Alberda staat de juiste persoon met een rode link. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We maken allemaal wel eens fouten, ik ook. Prima dat het probleem nu opgelost is. - Robotje (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ObservatoryKa-Dar.jpg

Hi Ellywa, you've closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:ObservatoryKa-Dar.jpg as "Deleted", but File:ObservatoryKa-Dar.jpg is still there... Is that right? 194.186.207.105 13:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that was not right. Thanks so much for checking, the file has been deleted now. Ellywa (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:WWZD Wizard106.7 logo.png

The file is not out of scope. Its in use in WWZD-FM. Maybe the file does not qualify for COM:TOO, but {{Out of scope}} reason is incorrect. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That could not be seen from the file page on Commons as the file is hosted on English WP as well. Thats fine to me. You can add a comment to the Deletion request if you think that is usefull. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Voodoo logo.png

Hi. I think you deleted the wrong file in regards to this DR. I nominated the low-quality PNG for deletion when I uploaded a high-quality SVG, but the SVG was just deleted and the PNG kept. Could you check on this? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi IceWelder, thanks for checking my work, I corrected my mistake, sorry. Ellywa (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. :) IceWelder [✉] 16:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed 2008-05-12_United_Buddy_Bears,_Warsaw_Old_Town.jpg

Auch das ist entfernt !!! Wissen wohl nicht ein und aus, oder ??? --5 dec 2021 17:09‎ User:Julia Havefjord

Similar as above, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United Buddy Bears Exhibition in Warsaw. Please don't shout, and sign your messages with ~~~~. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

File:2018-04-17 Manuel Bucar.jpg

Hello Ellywa! What was the difference of this image, which was deleted, to the others from East Timor, which have been kept by you? Maybe there is just a little thing to do to make a restore possible? Greetings, --JPF (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I overlooked it was Timor Leste. The file is restored. Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! JPF (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed The_Golden_Buddy_Bears_in_Vienna.jpg

Wieso haben das entfernt ??? Woher nehmen das Recht ???? (Anon IP)

I deleted this photo (and others of these bears)) because it was nominated for deletion by somebody, please note Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Golden Buddy Bears in Vienna.jpg. I agreed with the arguments and nobody else added comments for keeping it. If you have arguments why these bears are not copyrighted and why a photo can be maintained with a free licence om Commos you can ask for undeletion at this page: Commons:Undeletion requests. Ellywa (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In Penang (Malaysia) in 2016, there was a scandal.

The United Buddy Bears travelling exhibition promoting peace and harmony was cancelled after a "hadith" was found on the hip of one of the bear statues. The United Buddy Bears, an exhibition of 140 two-metre tall bear statues, was scheduled to be on display at the Padang Kota Lama in George Town from 27 August to 30 October 2016. According to Penang MUFTI Wan Salim Wan Mohd Noor, a quote from the Prophet Mohammed was written in Arabic on the hips of one of the bear statues on display. Here, however, the mufti was mistaken. The quote, or hadith, translated means: "Treat others as you would have them treat you." This quote is the "Golden Rule", which exists in all world religions and therefore has universal validity.

"This exhibition is meant to promote peace and unity across all races, religions and cultures," but the presence of such a text apparently led to misunderstandings, Mufti said. According to the United Buddy Bears website, each "Buddy Bear" is individually designed by artists on behalf of their home countries. "The diverse design of the Buddy Bears - always typical of the respective country - allows visitors to experience a journey around the globe," he said. "The Buddy Bears stand together 'hand in hand' and symbolise the future vision of a peaceful world," the website says. Buddy Bear activities have also raised more than 2.5 million euros for children in need, which have been passed on through Unicef and local children's charities, it says.

So far, so good. Or also: so bad.

In Denmark, we have known for some time that radical Islamists persecute many things. For example, they delete everything worldwide that has to do with the Golden Rule. In this respect, it would be welcome if you could reverse this deletion. Thank you very much. Julia Havefjord (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Julia Havefjord: Thank you for your explanation. I understand the importance of the images and the peacefull message of the United Buddy Bears. I noted there are many more on Commons, in the article Buddy Bears and in Category:Buddy Bears which have never been considered it seems for their copyright. Copyright is complex, especially COM:Freedom of Panorama is different in countries, even within Europe. The best way to proceed is to ask the artist or the artists which designed a particular bear if they are willing to licence one of the deleted images with a free licence. Please closely follow the procedure outlined on VRT. If successfull the image can be undeleted. I hope you can find a willing artist, perhaps there is a forum or discussion group dedicated to the Golden Buddy Bears?

By the way, I looked into a formal Buddy Bear website, and it was clearly stated on the impressum] that all work reproduced on that website is copyrighted.

All the best, Ellywa (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick reply. Yes, you are right that the Buddy Bears are protected by copyright.

As far as I know, the initiators Eva and Klaus Herlitz appreciate the work of Wikipedia very much.I know both of them from a meeting 1 1/2 years ago in Berlin. In spring I received a bereavement card that Eva Herlitz had died in a tragic accident. Eva Herlitz is the one who designed the two Gold Bears! Her legacy is that the message of the Buddy Bears or the United Buddy Bears lives on: "We have to get to know each other better ..., ... it makes us understand one another better, trust each other more, and live together more peacefully."

Unfortunately, I am not a Wikipedia expert and do not know what to do now. Can't you help? THANK YOU !!!

@Julia Havefjord: The way to proceed is described here: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder. You should first know who are the heirs of Eva Herlitz. Formally they own the copyright now she has unfortunately died. Then you mail them using the described text. A volunteer of the VRT-system will do the rest if a permission email is received. Ellywa (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I will try to call Mr. Klaus Herlitz or send him an e-mail. I assume that Mr Herlitz will then get in touch. Where should he send his e-mail? To which address? Julia Havefjord (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read closely the text of the link I gave in my previous post. Ellywa (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Appealing decision for the file File:⺦-order.gif

I write this to you because I disagree with you decision of keeping the File:⺦-order.gif(DR)
You gave this reason: "I see no valid reason for deletion of this file on the policy page, Commons:Deletion policy.".
There do is a reason to delete this file on the Deletion policy, on this link (Redundant/bad quality).
Quote: "Redundant or low-quality files only get deleted on a case-by-case basis... "
Quote from wiktionary: Redundant = "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary, no longer needed."

I hope I made myself clear: the File:⺦-order.gif was created only as an animation request(which is on this category), to be replaced for an animated version, but because an animated version was already created, which is this , then the File:⺦-order.gif is redundant(no longer needed).
Those were my arguments, that file should be deleted. FanNihongo (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have to go with all arguments on the DR. As User:Sarang wrote, the files have a different style. I am not a specialist on Chinese calligraphy of course, but I agree the images are different. And therefore File:⺦-order.gif is not redundant (because different) and should not be deleted. Perhaps there is another version showing the same style? I did not look for that, but if it is not present, I am still of the opinion the file is not redundant. If you still disagree on this, you can nominate the image again for deletion. Another admin might decide differently. For reference the three images again:

Regular Style CJKV SVG (<1K)
(Radical 090 (2).svg)

animated GIF (8K)
(丬-order.gif)

GIF (2K)
(⺦-order.gif, now just ⺦.gif)
file discussed on the DR

Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for your explanation. FanNihongo (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken deletion

Hi Ellywa, I see you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armenian place names renamed in Turkey.png. I think this deletion is a mistake, as explained at this better-attended deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armenian places renamed.svg. The crux of the matter is that while the original map is subject to copyright for its creative elements, the data displayed on the map (the list of places renamed and their locations) is not subject to copyright. I can't see the map because it was deleted, but unless it is actually a copy of the original map, it is not correct to delete it. Also User:AntiCompositeNumber Buidhe (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, thanks, I was not aware of the other request, which is indeed showing a higly similar map, but it is not exactly the same. I deleted the image on the basis of the motivation given by AntiCompositeNumber. If you think it is needed to restore the image, and if you do not think it is redundant (which is also a valid reason for deletion) please pose your request on Commons:Undeletion requests. Regards, Elly (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: After this succesful undeletion reqeust, the file was deleted again per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armenian place names renamed in Turkey.png. Ellywa (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Пачовський поштівка-1.jpg

Вітаю, Ellywa! Прошу відновити файл «Пачовський_поштівка-1», тому що він належить до суспільного надбання. За свідченнями Василя Пачовського, поштівка (світлина) з його портретом і словами «Від Кавказу по Сян…» була видана одночасно з поемою «Сон української ночі» у 1903 році. Видавець поеми і поштівки – Михайло Петрицький. Джерело: Василь Пачовський. Автобіографія // Науковий вісник Ужгородського університету: збірка наукових статей. Серія Філологія. Вип. 9. - Ужгород, 2004. - С. 140. Ці дані мені вдалося встановити лише недавно і тому вони не були вказані при публікації фото у Вікіпедії.--Zulemyr (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Translated in Dutch with Google translate:

Hello Ellywa! Herstel het bestand "Pachovsky_poshtovka-1", omdat het tot het publieke domein behoort. Volgens Vasyl Pachovsky werd in 1903 gelijktijdig met het gedicht "Droom van de Oekraïense nacht" een ansichtkaart (foto) met zijn portret en de woorden "Van de Kaukasus tot Xiang..." gepubliceerd. De uitgever van het gedicht en de ansichtkaart is Mykhailo Petrytsky. Bron: Vasyl Pachovsky. Autobiografie // Scientific Bulletin of Uzhgorod University: een verzameling wetenschappelijke artikelen. Filologie serie. VIP. 9. - Uzhhorod, 2004. - P. 140. Ik heb deze gegevens pas onlangs kunnen vaststellen en daarom werden ze niet gespecificeerd bij het publiceren van de foto op Wikipedia.

Hi Zulemyr, that is good news. I undeleted the photo. Could you be so kind to include the information you found on the file page? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In Ukranian with Google translate:

Вітаю Zulemyr, це гарна новина. Я відновив видалення фотографії. Не могли б ви бути так люб'язні, щоб включити інформацію, яку ви знайшли на сторінці файлу? З повагою, Ellywa (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Дякую. Інформацію обов’язково оновлю. Thanks. Be sure to update the information. Zulemyr (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

R.E. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Day 191 - West Midlands Police - Firearms Unit, 1987 (14722502254).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Day 144 - West Midlands Police - Armed Response Training (7254557460).jpg

Hello there,

I was notified that you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Day 191 - West Midlands Police - Firearms Unit, 1987 (14722502254).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Day 144 - West Midlands Police - Armed Response Training (7254557460).jpg, and in both cases your reasoning was "you can change the licence on the file page. Whichever licence is correct, the image can be maintained". However, I feel that you misidentified my concerns about licensing.

As I stated in the deletion requests, West Midlands Police (henceforth referred to as WMP) is a British police force under the auspices of the Home Office (compared to, say, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary) and therefore works published by the WMP would (presumably) fall under Crown Copyright. Works that fall under Crown Copyright generally require to be released under the Open Government Licence (henceforth referred to as OGL) for them to be freely reusable, and this release must be an expressly stated one. I saw nothing on WMP's Flickr page to indicate that OGL licencing was actually in effect for the images concerned; while the files were published under a CC licence, I personally would not be treating this as synonymous with an OGL release.

Thus the issue was not whether licence X applies instead of licence Y but whether the absence of a specific licence that is normally needed for a file to be properly reusable overrides any other licencing that might actually be present - in this case, whether the absence of OGL licensing in relation to a probable Crown Copyright work overrides the fact of the work being published under Flickr's CC licensing. And yes, I am aware of how CC licensing is irrevocable under most (if not all) circumstances, but as a British Wikimedia user posting images created by a Britsh police force, I do nevertheless retain a degree of wariness.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dvaderv2, Thanks for your explanation. But I do not understand the required action. When closing the deletion request me as an admin can either delete a file, or keep a file. I decided to keep the files. Do you wish to delete both files, for instance on the basis of COM:PRP? Ellywa (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa, thanks for replying. Yes, deletion was the original intention. However, I should note that, given the vast amount of material from WMP's Flickr account on Wikimedia Commons, deleting my uploaded WMP files would invariably require that other people's WMP files be deleted too. I actually started a CfD on the issue a good while back (Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Photos from westmidlandspolice), and initiated the deletion requests on my own WMP uploads as a test case to establish whether anything wrong had actually occurred. Also, I have come to believe that, at the time of the CfD and subsequent deletion requests, I was under a state of mind that led me to act rashly (with this state of mind briefly returning when I initially saw your response to my deletion requests), and I now believe that it would be more prudent to check whether the WMP is fine with its Flickr materials being hosted on Wikimedia and then to act according to the answer received (i.e. keep the files if a positive answer is received, delete the files if a negative answer is received, look to invoke COM:PRP if a neutral/middling answer is received or there is no response).--Dvaderv2 (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your concerns now. I think a broader discussion is required then a simple DR. You can reopen a DR with the same files, or some more, but try to get more attention to it then one admin only. Or perhaps you could first try to contact the WMP about their standpoint. Ellywa (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dvaderv2: I am sure you know this all, but perhaps this might be of any help, where it is stated The Open Government License, used for a large amount of crown copyright data and content, is intended to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. The source of this might be this text: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. The OGLv2.0 is Open Definition compliant. And I do wonder also, would somebody risk a fine or something if they would reuse an image from Flickr of Westmidlandspolice on good faith that it is published with the CC-BY-SA2.0 license? Personally I do not think so. I think the Police likes the interface of Flickr, and choses to publish the photos on that spot, where they cannot chose for CC-BY-SA4.0. But perhaps I am thinking too practical, ignoring the juridical problems and the differences between CC-BY-SA2.0 and CrownCopyright-2.0/CC-BY-SA4.0 Ellywa (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cornhorn

You have closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cornhorn as Deleted, but you have not deleted File:DY-STM-Road-Marking-Machine-Working-in-Kenya.jpg, although you have deleted the other nominated files. This looks like a mistake. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, sometimes the mass deletion procedure skips a file, perhapse in this case because it was bolded on the DR. The file is deleted now. Ellywa (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)