User talk:LtPowers

Image:RIT art - The Sentinel.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:RIT art - The Sentinel.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Also Image:RIT art - The Sentinel closeup.jpg William Avery 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Martines, pilotari

(copied from the Village pump)

Hi, one of the most reputed Valencian pilota players, Martines, has sent me a pic to illustrate his article. The picture (obviously) was not taken by himself, but by a professional photographer who was hired by Martines' club to take some pics during the first match played at the courtfield named after Martines' name.

My question is: Would that pic acceptable to Wikimedia? Martines donates it freely. He is not the author but he has the property, since they hired the professional photographer. If so, which license should be applied? Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 06:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the club would own the license, since the photograph was taken under contract with them. (Of course, the contract could have stated any number of things, including that the photographer retained the rights.) If Martines owns the club, then it's okay; otherwise you need permission from the club. (In either case we can assume the club owns the image if they say they do.) As for a license, that's not up to us or to you; the owner of the photograph must release it under specific terms. See Commons:Licensing for what terms we require. Powers 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply in your own Talk page)

Yes, so I think. If the club hired a professional photographer to take pics of them playing, then those pics are property of the club, not the photographer, who keeps being the author.

Regarding the license, Martines gives the pic freely, as I said. I explained him the terms about derivative works, possible future commercial uses, and so on. And he agreed. The problem is that I can't find a proper license for this case.

The closest I've found is PD-Author, but this is not true since Martines is not the author. Or GFDL-self, since the owner of the pic gives it freely.

The problem remains in which is the proper license, as you see. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Coat of arms of Gagauzia.svg

Hi, from your latest comment on this one it seems you are inclined to support the image? If this is the case I would suggest you place a support vote on the candidate. It is due to being closed as "undecided", but I will give you a chance to vote on it, in case you just forgot to vote. (You do not have to vote on it of course). -- Slaunger 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 4aaf29faddcfc82b6783c88fc5d28da1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
an illustration of the "six degrees of separation" concept.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose This should be SVG to be reusable at least. -- Nichtich 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree it should be SVG but as long as it looks good at the review resolution, it should pass the criteria, shouldn't it? Powers 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with the user above... the criteria clearly states, "Its usability in printed format is not considered." All that matters is how it looks at the review size. – flamurai 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not where the real value of SVGs comes in. The scalability's just a nice little bonus. Rocket000 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment Again, agreed, but modifiability also isn't one of the criteria. Powers 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment Seems like an svg would be a much more "valuable image". We can always change the criteria. --Calibas 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        •  Comment As I see it, the whole concept of the project is to reward images based primarily on their content, not technical or aesthetic quality. If the criteria were changed to increase the technical standards, the focus of the entire project would change. – flamurai 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          •  Comment Having a file in the most suitable file format is certainly something which adds value. If we have not stated that explicitly in the guidelines today, I think we should consider adding it. And I agree SVG is the most suited format for such an illustration. However, we are reviewing if it is the best we have, thus the file format in this review is not that important. Suppose this image was promoted and later challenged in an MVR of the "same" image in svg format, i would certainly favor the SVG as it is much better suited for making adjustments and derivative work. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Are there more relevant categories to place this in? It's only in Networks, and that seems pretty generic to me. It's definitely a graph, so it belongs somewhere in Graphs, but there's probably something down that hierarchy that's more appropriate. – flamurai 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info I've added it to Category:Sociological diagrams per your recommendation. Powers 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Just fascinating and inviting to know more about it. --Foroa 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The way the outlying nodes are scattered around with all the lines crossing makes the illustration very confusing. For example, there is a blue node directly between and above nodes 2 and 3 that appears to be connected to nodes 1 and 4. If this were the case, nodes 2 and 3 would be bypassed, so it would invalidate the graph (only 5 degrees of separation). Not a great illustration of the concept, so this fails criterion 3. – flamurai 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with the opposers that there is room for improvement, but a VI does not have to be perfect. For me it still illustrates the subject well. It could be done better, sure, but that is also what we have MVR for. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Agree -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cinderella Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support meets criteria. best of the crop --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Raisins.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support seems to meet all relevant criteria, although the description can be improved.--Inkwina (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal on Category:Guide signs

Please support your opinion on the merge proposal for Category:Guide signs. Thanks, Sehome Bay (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

your edit on COM:WP

1) "we have plenty of pictures of that": Seems that you know a bit more than I do. Or do you just mean Category:naked children?
2) "Child porn is as in-scope as real pornography is" I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that it's in scope or note.
Please tell me! --D-Kuru (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I meant your suggested edit. I just mixed two of your contibutions.

What you mean with "we have pictures of lynchings"? Are you talking about something like Category:Firing squad? If Yes: Do you think that CP is as immoral as pictures of lynchings?

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg

Hi. Thanks for your vigilence in trying to avoid copyright violations. As File:6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg was indentended to doccument something other than the appearance of the copyrighted character and has been on Commons for more than 2 years without a previous challenge, I've changed your speedy delete tag to a deletion request listing: Commons:Deletion requests/File:6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg. I've also listed an image with similar situation Commons:Deletion requests/File:6FlagsDaffyFloodlines.jpg. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lacrosse categories

Category discussion notification

Several lacrosse categories you made have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Yarnalgo (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 3e92154b437e34c5ea0a5fd1f7c094c8

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocktails Neon Sign.jpg

Thanks for bringing this copyvio to my attention. When I originally uploaded the photo several years ago, it never really occurred to me that the underlying sign might be copyrighted, too. The fact that is was labeled "vintage" also led me to believe that it was old enough not to have to worry about it, especially since there are soooo many similar signs out there. But, thanks to your RFD and an extensive Google Images search, I located the manufacturer, and it's still very much in production. They don't want to release it under a free license (which I understand), so it turns out it was a copyvio--just like you thought. Unfortunately, that also makes all the work I did on the other three images copyvios, too, because they are derivative works of the original. Oh well. I created a new image completely from scratch in SVG format, and that's actually better than a PNG file anyway. All's well that ends well. Thanks again for spotting the problem. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I've been around long enough to understand that this wasn't personal, and it was the right thing to do. I care very much about copyrights, and I would never knowingly violate a copyright. Sometimes people seem to go overboard with flagging things as possible copyvios. I initially assumed that this was such a case. But, I looked into it more, and you were absolutely correct. The extra work wasn't a big deal either, because now we have a freely-licensed image without any murky copyright issues. That's better for the project and everyone. Have a great weekend! --Willscrlt (Talk) 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Tapa.jpg

Hi, I just take the picture. Why? CaptainHaddock (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it's a old thing is coming from the dining room of my garnd-mother. CaptainHaddock (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Map_of_Atlantic_Hockey_states.svg

File:Map_of_Atlantic_Hockey_states.svg 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!

Powers (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SVG text different after upload

Hi,

Thanks for looking into this. Is this something that should be fixed? I didn't do any tags manually, I simply added text in inkscape. Certainly there is a "standard", right? Which side (inkscape or wikicommons) isn't complying?

Daviddoria (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Orleans_County_(New_York)_outline.jpg

File:Orleans_County_(New_York)_outline.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!

Powers (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

Greetings. Just wanted to let you know I've closed your RfA as successful and granted you the sysop flag. Congratulations! If you need any help or have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best of luck, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hello LtPowers, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nova Scotia, Canada.svg

Hi,

Could you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nova Scotia, Canada.svg? --Dereckson (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

regarding Midnight68

Hi. At commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Kogaru1.jpg you said "I have seen intermediary forms of this image that prove (to my satisfaction, at least), that issues of authorship should be moot." ... where are these located? I'd like to review them, as I'm not satisfied that these are the work of Midnight68. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding; I've been on vacation. You can see the links Midnight68 provided at wikitravel:shared:User talk:LtPowers#Dear LtPowers. I found them convincing, although I'm sure there's room for disagreement. Powers (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not convinced, but I'm more convinced than I was, if you see what I mean. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat. At this point, it seems to me that we should be assuming good faith; Midnight68 seems to have been cooperative enough to have earned that, at least. Powers (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AGF is the way to go. Since I'm at least partially convinced if not completely, :) that's the appropriate thing to do. Especially since others are fully convinced at this point. Thanks for the elaboration. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Viewing Deleted Images

"First of all, Jim, you know you (as an admin) can view a deleted image without having to restore it, right? ... Powers (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)"

Actually, I don't know how to do that. I have thought several times about a tutorial for new Admins, but I thought that the only important thing that most of us seem to miss is DelReqHandler. Obviously, I'm missing this one -- I have been in the habit of restoring and then redeleting.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

When you go to a page that's been deleted, you'll see the deletion log there. In each entry in the log, you'll see a link that says "view/restore" (I assume you know this since you know how to restore a page). On the restoration page, you can see that each revision to the page is linked, as well as each upload if it's an image. If you click on the time/date stamp you can see the deleted revision or image without having to restore it. Powers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha, thanks very much. Do we actually document that somewhere? How did you learn it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's documented anywhere. Before I became an admin, I think I knew it was possible to do this. And since the link in the deletion log says "(view/restore)", I'm pretty sure I quickly figured out how. =) Powers (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox1 would be welcome, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. =) Powers (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Klick. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

CfD for College athletic program categories

Category discussion notification

Categories for college athletic programs have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Spyder_Monkey (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can this be added in the template? --Vinie007 (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Powers (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my newbie question about that Red Sonja so quickly. I will carefully evaluate if (and if yes, how) that pic is usable in the Red Sonja or Cosplay WP articles, and I will keep future discussions in the Village Pump. X2000 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:WDW_New_Fantasyland_logo.jpg

File:WDW_New_Fantasyland_logo.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!

Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Jan Wellens de Cock Calvary.jpg

Hi, Thanks for fixing this file. Is this something I can do myself as a simple user? If not I have a number of other files in which the latest uploaded version doens't show properly:

• File:Jan Wellens de Cock Calvary.jpg
• File:Peter Paul Rubens - Raising of the Cross - WGA20437.jpg

Do you mind having a look at them. Or am I too impatient and is this a problem that is fixed automatically? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• • They look fine to me. Thumbnail updating has been a persistent problem the last few months. Powers (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry I meant these 2 files:
      • File:Dutch V.O.C. factory in Hoegly (Hugli-Chuchura, Bengal)(Hendrik van Schuylenburgh, 1665).jpg
      • File:Peter Paul Rubens - Raising of the Cross - WGA20437.jpg
    • The first should show no frame and the second white instead of black dividing lines. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
      • • They still look fine to me. Powers (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BadJPEG template discussion

Dcoetzee has modified the English message in BadJPEG template to prohibit its use for scans and photographs [1]. I think, such modification is irrelevant and was not agreed upon during the discussion. Moreover, no alternatives were proposed. I have expressed my concerns in the follow-ups. However, I'm afraid that my arguments are/will not be considered simply because of the personal dislike [2]. If you have time, please comment on the situation (link to the discussion). Any constructive opinion is greatly welcomed. Thanks in advance! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name
Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo MZK Konin.png

Hi!

Can you explain me, why you delete this file? What was wrong with this image? Flyz1 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. So what can I do, to publish this work legally? Is it possible? Flyz1 (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Spammer or houndee?

Care to give us some neutral admin input here and on the image page talk? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

you didn't delete the pic but closed the discussion

Hi - you forgot to delete the pic - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tristane_Banon_2011.jpg - Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Old newspaper photos

Could be quite a find. None of your photo links work. It would be good to find a way to give fixed addresses to these. You need to find and add Stone's death date if you want to use the 70-year template. Dankarl (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid of that for the links; the links to the images are permanent but I haven't found a way to permanently reference the archive data pages. Stone died in 1936; what's the best way to specify that on the image description page? Powers (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket provided

The ticket has been provided. Who removes the tag? [3]? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For keeping NHL fans everywhere well informed concerning the divisional changes coming next year with your awesome and timely new map. It is much appreciated! Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Logos

You have been active in a deletion request about the Disney Junior logo. You might be interested in knowing that there is a similar debate ongoing about several logos at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#PD-textlogo; second opinions. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tiao munchen.jpg

see [4], [5],copyvio--shizhao (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi LtPowers, isn't there a negation missing in the second sentence (It's sad that everyone can just behave like adults.) of your comment on COM:AN? --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably. My apologies. Powers (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

State of Sequoyah map

I have replied at the link above.--Dcheagle 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments.--Dcheagle 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you’re okay with that…

…I think it may be preferable to remove my comment on the VP. It is not as if it actually helps with an otherwise perfectly valid discussion. Apologizes for reacting with what can quite clearly be labeled as “trolling”. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Cross-posted on User talk:Rd232

your comment on COM:AN/U

Hi LtPowers, you have placed your comment[6] in the middle of a comment by another user[7], so that now the upper part of the other's comment is associated with your comment. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI regarding college athletic conference maps

There is a discussion on the Project College Football talk page on Wikipedia regarding the overview maps that are used in the InfoBoxes of college athletic conference pages. We're trying to develop some sort of consensus on how the maps should be built (which states are/aren't shaded, colors, non-full members, etc.) and your input would be welcome. The discussion is here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency Mdak06 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios on Wikitravel

Do you know what to do with copyright violations on Wikitravel? Take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quetta, Pakistan - sunset.jpg. The image is on both Commons and Wikitravel, and I suppose that it should be removed from Wikitravel and also from future forks of Wikitravel. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, though the Wikitravel data that will be used for the fork has already been archived and is not being updated. I can delete it from Wikitravel, though, which is at least a start. Powers (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read somewhere that the archived copy isn't being updated. Still, it is better to have it deleted from Internet Brand's website in case someone would decide to copy it to Commons again at some point. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Help Request

Hello, can you please help out here? its been a while since these maps and a few others have been posted. Thank you--باسم (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear LtPowers, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand

this edit. First, what do you mean by "replaced with a high-res simulacrum"? The SVG file, File:Botón Me gusta.svg? And even if that SVG file exists now, what does that change regarding the decisions to keep the Facebook-thumbs-up-sign? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 02:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't change the decisions, but there's no longer any way to pictorially represent the file that was kept as "too simple for copyright" because the file has been overwritten. Powers (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, I overlooked that. The original file could be changed back to the original version however, since (I think) the new version is not from Facebook and so doesn't match the file description. Alternatively, the original version could be referenced by a mere link like this (like the "not ok" logos at COM:TOO#Austria). --Rosenzweig τ 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The file description should likely be updated, then. Using Facebook's icon causes confusion and (as evidenced by the multiple DRs) controversy, making the new icon better in every conceivable fashion. Powers (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So what do you propose? --Rosenzweig τ 21:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your idea of linking manually to the original icon would probably work okay, if you feel it's important to retain that information. Powers (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I do. I've reinstated the diagrams section with a link as mentioned. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Aachener Tor.jpg

Could you split this up and then tag the Wikivoyage file with "NowCommons"? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Powers (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Next task: Please split File:Byodo-in Uji01pbs2640.jpg and then tag [8]. I'm requesting these Wikivoyage files directly since everything is a bit urgent before the move. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Powers (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Next one: File:El Paso Museum of Art. El Paso, Texas.jpg / [9]. Also, is the elephant PD-old, de minimis or a FOP issue? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not an elephant; you're looking at the rear end of a horse. It's one of several copies of Vaquero by Luis Jiménez, and it was moved last year to Arkansas. If you look at the upload history here on Commons, you can see that in 2010, the photographer erased the sculpture from the image, presumably on copyright concerns. The erasure is about as well done as could possibly be expected, but considering we now have a better image of the entrance without the copyrighted sculpture, I don't see a compelling reason to perform a split. I recommend marking the WV file with the "Ignore" tag and changing any articles that use it to use File:El Paso Museum of Art. El Paso, Texas.jpg instead. Powers (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Next one: File:Meran 1.jpg / [10]. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And also File:Jinpukaku05 1920.jpg / [11]. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Both  Done Powers (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, next one: File:Tottori castle05 1920.jpg / [12]. Sorry for bugging you about all of this, but as you know, the Wikivoyage image migration is a bit urgent. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Someone's gotta do it, and your thoroughness and dedication is much appreciated. I'm just happy to help in whatever small ways I can.  Done Powers (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Another one: File:Regensburg cathedral front.jpg / [13]. Also be careful about that one: the first upload seems to be PD, but the second one seems to be GFDL (see edit summary). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm thinking I'd skip this one. The original upload is clearly inferior to the second one, and the perspective correction is a valuable retouching that I don't think needs to be split out. YMMV. Powers (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A Little Help

Hey, can I have a little help here please. It is a little urgent because of the recency in the Politics of Ghana.

(talk) 16:01, 22 December, 2012 (UTC)

• • I still need some help.

    

(talk) 16:23, 23 December, 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

joe3teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oussaamaa (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013 Rochester Lilac Festival - Flower City Lilac - 05.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 Good --Anna Anichkova 09:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyfraud by New_York_City_Municipal_Archives

Re. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/05#New_York_City_Municipal_Archives someone should inform the New_York_City_Municipal_Archives director/staff that W:Copyfraud is a crime with significant penalties, which increase if it's willful, as it would be if it continued after they were notified of the law… so they might want to look into whether it's a good idea to keep up the possibly overreaching claims you mentioned. --Elvey (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Copyfraud is indeed a serious crime... and a serious accusation. If those images were unpublished for a long time, they may yet be copyrighted. Powers (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A little tact could go a long way; I wouldn't suggest you present the situation to them as I did to you! Surely, for example, at least one of the posters at https://nycma.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/RECORDSPHOTOUNITARC~34~34 was published 'round WW II w/o a copyright notice, however. I don't see this could being anything other than P.D. The USG made the bonds, so no copyright at all, and the photo is a faithful reproduction, so no copyright either. --Elvey (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can no longer find where they assert copyright over all of the images. They do paint with a broad brush on their ordering page, claiming that any commercial use is disallowed without permission without providing an exception for PD works, but I can't find any place where they actively assert copyright over any specific PD image. I doubt there's really anything actionable. Powers (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New URL for OgreBot's old version filemover

Hello. I've identified you as a user who has previously used OgreBot's old version filemover. Please note the new URL: toollabs:magog/oldver.php. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland Statues

Hi LtPowers, I'm not sure where is the best place to place this, but my image of Cleveland statues is the well know Soldiers and Sailors Monument in downtown Cleveland that was completed in the 1800's making it well past any copyrite issues? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers%27_and_Sailors%27_Monument_%28Cleveland%29

Yes indeed. Thanks for letting me know; it would be helpful if you could identify important items like that in your photos by describing them on the image description page. They should also be appropriately categorized, as that also helps those of us looking for inadvertent copyright violations. Powers (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Sorcerers Hat at Disneys Hollywood Studios by eddison moreno.jpg

File:Sorcerers Hat at Disneys Hollywood Studios by eddison moreno.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!

RJaguar3 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Downtown Rochester, NY HDR by patrickashley.jpg

File:Downtown Rochester, NY HDR by patrickashley.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!

Patrickashley (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear LtPowers, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2016 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

De-adminship

Hi LtPowers! This is just to inform you that earlier today, you had your adminship privileges revoked on Meta by a Wikimedia steward; as you are an experienced editor, I added you to the autopatrolled user group instead (which doesn't affect your editing anyway). Thank you for you service as an administrator, and I hope you will stay active on Commons as a regular contributor. Of course, please do feel free to re-apply for adminship when you get more active :-) Thank you! odder (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Disneyworld overview map.svg requires updating

Hi LtPowers,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed File:Disneyworld overview map.svg is out of date. Downtown Disney is now Disney Springs. It's name and the roads near it need updating. Could you update it? Thanks again. Elisfkc (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm ramping up to make major updates to the voy:Walt Disney World page and its subpages, and updating the maps will be part of that. But I appreciate the reminder; I might have overlooked that one. Powers (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Downtown Rochester, NY HDR by patrickashley.jpg

File:Downtown Rochester, NY HDR by patrickashley.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!

2604:6000:61C7:2B00:1C5C:282B:98C2:3171 22:43, 8 October 2018 (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)