User talk:Samulili

Treasures of the past:

• /Archive1: Image:Pallo hautausmaalla.jpg, resolution, Paramecium.jpg, Afbeelding:Paramecium.jpg, Paramecium.jpg, Peniculida, PNG --> SVG, Florence, Bildlizenzen, 10 Welcome log tips, Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png, Regarding Image:BYwork.jpg, Admin, Image:Vigeland stampvoetend jochie.jpg, Sorry by the links, Image Tagging Image:AugustWitkowski-popiersie.jpg, Etelän kanaalin tunneli, AT1.jpg, Why you deleted my image?, 20 categorising images, Template:Deletion_requests#Image:21july-london-bombings-suspect1.jpg, Please restore Image:Lion snarling.jpg, Commons-l subscription, Kathryn Holloway Image deletion question, User talk:Hangyy

Hi Samulili ! And tank you for your piece of advice. Thanks to you, I know now that it's necessary to categorize every new picture. I will pay careful attention for my futures contributions. --Icarus Vitae Inari 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you want to delete the uploaded file of the Asturian comarcas, I've indicated everything I could with that file, see:
Summary & Description: coloured version of comarcas of Asturias ; Source: User:Llull ; Date: 15-07-2006 ; Author: User:Llull; Permission: Public Domain ; Other versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comarcas_of_Asturias.png ; Licensing This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its author, Llull. This applies worldwide. In some countries this is not legally possible; if so: Llull grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. File history: Legend: (cur) = this is the current file, (del) = delete this old version, (rev) = revert to this old version. Click on date to see the file uploaded on that date. (del) (cur) 18:02, 15 July 2006 . . Torero (Talk | contribs) . . 270×108 (28,824 bytes) ({{Information |Description=coloured version of comarcas of Asturias |Source=English & Asturian Wikipedias |Date=15-07-2006 |Author=User:Llull |Permission=GFDL presumed by Jmabel |other_versions=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comarcas_of_Asturias.p)

What's left? How much information do you need? Be clear or not. Regards, Torero 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advises! I have already put my photographs in some galleries and categories. I wonder how to delete photos once I have uploaded them? I have a duplicated picture I would like to remove. Thanks in advance --Yoda 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Do you mean pictures Image:Jiquilisco.jpg and Image:Bahia jiquilisco.jpg? You can add {{badname|Bahia jiquilisco.jpg}} to Image:Jiquilisco.jpg. -Samulili 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made a couple of attempts to get a license for wikipedia for specific images. Fortunately I was successful and I have uploaded them. I just want to make sure that the information I put on the file page is sufficient to not have it deleted. I rarely come to commons and don't want to see the image removed. See Image:Congdon-headshot.PNG for an example. Thx in adv Trödel 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samulili,

You've just deleted the image shown recently under the link : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Big_sheep.jpg

I'm a little bit surprized because on the 16th of July I sent a message to info-en at wikimedia.org in order to clear the copyright status of this creation. Please note that I didn't upload myself this work. Here my message :

Hi,

I've just seen the creation which is shown here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Big_sheep.jpg

There is a question about its copyright status. This work is released under the "free art license" : http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ This license is quite similar to the cc-by-sa.

The creation comes from a project that Regina Celia Pinto (Brazil) and myself developed about one year ago. The project is called "bigsheep" and can be found under the following adress (just scroll down to find the picture) : http://bigsheep.blogspot.com

So I think I've cleared the question of the copyright status. If you want to know more : just ask me !

So I would like to have your comments.

Waiting for your answer.

Best regards.

Isabel

The image page had the following information:

A imagem faz parte do acervo de criações coletivas do Projeto BIG Sheep. As autoras responsáveis pelo projeto são Regina Célia Pinto e Isabel Saij.

I will restore it and I hope you will add the required information using the {{Information}} template. Best regards. -Samulili 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the Photo Informatin template and filled it out for you, it may need checking and update informaion, gracius amigo WayneRay 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Thank you for the quick answers and actions. Best regards Copyleftisa 17:47 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, saw you deleted Image:Imperia sanremo.jpg. I restored it because it was tagged, after an anonymous edit had deleted the license info. Not really your fault but anyway just wanted to let you know. NielsF 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I marked one of the two, can't remember which, as a duplicate, now. -Samulili 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have had an edit conflict which I didn't notice, anyhow I orphaned and deleted image:Sanremo 0001.jpg. NielsF 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted Image:Milton Keynes Central Station - surely you could have left a message at user talk:Concrete Cowboy  :( --86.132.241.161 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, it was another user's pic of Milton Keynes Central. But you also deleted a few others of his that were really good. Couldn't you have left a message on w:talk:Milton Keynes?[reply]

I wish I could answer that question, but I'm afraid I don't know which images you are talking about. Recently I have deleted hundreds of images that have not had a source or license for several weeks. These pictures you refer to must have been among them. -Samulili 08:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The version you protected is the consensus version, so I am extremely pleased with the protection. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, it's not the the wrong version? This is why admins should pick the version they protect totally at random :) -Samulili 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the Italian embassy about the colors and see what happens next. I had to use one Embassy before to sort out the flag mess at Switzerland, I am surprised I have to do it again with Italy's flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this whole copyright thing is giving me a headache! Concerning this picture, you removed the copyright that I uploaded it as and replaced it with a lack of information. While the picture is not my own work, the author posts her pictures online and says on her FAQ page that her pictures can be used as long as they are cited (For some reason the site is down now but the original response to the question of use is quoted under permission). Furthermore, I made sure and emailed her to ensure permission. I explained the situation, then said:

I assume from your FAQ that this isn't a problem. I uploaded it under Creative

Common Attribution 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/),

which is basically "free for use as long as one credits the author."

If you do not want your sketch there or would like to change something

then you can go ahead and delete/change it yourself (or tell me to).

To which the original author answered:

Ahh! Awesome! :D Of course you can use it :) Thanks for the heads up!

So basically, since the author of the picture has agreed to this, what needs to be done to make the use of the image acceptable? Crito2161 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating these claims made by the "copyright for designs" lobby. These things are not protected by copyright. I have explained the situation at length, please be rational and don't claim the contrary just because your subjective feeling is different—this feeling is wrong. Legislation wants only a limited protection for designs since if they would be protected 70 pma and without registration, that would essentially kill the design industry. If you properly register your design and pay for it, you can get a limited design patent protection for a few years. --Rtc 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bild Image:Wostok 1 Start.jpg wurde bereits am 24. November 2005 von mir auf Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen. Auch wenn es Dir nicht gefällt, hier sind alle Sprachen gleichberechtigt. Die exakte Transkription in Deutsch ist Wostok. Es ist nicht in Ordnung das von mir mit viel Mühe bearbeitete Bild zu stehlen und ohne Hinweis auf den Ursprung unter neuem Namen hochzuladen (ein halbes Jahr später am 19. Juli 2006 als Image:Vostok 1 Launch.jpg). Das von mir hochgeladene Bild nun auch noch zur Löschung vorzuschlagen ist eine Frechheit und widerspricht allen Regeln der Wikipedia. -- ArtMechanic 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have used this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commodore_Barry_Bridge.gif

I have found a new image of this brigde, it is better, more quality and resolution. You can delete de old image, I don't need it and there is a copy in english Wikipedia.

Not, you are wrong. I know better than you the Canary Islands, and my edition is more correct. See other maps exceed this Spanish region. Thank you. File:Cod.png Satesclop 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just. I don't speak English. This text is an automatic translation. File:Cod.png Satesclop 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the Canary Isles more near the African continent ([1]). Is it correct? I hope that this one problems has been solved. File:Cod.png Satesclop 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I must say that I find it rather disturbing that you unilateraly decided to delete an image on the grounds that the copyright situation not is clear. For another time I hope that you will give the time to discuss a proposed image and investigate the comprehensive sets of regulations applied. Bertilvidet 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the picture since it has a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. It available here. I believe you put the right lincense now Bertilvidet? --Mandavi 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss. But the image is a derivative work and free use is not allowed. -Samulili 08:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than attackıng one single image, may I suggest that you raise your concerns at a more general level for instance at Commons_talk:Derivative_works#Political_advertisements Bertilvidet 11:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village_pump#Photographers.2F_Color_accurate_folks-_your_opinions.3F

You seem to understand color management and are interested in color accuracy.

We have some photographs of objects where the colors are so innacurate that it is laughable (eg. paintings). As a suggestion for people interested in taking the time to produce a highly color accurate photograph, I have suggested that we have a page suggesting use of a standard color bar target within the photo itself.

I wonder if you would be willing to contribute any thoughts to this. -Mak 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what User:Zscout370 may have told you there have never been consensus on the color of the italian flag. I promoted a discussion on the italian village pump and it turned out that 13 people out of 15 prefer to use #FFFFFF as white and don't consider the pantone color to be appliable to the digital image.

Could you revert to the other version? Could you also reverse the related flags? There is some other way I can try if you refuse (excluded bitching on en:wikitruth.info:)?

Bye and thanks, Paulatz 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may answer here

I think you should do like Deusentrieb suggested in Village pump: have two versions of the flag. I don't see a difference between the two version, I don't even know which version I have locked to. I really have no interest in anything but stopping the endless reverting. -Samulili 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. People on national wikipedias expect Flag of Italy.svg to be the best representation of the Flag of the Italian Republic. Having two files is not the optimal solution.--FlagUploader 01:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think of several other national flags having more than one version, such as South Korea and Japan. They mostly involved on if a border should exist on the flag or not (I say no borders). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we can have two versions, but I (and most of the italian commoners) would prefer to have white in the "default" version, I promise we will create a "Printable Flag of Italy.svg" using the pantone colors. Paulatz 06:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done: 1, 2, 3, bye Paulatz 07:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images unprotected. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the license tag from Image:Ciudad Real (catedral).jpeg. The cc-by license states in plain English that "[one] must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." The licensor chose that attribution be given to the company in publishing the image in that manner on their site; there is no reason whatsoever to consider the image does not fulfill the license terms. Taragüí @ 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I will add [[Category:]] tag in pictures I upload as soon as possible. And sorry my english is very poor. --Vegafish 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuli,
why you deleted Image:Madrid-MetroLogo.png? Yes, of course, I know that is the official logo of the Madrid metro. But this logo is too simple that it can be copyrighted (see also Template:pd-ineligible). Therefore I would restore the image, okay? Greetings from Berlin --Jcornelius 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The files are identical, excluding file format and forgotten vector-images tag. Do you think we should discuss this deletion? Usually I set such a mark only in clear cases and planning to delete these files in a short time expected for orphaning and getting possible uploader reaction. In the other cases I do like here. (Please answer here). --Panther 07:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg&w=_100000

--BLueFiSH ✉ 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required to remove images from other projects when deleting images that are in Category:Unknown and its subcategories. -Samulili 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is the source for the image

search in http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/basic_search.jsp for 558596 and you will find the image with "Use Restrictions: Unrestricted". best regards. --BLueFiSH ✉ 14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you found it. To add to my earlier comment, it is true that I could have done what you suggested but I tend to trust in CommonsTicker to share the burden. -Samulili 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i found the source in the deleted description page in german wikipedia. it's a pity that this information was not included in the commons description page. In this case it was good, that you didn't remove the image from the various pages. It would be nice if you could ask the next time an administrator of german wp wether he can find some informations to the source of an image in german wp. mostly the german speaking admins here are also admins in german wp. again best regards. --BLueFiSH ✉ 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be, um... alphabetic to people who speak English?? Not sure where the myriad of non-alphabetic characters fit in the alphabet. :P --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be alphabetical to those who use latin alphabets. I moved "suomi" just before "svenska" and "magyar" before "nederlands". -Samulili 09:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you tagged a picture of Jean Sibelius as derivative. Is there a reason you didn"t tag all of them? --Bdamokos 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag other images because I just happened to come accross this single one and I wasn't looking for anything more.

The laws outlined in Commons:Derivative works how do affect my right to publish a picture in Hungary that eg. under Suomi law would be copyrighted in Finland? Please answer at my talk page at my Hungarian talk page or here. --Bdamokos 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really know very little about international copyright. But the way I understand it, is that when you operate in country X, you only have to care about the lwas of country X. -Samulili 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question: it writes at the derivative page, that I couldn't publish a photo of a building in Hungary, does this mean the photo of any building published in Hungary, or a photo of a building located in Hungary? And for my previous question("The laws outlined in Commons:Derivative works how do affect(...)) substitute Hungary with a country with more liberal laws than Finnland.--Bdamokos 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question I don't know an answer to. -Samulili 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samulili, just wanted you to know that I answered your question on Meta. If there is anything you want to discuss specifically or any discussions going on please feel free to point me to this issues. Thanks for your question. Alex756 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently deleted the image at Image:Teneriffe,Queensland1.JPG. I didn't realise that there was a source problem as I don't usually log into commons unless I'm uploading a picture. I do most of my editing at Wikipedia. I'm still a bit bemused as to why there was a source problem as my edit description on the log page contains the text "Source: Own work. Photo taken by User:Adz on 7 November." This suggests to me that I included that text on the photo page itself. I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to un-delete the photo, and if there is still a problem with the source info then perhaps I could fix it up. If not, I'll upload it again. (please reply on my talk page, or better yet, on my wikipedia talk page). cheers -- Adz 01:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I am happy to license under GFDL. Thanks for restoring the picture. I appreciate it. -- Adz 08:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I run CheckUsage before deleting dupes, and orphan apropriately in other projects. With #34 I certainly did orphan it as best I could (this edit on es.wiki [2]). I think the only remaining use of the image is on the German Wikipedia on de:Diskussion:Israel. However, Toolserver seems broken at the moment (for me) so I cannot check for any other usage (I may have missed some). As that talk page is protected, I couldn't remove it or think of an appropriate place to leave a message. As it was only that usage I couldn't deal with and the harm to de.wp was low (it was only on a talk page after all), I felt that the deletion was probably OK; though I'll bear it in mind if it isn't...--Nilfanion 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted [3]. But what does this mean? He made this edit after I had written to him on his talk page. Does he want Image:Waha JPG00q.jpg deleted? And why has he uploaded so many copies of it in the last days?

Again, I would appreciate it very much, if you can clarify these issues.

Fred Chess 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted Image:Daniella Sarahyba.jpg to an older version without an explanation. I have reverted it back. An improperly executed crop increases the probability of compression artifacts, and should be avoided. If you want to discuss this, please use my talk page. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded this image from en.wikipedia and noticed that an image with identical name was deleted by you recently. Let me know (on my talk) if there are problems with this version. Thanks --Cruccone 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I asked the guy to ask his friend to mail OTRS. --Cruccone 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I just noticed that you deleted Image:Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.jpg. I looked at the deletion log and saw the deletion reason was the "no source" tag. However, one of the users of the image in es:wiki just told me that the image was properly marked with source and licence since months ago. Could you please help me understand if this image was ok, or the august 7th tag was right? In advance thanks! --Sergio 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The image was marked with license cc-by-sa-2.5. The link that was given as a source was a right one: http://www.iss.it/rncj/dati/cont.php?id=2&lang=1&tipo=4 . However, the website of Istituto Superiore di Sanità, claims copyright on its contents (© - Istituto Superiore di Sanità). It does allow its content to be used if the source is cited [4] but doesn't mention that it is allowed to make derivative works or use the images commercially. I hope that my decision seems justified, but if you can provide more information, I'll be glad to listen to what you have to say (my Italian is very bad so I may not understand everything on the ISS site). Regards, Samulili 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the prompt answer, I'll pass it onto the user on es:wiki, who was the person dealing with the licensing with the ISS. Regards! --Sergio 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just dawned to me, but the person should use OTRS and email templates. -Samulili 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me, why this picture was deleted? Why you didn't read the image talk previously?

There are the following entries in the recommended form:

Image talk:Ssr coelpin.jpg

Description: A secondary surveillance radar (SSR) near the military airport "Neubrandenburg" (ETNU) in Germany/Western-Pommerania. This SSR uses a LVA-antenna.

Source: own photo

Date: 13.08.2006

Author: c.w.

Permission: GFDL

This picture was declared as GDFL (non-ambiguous) and you did delete it anyway! It has induced a furious discussion in the german Wikipedia. Wikimedia has lost an author therefore.

--the former user c.w. 20:22,25 September 2006 (UTC) ps: i deleted the 'wiki'- star page tabs, if you want to exculpate, then via e-mail only.

After seeing the license information on the talk page, I have restored the image. I apologize for the inconvenience. I have also placed the information on the image page, so that this would not happen again. -Samulili 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted Tagore3.jpg. Actually, the image is in public domain as it is a pre-1946 (i.e. 60 year old) photo. I can provide you the sources of the photo.

The image was used in all across wikipedia, especially in a lot of featured articles. I request you to restore the image, I can provide the source and licensing tags. If you do a check usage, you'd see that 20+ wikipedias used this photo for the Rabindranath Tagore pages.

Thanks. --Ragib 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I restored the image, Image:Tagore3.jpg. I and another admin were tricked by a vandal who had removed the source information. -Samulili 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your prompt action. I have added two sources for the image, so there should be no problem with the image's source/licenses. Thanks again. --Ragib 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ עברית ∙ +/−

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -Samulili

Eh, you do? not that I've noticed! That template looks vaguely familiar though, somehow... do you know anything about it? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you are a funny one (saw your note above :)). Just wanted to say awesomework on the CommonsTasks. I plan to write a bunch of stuff for it soon, hopefully. The hard bit is actually getting volunteers. We need those militant enwp cleanup people :P pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I've just fixed the date link on that one too. If you find any more, just change the {{CURRENTDAY}} to {{CURRENTDAY2}} and it will be ok. Alphax (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AKaiser-napoleon-I.jpg&diff=3081205&oldid=2628945

It's old? Provide source: «The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status» Sanbec ✉ 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Napoleon died in the beginning of 1800's... -Samulili 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samulili, what was this Image:Pt-coimbra-sevelha1.jpg all about? I'm the author of the image, I've fotographed myself. Even if not, it would have been User:Saninha, which is the same, for pratical matters. I really doubt that the image lacked any information. Could you explain to me what has happened, since I can't view the deleted revisions? 84.90.1.109 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to here from you. I had some questions about that image and I hope we can now answer them. From my persspective, the image was uploaded by User:Nuno Tavares. S/he had marked the image with {{GFDL}} and attributed it to User:Saninha. I tried to look for confirmation and I asked which local project the image came from and I even tried to look for it myself; but I didn't get an answer and I couldn't find traces of the image from other projects. That is why I ended up marking the image with {{No source since}} and that is how it got deleted 3 months later.

I hope that you could answer these open questions and then I can bring back the image. I might have already done it, but I didn't quite understand when you wrote: "I'm the author of the image, I've fotographed myself. Even if not, it would have been User:Saninha, which is the same, for pratical matters." With kind regards, Samulili 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your arguments on Commons:Deletion_requests/FAB_images. The more I read about it, the more I'm sure that FAB-created images are rightly distributed by Agência Brasil and thus fall under their licence, but I would like to have your input on it. Thanks. Antiuser 07:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It has been a week since I first contacted you about this. I have received a reply from Agência Brasil which I believe proves that the licence info for these images is indeed correct. I would like to hear your take on this matter. Thanks. Antiuser 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had uploaded en:Image:Smyrne_Group_of_Gypsy.jpg, identifying it as a photograph dating to 1904, thus {{PD-old}}. It was later moved to commons. You have recently deleted it here. Now the articles on en-wiki are left with broken links. This is frustrating, since I didn't upload the image to commons in the first place, and I do not entertain a watchlist here. Isn't this copyright paranoia? It was obvious from the photograph that it dated to ca. 1900, and even if we didn't know the photographer's name and address, there was no reason to doubt the 1904 date. en:User:Dbachmann 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice to meet you. I noticed a week or two that the image of Posidonius was missing from the Wikipedia article about him, and I finally figured out how to trace it back to the deletion. I put this image on the Commons, and as far as I can find out it is in the public domain. I'd like to put the image back, but I did not understand the reason you deleted it. Please let me know and, maybe I can correct whatever problem there was with it. Or post a more suitable image. I appreciate any help you can give me. Please answer on my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks. --Tregonsee 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Here's a link to my English Wikipedia talk page where you can reply. Thanks again. --Tregonsee 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Samulili : I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RfA which passed 20 to 1. I really appreciate the trust you've placed in me. Please help me be a better admin by giving me feedback when you think I need it, and praise when you think I've earned it. You are involved in so many neat and important things, it's just amazing. I look forward to helping in whatever small way I can. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chose LEGO to illustrate my thank you messagess, because LEGO is a system that we build things with. Commons holds the building blocks that other wikis use to make great things. Without Commons images and media, other wikis would be much poorer. Let's help build the greatest freely available intellectual collection the world has ever known... together.

Hi I reverted again the changes you made for one precise reason: My map is far from being perfect but is way better than this Image:Suomen-maakunnat-template.png. This one is completely outdated (something like 2000) and does not take any account of the most recent border changes of maakunnat, like the merger of Kangaslampi to Varkaus, the shift of Punkalaidun from Satakunta to Pirkanmaa, ans even the old merger of Kuorevesi to Jämsä (dating back from 2001 !). I also forget many other details... I do not wish to correct all the maps of Finland (it's too long and not needed enough at that time), but please check those precise points with an updated map before reverting again. Thanks in advance Clem23 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the SovietPD articles just yet and kindly temporary restore those you deleted. Some of them are usable at enwiki under the fairuse, hsitoric, promotinal and other templates. Some may be retagged under free licenses. Original pages at commons have the necessary source info as well as the info on the original uploader. Several concerned users are now going through the commons SovietPD images sorting them out and we need the images for this salvage operation. TIA, --Irpen 02:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the tag No source on this file. I've added sources:Name of the photographer and date of the first publication according to another website. It has been published in 1924, so before 1950. It is so in the domain public. Did I do wrong? Please answer on my discussion page. --Sebb 22:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me when {{PD-Art}} is applicable. In the template it says: due to the death of the author or due to its date of publication. Which criteria should be used for those, because it isn't mentioned anywhere. Errabee 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hei! Kun ei oo toi kielitaito niin hyvä ni voisitko kertoo, mitä lisenssiä kannattaa käyttää, jos kuvat on peräsin muilta nettisivuilta?

Hei! Jos kuva on joltain nettisivulta, pitää käyttä siellä mainittua lisenssiä. Jos nettisivulla ei ole mainittu mitään vapaata lisenssiä, ei kuvaa voi lisätä Commonsiin. -Samulili 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting sloppy are we? :P I upload images at flickr by default as by-sa-2.0 (have been thinking of dropping the share-alike though). Saw that Image:Foggy Aura river.jpg and Image:Suomen Joutse, Sigyn.jpg (<- typo) was uploaded here under by-2.0. I've uploded under creative commons licenses since July.

I certainly don't mind having them here, was only a bit surprised to see the license change (but as I said, I'm thinking about dropping the SA part, will edit these too in that case). As for the "Adm" part of my flickr nick, some type had already taken Scoo (only post junk..) Cheers, Scoo 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]