User talk:Jonny-mt/Archive 1

Welcome

English: Welcome to the Commons, Jonny-mt!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

en-ja translation

Hi Jonny-mt. I'm 福太郎, thanks for last time.

Now, I have tried to translating 画像のガイドライン from Commons:Images guidelines, but still I'm not sure to some text is wether correct. Then I'm going to what ask English and Japanese speaker's advice. If you check and correct these when you have spare time, I would glad. And sorry for many many text...

---

The purpose of Quality Image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a 'Commoner' skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances.

「高画質な画像」の目的は、画像作成時においてコモンズユーザーの技術により達成された素晴らしい品質水準を認定することであり、認定画像は後にさらに品質改善された画像が出ても「高画質な画像」リストから除外されません。

For Featured Pictures, many voters legitimately believe that a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a more valuable picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject. Many other voters equally legitimately believe that each image should be judged purely on its own merits.

「秀逸な画像」では、多くの投票者が「技術的には平凡でも目を見張る物を撮影した写真は、優れた技術で平凡な物を写した写真よりも、より価値の高いものである」と考えています。また、多くの投票者が「それぞれの画像は個々の価値において純粋に評価されるべきである」と考えています。

For 'easy to take' images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it.

安易に撮られた画像に対して、評価者はより多くを望むでしょう。

Quality noise reduction software is expensive and algorithms computationally intensive - if you don't have access to suitable programs and equipment, ask at the Commons:Quality images helpdesk.

ノイズ除去ソフトウェアは高価で集中処理が必要です。お手元に必要なソフトウェア、器材が無ければCommons:Quality images helpdeskで意見を求められます。

It should be noted that exposure may serve a creative purpose, and this guideline should be evaluated with understanding of the idea or intent of the image.

露出は創作目的の一助となる事を念頭に置き、このガイドラインの内容は、その画像の意図や考えに対する理解を持って評価しなければいけません。

Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range).

露出とはシャッタースピードとレンズ絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、これにより画面の中で適度なディティール、ハイライト〜陰影部分の理想的な描写を可能にするトーンカーブを持った画像を作成します。このトーンカーブを ラティチュード（露光寛容度）と呼び、明部、中間部、暗部それぞれで適切なトーンカーブが出来ます。

Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture.

個々の写真での明確な必要性に従い被写界深度は選択されます。

Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better over the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the “unnatural” nature of the pose would be a good photograph.

動いている被写体を普通に撮影すれば、その“動き”はブレる、若しくは静止しているかのように写りますが、どちらにしてもあまり良くはありません。「流し撮り」は表現手法であり、“動き”は画面を構成する要素の内の１つです。例えば走行中のレーシングカー画像では、車体・背景共に静止して見えるように写った写真からはスピード感や動感は伝わって来ません。なので追う様にレンズを車体に向け続ける事で、車体を静止してるように、背景がブレるように表現します。この手法をパンニング（Panning）と呼び、こうして“動感”を演出します。また別の手法、高くジャンプしたバスケットボールプレーヤーが、その他背景等と共に静止して見えるような写りは、不自然に見えても自然な瞬間を捕らえているが故に良い写真になり得ます。

Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not usually the best light as it flattens the subject.

以外にも、通常被写体を平坦に見せるのに正面から照明を当てる事は適切ではありません。

Centering the subject is often considered a negative practice.

中心に置かれた主題はよく悪い例として考えられます。

Getting a good panorama ready takes time. Recent releases of programs like hugin and enblend make simple errors like bad alignment and ghosts at blurred seam lines less common than they used to be, but parallax errors and more intricate quality problems still occur.

良いパノラマ画像を得るにはそれなりの時間を要します。現在提供されているhuginやenblendのようなソフトを使用してパノラマ画像を作成すると、継ぎ目の並びが合わない、繋ぎ目に二重像が見られる、等の単純なエラーは減らせますが、視差など品質に関するより複雑な問題は依然として生じます。

This could be dealt with by adjusting brightness before stitching.
この場合は繋ぎ合わせる前に明るさ調整をする事で解決出来るでしょう。

More subtle errors are at the right of the castle, where there appear to be two vertical bands in the sky. Look where these bands touch the hill, at the middle one the stitching program misaligned, producing a ghost. Also, the program feathers the transitions. While this avoids a visible edge, one can see that in such feathering region, image noise is reduced, which makes these parts stand out from the rest of the image.

中央の城の右側、空に縦に伸びる２本の黒い帯状のものが薄く見えます。この左側の帯と背景の丘が接している部分を見て下さい。これは合成プログラムの不良によりゴースト（丘の稜線が２重に見える）を生じさせています。またこのプログラムが繋ぎ目にフェザリング（画像の周囲部分を端へ行くに従い徐々に透明にする事で背景に馴染ませる効果）を施していますが、これは繋ぎ目を隠す一方で、フェザリングされた部分が現れ、イメージノイズが減らされ、この部分は他の（フェザリングされていない）部分よりも目立ってしまいます。

If possible, set for underexposure, as well as panorama mode. Expected advances in software based exposure correction may soon make panorama construction viable from a photo series not shot in panoramic mode. Until then, use the brightest part of your panoramic scene to set the in-camera exposure when shooting.

可能ならばパノラマモードと同様に露出アンダーに設定して下さい。パノラマモードで撮影されていない一連の写真から、ソフトウェアで露出補正を基に容易にパノラマ合成可能である事が期待できます。それまで、撮影時はパノラマエリアの最も明るい部分に合わせた露出を使用しましょう。

Stitching software is not meant to cope with such parallax error as the problem here is located behind the camera, and the way out in this case was the availability of matching photos, albeit from a different perspective, to create the image on the right.

合成ソフトはカメラ位置による視線から生じる誤差のような問題へは対処せず、この様な問題を避け視差の整った写真を得るには、視点が違っても右図の様な画像を作成します。

But the exposure differs between images and cameras have vignetting, both make seamlines visible. And as these photo have been aligned regarding the distant features, some parallax errors can be seen at seamlines in the foreground. There exists software that makes such seams disappear and the parallax errors can be at concealed by choosing a suitable seamline.

しかし露出が画像間で異なり、またケラレも見られる事で繋ぎ目が見えてしまっています。またこれら画像は画像ごとの遠景に合わせて並べられたため、視差による誤差が前景の繋ぎ目部分に見る事が出来ます。現在あるソフトウェアは繋ぎ目を消し、さらに視差を適切な継ぎ合わせ箇所を選ぶことで隠す事が出来ます。

---

First line is original English, and next line is my translation. Thanks. _Fukutaro 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Molouisiana1.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Molouisiana1.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Ytoyoda 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up! --jonny-mt 15:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images

Hi. As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, I have added you to the reviewers list. Please see the instructions at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers and add {{User trusted}} to your userpage. You can ask me if you need any help. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thank you kindly :) --jonny-mt ^{en me!} 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 7085bee2158e2515da08f3e491c66018

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --jonny-mt ^{en me!} 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the work you are doing - useful & appreciated, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I've still got a lot to learn about Commons, but for the time being I'm just glad I've found some areas where I can help out :) --jonny-mt 08:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a good place to be with great pictures (mostly!) & nice people but then I'm biased :) If I can help do let me know though licensing is not my strong point but there are plenty of other things to do, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Image:Reef check logo.jpg

Thanks for following up on the licensing issues with said image. I am getting the webmaster to update the foundation's website to reflect the image licensing. It should be no longer than a day. If this fails, go ahead and axe it, and I will fish a logo out of our file archives. Steveprutz (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On second look, where did you find the actual logo file on the website? I don't remember taking it directly off the web. Steveprutz (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries--thanks for the help. As far as the logo goes, it's in the upper left-hand corner of http://www.reefcheck.org/. It's not the exact file that you uploaded, but since it's clear enough that it's the same copyrighted logo I went ahead and tagged it.

Incidentally, if your webmaster is hesitant about putting up a sitewide notice you can always forward the proper permissions to the OTRS system. --jonny-mt 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Flickr review

Hi, a hint when trying to find unsourced flickr files. If an image has a name like Image:2604163523 ab018b5a88.jpg, plug the first number into flinfo and you'll find the info you need. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering if there was a surefire way to do it. Thanks for the helpful advice! --jonny-mt 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jüdischeer Friedhof Schönhauser Allee

Hi there, thanks for your message. I took the picture last summer when I went to Berlin. Here's the link to the picture on my flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/ex-smith/1268302357/sizes/l/

Best regards.

--Ex-Smith (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic--don't know how I missed it! Thank you very much for the quick response; I'll go ahead and pass the image. --jonny-mt 08:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo

I replied here - let me know if you need anything else done there. (And note the subtle hint ;-)) —Giggy 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly--I'll keep an eye on them for the next couple of days and see if anything else pops up. Although I guess your hint was maybe a little too subtle for me to notice.... </jk>

Actually, I'm planning on making a run at some point (in case it wasn't already obvious), but I want to be sure that I feel secure in my knowledge before I do. Everything is starting to gel nicely, but one of the things I would like the tools for is to help with the impressive backlog of deletion discussions, so I figure I'd better have plenty of experience participating before I start closing. I'm thinking that a late July/early August run should give me enough time, so if you'll oblige me a little longer, I'll just keep doing what I can do without the bit :) --jonny-mt 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer self noms though I know others view them with suspicion. If you want someone to nom you either the user above or myself would probably be happy to oblige :) Personally I reckon your sense of timing is pretty good. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, shucks :) I appreciate the votes of confidence, and I'll keep your offers in mind when I prepare to make the run! --jonny-mt 03:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

HI. I've uploaded a picture, but the name is wrong. I typed Brandeburger Tor whereas it should be Brandenburger Tor. [[1]]I don't know how to change it. Could you help? Thanks a lot. --Ex-Smith (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course! This is actually pretty easy to fix--just upload another copy of the image under the correct name and tag the original (i.e. the misspelled image) with the {{Badname}} template, indicating the proper name. In this case, just tag Image:BrandeburgerTor13082007.jpg with the following code:

{{badname|Image:BrandenburgerTor13082007.jpg}}

Let me know if you have any other questions! --jonny-mt 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thnaks very much for your help! --Ex-Smith (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sobre o aviso das imagens

Desculpas pelo transtorno das imagens, fiquei em dúvida sobre as licenças! São as imagens do Flickr, não? Mas mesmo assim, obrigado pelo aviso! --Lukaaz (talk) 18:17, 17 July 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:
Sodium polyacrylate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment A very nice image, but needs a little work before being granted VI status. The image needs to be categorized more specifically than "Polymers", and some work needs to be done on the image description: what is meant by "water crystals"? This should be more scientific. Other than that, it is looking promising. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback--I'll work on those points later today and post an update when I'm done. --jonny-mt 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the image description page, although sadly the most specific category I could find was Category:Inorganic polymers. I'll keep looking, but right now I'm not sure there's any more specific way to categorize it. --jonny-mt 09:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I've categorized it in category:polyacrylates which, btw, are organic polymer. Lycaon (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you kindly! As you can see, I'm a bit of a...doofus when it comes to chemistry >.< --jonny-mt 14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks, that does it! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Grateful for your support on my Flickr Review request.--Londoneye (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But of course! Good luck! --jonny-mt 13:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Attack Cake

The attack cake is NOT a lie. Enjoy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

zomg

I hate you. Herby and me were arguing over who'd get the nom a month ago. Grr. —Giggy 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I actually left a note on Herby's talk page earlier about the same thing--basically, I sat there for an hour or so trying to figure out whether I should ask one or both or three (Shakata) of you for nominations, but ultimately I couldn't decide and, since I figured a triple co-nom would be overdoing it, I just decided to bite the bullet and do it myself :P For what it's worth, I actually had an e-mail half-drafted to you asking for help getting the ball rolling when I made the call.... --jonny-mt 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I found your RfA via Herby's talk. Somehow it gets on my watchlist, but RfA doesn't >_> —Giggy 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dreamgirls

Nope, simple mistake of not looking carefully enough. Thanks for the heads up. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Horses at South Point.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 very nice --Pudelek 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:Clayton Richard Pitch 1.jpgとImage:Clayton Richard Pitch 2.jpg

初めまして。UCinternational です。日本語でのメッセージありがとうございます。英語が苦手な私としては助かります。

さて、メッセージにあったClayton Richard の画像の件です。Flickr のページを見ていただくとわかるんですが、元の画像自体がそれほど大きくないんですね。両方ともオリジナルサイズが500 × 334 ピクセル、最大サイズが1024 × 685 ピクセルしかありません。それをそのままアップロードしても選手が小さくしか写らないので、最大サイズの画像から芝の部分を切り取ったら375 × 275 ピクセルになった、というわけなんです。

あなたがおっしゃる「画像が大きければ大きいほど色々な使い方があります」というのもわかります。しかしこの画像を他のウィキメディア・プロジェクトのページに呼び出すとき、[[Image:Clayton Richard Pitch 2.jpg|1000px]] なんて大きさにすることがあるのかな、と考えると疑問符が付きます。無理に拡大しても画質が粗くなる、ということもあり、私は画像加工・アップロードの際に「この大きさで十分だろう」と考えていました。

「大きいバージョンを再アップロード」するなら、2倍の大きさ（750 × 550 ピクセル）もあれば十分でしょうか？　また、別の新しい画像ページにアップロードするのと、元の画像ページに上書きするのとではどちらがよろしいでしょうか？　以上2点、お答えいただければ幸いです。

最後になりましたが、Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TigerStadium No Seats 11 07 1.JPG およびCommons:Deletion requests/Image:Tiger Stadium RF Nov 2007 2.JPG において、英語版のページを復帰させたうえで削除の是非を検討していただき、ありがとうございました。--UCinternational (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

UCinternationalさん、

ご返事下さって有難うございました。確かにそれだけトリミングするとあまり大きな画像が出来ないですね。それに、画像加工ソフトで大きくすることが出来るけれど、やはりその対価として画質が悪くなりますのであまり意味がないと思います。という訳で、この場合は仕方なくそのままにしておいた方が良さそうですね。

ちなみに、UCinternationalさんの指摘された件は本当に大したことではなかったのです。役に立ててこちらこそ嬉しいです。 --jonny-mt 14:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

CONGRATS ADMIN

YAY!!!! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

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

Jonny-mt, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), 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.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
MediaWiki:Userrights-summary says I should give you some good advice now, but I'm sure you don't need it, and besides, it's me. Anyway, enjoy, and don't do too much damage. —Giggy 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Man you are slow giggy. I beat you by like... 4 minutes. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG, I thought my RfA was ending tonight! I didn't even notice the new buttons until you mentioned it....

Thank you for all your support, and I'll be sure to ask any questions I have! (The smart money says the first one will be somewhere along the lines of "Oh my God, oh my God, what did I do?!" =P) --jonny-mt 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The first question should be "What do I delete" --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Main Page has a "delete" tab, but I learned to avoid that on en....

To the copyvios! --jonny-mt 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! You might want to see CAT:CV and CAT:CSD. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Imagem:Brasão Caiapós.jpg (This media file has been requested for deletion.???)

Dear Jonny-mt

I have found sufficiently difficulties in editing here in the Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps for the fact of the language to be in English, language who I do not dominate. I request aid so that the referring images to Grupo Escoteiro Caiapós are not excluidas, as this being made after an one until the present moment. Please, therefore if we have the interest to have a complete Wikipedia, must be helped and not only to suggest that if it erases the work carried through for excessively. Story with its understanding. Pardon for my English, I need automatic translation and its that occurs errors in these systems sufficiently.

Been thankful for the excused attention.

Pedro Souza

Pfssouza (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating

	Thanks for taking part in my RFA. It passed 29-5-0, and I appreciate and will take to heart all of the feedback, and do my absolute best to better Commons with the trust placed in me by the community as a whole. rootology (T) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stamp Czechoslovakia 1918

Tell please, for what reasons the stamp of Czechoslovakia of 1918 if it gets under {{PD-old}} has been removed? Сдобников А. (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the above request: by all means, 100 years has passed since the stamp was issued, why you think that the stamp is not in public domain? Leonid Dzhepko --Л.П. Джепко (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for asking! First, the stamp was actually issued in 1918, which means it has been 90 years since issuance. Second, the designer of the stamp was identified as Alfons Mucha, who died in 1939 (which means his works become public domain in 2010--the 70 years required for {{PD-old}} starts the year following his death in the Czech Republic). COM:L#Czech Republic notes that "there is no copyright on official works, such as legal acts, public documents including those in preparation, documents published by the House of Representatives and Senate, state symbols (flags, coats of arms, anthems) of countries and administrative subdivisions, municipal chronicles and any other works whose exclusion from copyright protection is in public interest". Since a stamp designed by a known artist does not appear to fall into this category, we have to assume it was originally copyrighted and treat it as such.

This was my reasoning behind deleting the image. Please feel free to correct me if I've missed anything. --jonny-mt 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hyakinthos.jpg

Hi,

A photo without a source is a photo without a source. It is against Commons policy, since each media should mention a clear and checkable source. Where does this image come from? Who can ensure it is not a copyvio (PD-Art is not allowed everywhere btw, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules)? Furthermore there is 2D/3D problem with this image (part of a kylix), so the source would be highly interesting... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the image description, the piece is part of the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. According to the link above, "Under the rule in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, a mere 'record' photograph of a 2D work of art (i.e. a photograph which is an as-accurate-as-possible copy of the original) acquires no copyright protection"--since the photograph is not copyrightable, we only need to see if the artwork is subject to copyright (which, in this case, it is not). In addition, the summary provided lists the arv number of the piece, which quickly leads to this page. In other words, with the information already provided, I was easily able to verify the original piece's status--please feel free to add further information to the image description page if you'd like to, but as you can see the existing information was more than sufficient. --jonny-mt 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg

Hi Jonny,

Did you notice my comment on this review? I was actually going to close it now as declined, but decided to contact you if you had not seen it.

Now that I am here, my congratz to your adminship. I am sure you will do fine.

Your contributions as a VI reviewer is appreciated. The more reviewers the more nuanced and thorough are the reviews.

Cheers,-- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger,

Thanks for the message. I saw the comment and actually started drafting a response, but I decided to take a little more time to look into it. I can't prove conclusively that the image I nominated is how the carving is supposed to look, but I can at least address the comments about the Metro copy being a fake and explain a little more about why I chose this version, so if it's all right would you mind just leaving it open for another day or so?

Sure, I'll leave it open a few more days to give you a little more time to address the issues. It is not a subject area I am terribly knowledgeable about, my concern is exclusively based on what I have read here and on en.wp about the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for your kind comments--I hope I can be a good admin and a good reviewer :) --jonny-mt 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confident you will do continue doing fine here. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Images deletion

I'm the author of some of the images, I can decide if delete them or not. --Nyo (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, we are normally sympathetic to deletion requests, but what you are trying to do is essentially take your ball and go home. You are the copyright holder of the images, this is true, but as the copyright holder you have explicitly provided for the use of these images. I might be willing to help you out if you were only nominating unused or unsuitable images, but I'm not going to deprive the project of the images you have been kind enough provide simply because you changed your mind. --jonny-mt 09:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"I might be willing to help you out if you were only nominating unused or unsuitable images". I'm not going home bringing back my ball. The situation is right that one you've described in the message I have quoted: I have chosen to delete unused, unuseful and uncoherent images. I was simply cleaning the categories, and, since I'm the author and the uploader, I thought I have the right to ask speedydeletion. --Nyo (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that not all of the images are unused--based on my random spot-checks, it seems that a good chunk of them are used on the Italian Wikipedia, which indicates that someone thought they were good enough to include in the article(s) they were working on. That's why I reverted your {{Speedydeletion}} tagging; you were simply tagging all of your images regardless of whether they're used or not, and so I erred on the side of caution. --jonny-mt 10:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm the same user who used them on it.wikipedia. --Nyo (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

pt-help

Hi Jonny, sorry I took so long to reply. I happen to be on vacation, so I will have very little access to the internet on the next few days. I would gladly help you but I am just passing to read my mail. I'd suggest you to ask another pt-speaking admin. Alternatively, you can point the user to Commons:Esplanada, the Portuguese Village Pump, where someone will surely help. Regards, Waldir ^talk 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaidshan flag images copyvio

Hello Jonny! It is general politics by Commons to delete stolen FOTW-images uploaded after 19th May 2005, because they are not free by FOTW for commercial use. Maybe Russian law accept this, but not every law in the world. Anyhow, FOTW is not Russian-based. Please compare to Category:FOTW images. --Patrick (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi J. Patrick, thanks for your message. I've been doing a bit of reading on the copyright of flags and insignia in order to come back with something resembling an intelligent response, and here's what I've found.

• The licensing of flags on Wikimedia Commons is extremely uneven. Some flags are licensed by the creators of the image file, and some flags are licensed under the laws governing their copyright status.
• The two images consisting solely of text are ineligible for copyright, regardless of who puts them together. You can't copyright a red square with English letters on it.
• The other two images using the hammer and sickle are public domain in Azerbaijan, which means we simply have to examine whether or not their copies qualify as original works that are then subject to copyright. I know that this is not the case in the United States, where the FOTW website is hosted, as "slavish copies" do not pass the threshhold of originality required to obtain copyright protection under U.S. law (see en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain). This means, then, that a copy of the public domain Azerbaijani flag (as a signatory to the Berne Convention, the U.S. recognizes Azerbaijani copyright law on this matter) on the FOTW website would not be subject to copyright if it was created in the United States. Our only concern, then, is whether the image was created in a country that does not have the same threshhold of originality requirements--since I see no compelling evidence that this is the case, it appears that these particular images are in the public domain regardless of the license claims on the FOTW website.

Now I'll admit that I could be missing something here, but if you look at the images in Category:FOTW images, none of them were originally eligible for public domain. I recognize that you know far more about flags than I do, but unless I am completely mistaken (and I'm always willing to be proven wrong), the license holds up. If you still disagree, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this, and of course you are always welcome to nominate the images for deletion. --jonny-mt 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, because I do not know international law. By the way: FOTW is not only located in USA, but in several countries. It was founded by an Italian and is leaded in the moment by a Canadian. One of the authors of this flags is French. Anyhow, if a deletion is not possible, maybe you can enter the name of the real author inside? Definalty it was not Pedro S. Vivono, who made them. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, and I was negligent in not doing it sooner. By the way, feel free to open a discussion at Commons talk:Licensing or a deletion request if you'd like to get more input on this. --jonny-mt 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)