User talk:HJ Mitchell

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buratino2013_poster.jpg This one particularly. Yes IT IS a movie poster and it is ought to be on a wiki page about the movie: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE. I've marked the correct copyright variant - I am representing the production and I am in charge for publishing all the materials about this project. Tell me please, what can i do for restoring the file? Thanks a lot.

s are found here [1] :-) Cobatfor (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RNZAF answered. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. I have 2 logos, File:Rumble Fighter Europe Logo.gif and File:Rumble Fighter Logo.gif, that look like they may be covered by the OTRS ticket mentioned on this user's page by Adrignola: User:OGPlanet. I'm not an OTRS member, so could you please add this ticket to the 2 logos if it checks out and applies? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As far as I can work out, that ticket is valid for all of that user's uploads, so I've tagged those two files. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. INeverCry 17:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have another image from the same user: File:SDGO.jpg which I've temp restored so you could look at it. There's a question of multiple copyright holders, so can you let me know if the ticket on this image is valid to have it on Commons? Thanks. INeverCry 17:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the watermark on the image suggests there are multiple copyright holders. The OTRS ticket is from OGPlanet, who are obviously entitled to release their own rights, but it doesn't say anything about the other companies. I think deletion was the right call in that case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'll re-delete and close the undel req. INeverCry 17:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the OTRS question regarding File:Coshocton County Courthouse.jpg. Could you look again at its OTRS (2011092910022206) and the one for File:Jefferson courthouse ohio.jpg (same number) to see if they cover any other images? I've just asked Jameslwoodward to delete several other images that the same user uploaded from the same source, but of course I'll not object to keeping them if the real author released them as well. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket explicitly mentions the courthouses in Adams County, Jefferson County, and Coshocton County, and the client seems happy for the images to be used as long as he's given proper attribution. He doesn't explicitly mention any others, but seems happy for any of the images from that book to be used if he's attributed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I've asked Jim to check the OTRS (I didn't realise that he was also an OTRS member) and restore any of the images for which he believes an adequate permission to exist. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; let me know if I can be of any more help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ, I'd appreciate a followup review with fresh eyes on this file, File:Saint Exupery exhibit - Air & Space Museum, Le Bourget, Paris, France (9).JPG, which was deleted unexpectedly yesterday after serving on a prominent article for about 2 years. Curiously it was deleted **completely without notice** only a very short while after an unrelated procedures/content dispute occurred in the same article between myself and an admin (Toddst1), Holy AGF! (to my knowledge I have never had an image deleted previously without some warning period). The reason stated by the CommonsDelinker bot for the deletion of the photo on the article's edit summary when it was removed reads: "it has been deleted from Commons by INeverCry because: Copyright violation: copyright protected cover art."

I believe the photo which I took has several important features which would permit its transfer and use on a Wikipedia under Fair Use provisions:

• the cover art depicted on two of the works in the photo is relatively low resolution, making the cover art unsuitable for use in any commercial reproductions;
• the photo of the group of books was taken at an oblique angle, rendering the cover art unsuitable for use in any commercial reproductions;
• the grouping of four books by the same author, with curator's notations, in a very notable public museum, Musée de l'Air, underlines that the photo depicting the four books is of high educational value (only two of the books have cover art).

When I posted a request to temporarily undelete the photo so it could be moved to a Wikipedia, a Commons admin replied: "Not done Not eligible for fair use. It's just two book covers. That can't be used on the museum's article, as it doesn't meet the NFCC, and is inappropriate for the articles on the books as well, where individual covers as separate images are all that would be accepted. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 29 October 2012". For clarification the photo is not for use in an article about a museum -it was taken *in* a museum.

A followup request I quickly posted went unanswered and the undelete request was closed out last night. My followup read: "Sven: please elaborate. First, what is NFCC, and second the image was being used in two articles, the first article to note some of the works of the author, Saint-Exupery, and the second article to illustrate the multiple languages that The Little Prince was published in, as shown in the photo. Additionally very little of the cover art is actually shown as the photo was taken at a slant, clearly showing the museum's notations next to each book which established their notability in a major institution. Since the books are thus shown in low resolution would they not be acceptable under Fair Use provisions? HarryZilber 03:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)".

Your fresh eyes look at this undelete request would be appreciated. Thanks and best: HarryZilber 14:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin here, so I can't see the image. However, it sounds like you might not have a very good case for fair use on enwiki, because it's a requirement that no free image could contribute equally to readers' understanding. The only thing I can suggest is to read en:WP:NFC carefully, and then ping me again if you think the image meets all the criteria there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your good work on the Joeff Davis image is much appreciated. I hope you're not traveling near Sandy.198.228.201.160 22:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and no—I'm on the other side of the Atlantic. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. Can you take a look at User talk:XK8ER#Notification about possible deletion and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by XK8ER? Thanks for your time. BTW, I hope to see you as an admin here at some point. Just make sure you go thru your own uploads with a fine-toothed comb if you do put in a request, as the RFAs have been quite strict on this lately. INeverCry 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a little outside my remit as an OTRS agent. Since the photos weren't taken by the uploader, and it seems he doesn't know who took them, we'll probably have to get rid of them, which is a shame. If you want a really abstract argument for keeping them, it could be argued (though I'd be surprised if it held much water at DR) that the copyright was transferred when they were gifted to the uploader or that they are works for hire for the subjects (if they asked the photographers to take the shots), but in the latter case, the subjects would need to email OTRS. I'd be happy to expedite a ticket if one came in, but I don't think I'm much use until then.

I've considered an RfA a couple of times, but I'm not sure what I'd do with the tools other than issues related to OTRS. I might close a few DRs and look at other things that are horribly backlogged, but I couldn't promise it. I'm pretty careful about what I upload, but would you mind having a look to see if there's anything that jumps out at you as potentially suspect? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those photos will probably have to be deleted as you say. He said he cropped them, and etc, but even if he did upload the images in their original forms with EXIF, they'd still be other people's photos. As for what you might do as an admin, my eye was on Category:Unknown; especially Category:Media missing permission, and you'd also be able to restore images and review undeletion requests. No huge hurry or pressure though. I've had a bit more help in the past week or so with DRs, so things aren't quite as pressing. Fastily is definitely missed though. I doubt there's anything wrong with your uploads. INeverCry 23:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion of becoming an admin here. I will be your nominator--Morning ☼ (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it might make life a little bit easier. ;) Thanks for the offer—perhaps after Christmas? Life's a bit hectic at the moment.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello friend! I wonder how do I get an account in OTRS to check tickets??¿. Thanks and greetings!! --Coronades (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Applications are done on Meta—at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Just follow the instructions there, and be sure to state which queues you'd like access to and which languages you can read and write in. Then, assuming there are no problems, an OTRS admin will grant you access (though it can take a few weeks). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. I don't edit on Meta much, so I thought I'd ask you a quick question. I noticed that someone there reverted your's and Herby's comments on the volunteer page, and the comment for 99of9. I figure we both should be a pretty clear choice for the OTRS team, but the revert still seems a bit arbitrary to me. Anyways, it's good to see your RFA, which will obviously be successful. Have a good one. INeverCry 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; Ironholds raised it on the OTRS mailing list, so I noticed it when I got online a few minutes ago. I don't see anything to be gained by edit-warring to restore a comment that apparently isn't useful, but I've left my opinion on the talk page, and I notice Herby and a couple of other people have commented there as well. Thanks for your support on my RfA; it's going much better than I expected. Of course, I'll be coming to you for advice when I get stuck, so don't expect it to reduce your workload too much! ;) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who do you think I'll be bugging with OTRS questions? INeverCry 19:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ, I've left a follow-up question on your admin request, which you haven't answered for a few days, so I guess you haven't noticed it yet. --99of9 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No I hadn't seen it, sorry. I'll get to it later today (UTC) if I possibly can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HJ Mitchell, congrats on your successful RfA. I just set the administrator flag for your account. Good luck and thanks for taking the job! --Dschwen (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

---

HJ Mitchell, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

Had to welcome you in style! Congrats! INeverCry 00:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and good luck! Érico Wouters ^msg 00:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! --cyrfaw (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, folks! I'll try to make good use of the tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and good luck! It was about time that you would become a sysop. ;) Note this page made by Jim; it might be of use for you. Trijnstel_talk 21:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I laready know how the buttons work, but Jim's advice on being an admin is useful, so thanks for the link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find this useful, if you don't already know about it: User:Captain-tucker/category-tracker. INeverCry 21:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is useful. Jaw-dropping when I think about how much work there is, but at least I won't be idle! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team. I see that Trijnstel has already done a selling job on my Admins crib sheet -- you may know how the buttons work, but there are a few things, such as DelReqHandler, that are essential to doing the job efficiently that you cannot enable until you're an Admin.

And yes, there is a lot of work to be done -- around 1,700 deletions every day, 75% of which are done by ten people, with INC in the lead with 500 per day. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim. I'm not sure I'll make the biggest dent in that statistic, but I'll try to make myself useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HJ Mitchel! Yesterday I sent an email to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and I attached a PDF file with the permission, then I had to scan it because it came in the form of a letter to my home. My question is this: If users of OTRS granted the permission ticket, they communicate with me? How do I know if the OTRS ticket was given to permission that I sent in PDF format? Thank you! --Coronades (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "be patient". It can take a few weeks for somebody to get to your email, depending on how bad the backlog is. But if you tell me what the subject line of the email was, I can check it arrived. I won't promise to expedite it because that would be unfair, but if I have time, I might. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The subject line of the email was "PERMISSION OF THE PRESIDENCY OF COLOMBIA

" and, was sent on January 19, 2013 and the origin email is coronades03@gmail.com. I hope your answer. Greetings --Coronades (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've replied through OTRS (ticket number is 2013011910007682), but I'm afraid it's not good news. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh god! What happened?

--Coronades (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • But permission in its first paragraph reads: "the Chief of the Publications Office of Presidency of the Republic of Colombia granted permission for all material on the official website of the Colombian Presidency -www.presidencia.gov.co, can be used by members of affiliates projects to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity between others; without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication".

Then the images can be used both wikipedia as WikiCommons, because both are subsidiaries of Wikimedia Foundation. Also reads: "exclusively for affiliates projects to the Wikimedia Foundation". This refers also to projects of Wikimedia Foundation affiliates as described in the first paragraph such as Wikipedia, WikiCommons, etc.

I do not see the problem friend--Coronades (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it has to be free not just for Wikimedia projects, but for anyone and everyone. We don't accept content that is only for use by Wikimedia projects, because sharing free content is part of our mission. See COM:L for more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me friend, now I understand all.

So that's the only problem that you see, the only? no more? Thanks for answering all my questions and comments --Coronades (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the only problem I see. I see no reason to doubt anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Then again I will write to the presidency and observations expose you told me, perhaps they re-issue a new permit because the Colombian government has been very generous lately with issues of ICTs (Information and Communications Technologies).

If they send me an response, immediately I consult it to you. --G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. Can you take a look at this when you get a chance please? I'm not seeing PD with these images, but I figured it would be best to get a second opinion. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help; replied over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. The Hampton fellow was somewhat familiar to me because of his "Leap of Faith" (1939) image which I'd seen before. INeverCry 20:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for taking the time to close this issue and restore the PROUTlogo.gif graphic. I have responded to your post on my talk page. Abhidevananda (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've checked the contribution of the user and marked for deletion only copyright violating material. Please undelete these files, he is evidently the author in these cases:

• File:Сухая Мечётка 2013 январь.JPG
• File:Бетонные пирамиды на берегу Сухой Мечётки.JPG
• File:Сухая Мечётка между 1 прод. и Волгой.JPG
• File:Устье Сухой Мечётки зимой 2013.JPG
• File:Следы серой куропатки.JPG
• File:Белохвостый орлан над Мокрой Мечёткой.JPG
• File:Мечётка между ул. Николая Отрады и рекой Волгой.JPG
• File:Спартановка с 9 этажа.JPG
• File:Прыткая ящерица на Сарпинском.jpg
• File:Вид с восточного берега о.САрпинского.jpg
• File:Вид на Спартановку со стороны Волги.jpg
• File:Переправа на Денежный.jpg
• File:Травы острова Денежный.jpg
• File:Скелетик рыбы на пляже 2009.jpg
• File:Насекомые острова денежный.jpg
• File:Дернаденостр.jpg
• File:Деревья на Денежном острове.jpg
• File:Восточный берег о. Денежного.jpg
• File:Устье Мокрой Мечётки, 26 января 2013.JPG
• File:Устье Мокрой Мечётки 25 января 2013.JPG
• File:Вид на Спартановку и Мокрую Мечётку.jpg
• File:Сухая Мечетка 2013.jpg
• File:Парк памяти 2013.JPG
• File:Сорока на Спартановке.jpg
• File:Водяной уж и его добыча.jpg
• File:Бродячая кошка в Волгограде.jpg
• File:Бродячая собака на Спартановке.JPG
• File:Водяной уж на берегу Волгоградского водохранилища недалеко от Волгограда.JPG
• File:Двухслойный трафарет ( приспособление и изображение ).JPG
• File:Однослойный трафарет ( приспособление ).jpg
• File:Однослойный трафарет котёнка.jpg
• File:Street art34.JPG
• File:Stencil art.Daniel Harms.jpg
• File:Двухслойный трафарет.jpg
• File:Трафарет однослойный.jpg
• File:Sukhaya mechetka (znak).jpg

Sincerely yours, Mithril (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mithril (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. If you're happy they're legit, that works for me. Let me know if there are any more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Eleassar's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

I've got a bit of a stange case to ask you about. Take a look at User talk:INeverCry#Mistake about File:Guillermo Lasso perfil vertical.jpg. This user has uploaded several images with the Xavier Cuesta EXIF. I was thinking of having her mail OTRS, and perhaps get an OTRS ticket to put on this deleted image and the others with that EXIF. Thoughts? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS may be useful in this situation, but OTRS isn't a miracle cure. In a situation like this, the purpose of OTRS is to verify the identity of the copyright holder and to verify that they intend to release their work under an acceptable license. The first part is where many permissions tickets fall down. If they have an "official" email address (ie at the same domain as their website if they have one), it's easy enough, but otherwise there's not much we can do on OTRS that can't be done on-wiki. But anyway, en:WP:BEANS would suggest that the more creative ways of verifying people's identities might not be the best topic for a public wiki, so it might be best to have them send an email and I'll see what I can do. Have them put "FAO Harry Mitchell" in the subject line and somebody will (hopefully) assign it to me or I'll dig it out next time I'm online (which will probably be Thursday). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HJ, I've told them what needs to be done. I appreciate you're help on this one. INeverCry 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. Xavier Cuesta, the guy that the metadata says is the owner of the camera, already sends an e-mail (from the e-mail that the camera mention). Have it been received? We talked and the mail should says he gives to Public Domain all the photos that I've uploaded. I hope that is enough, isn't? Guillermo Lasso is presidential candidate for the elections of this weekend in Ecuador and I'm worried that my graphic work don't be useful for Wikipedia accurately in this time. --Mabel Velástegui (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's worth, my vote of confidence to the work done by Mabel in Wikipedia and Commons. Also, I believe that is important to solve this obstacle before the elections of 17 february because all editors expects that their contributions scope the wider amount of readers of the encyclopedia in the useful time. --Sageo (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OTRS gets thousands of emails a day (and I have several hundred of my own to sift through, hence not much time to search OTRS). If an email has been sent that wasn't addressed to me, I need to know the email address it was sent from and/or the subject line (if it's unique enough to be searchable). Mabel, could you post those details here or email them to me (Special:EmailUser/HJ Mitchell or hjmitchell at ymail dot com). I'll try to pick it up over the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the mail sent:

From: Xavier Cuesta <xacuesta at yahoo dot com>

To: "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Send: Wednesday, february 13, 2013 9:10 A.M. Asunto: Xavier Cuesta-Mabel Velastegui-Public Domain

I'm Xavier Cuesta. I concede to Public Domain ALL the photographs uploaded by Mabel Velastegui to Wikimedia Commons. Please restore the photos she uploaded:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:INeverCry#Mistake_about_File:Guillermo_Lasso_perfil_vertical.jpg. Regards.

--Mabel Velástegui (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another image was deleted http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Banco_del_Barrio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1. I'm still having problems and I'm not violating copyrights! Make something please. --Mabel Velástegui (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. There any news about this? --Mabel Velástegui (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it and I'm happy with it. I've marked the image {{PermissionOTRS}}. Just copy and paste the template for any other images and if anybody asks you about it, point them to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping on this one HJ. It looks like she's got bigger problems though: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mabel Velástegui. INeverCry 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have too much on my mind elsewhere to look into that in much detail, but I will say I'm happy that all of Mabel's images whose EXIF data credits Xavier Cuesta are legit, assuming they belong to Xavier Cuesta. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I'd say we've done everything we could to help. INeverCry 20:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to delete: Commons:Deletion requests/File:17 March 1959 Communist Red Army troops fire heavy artillery guns in Lhasa Valley.jpg --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm the nominator and I've been discussing the issue at the DR, so it's not my place to make the final decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long discussion, and time lost. I had misinterpreted the fact that there are PD-China files that are under from AP as well as UPI on Commons since a long time. In conclusion, I beleive File:Dalai-mao-oct13-1954.jpg is also concerned (I had indicated it here [2]). I beleive other files may also be concerned. I found this one is from UPI, but I do not have any link about this File:Dalai mao colour1.jpg. If you beleive this is important, I'll look for this. Best regards, and thanks for all the informations. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've deleted the latter of those two because it clearly belongs to UPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not find this UPI photo on their web site, I only found indication that it was from UPI on a book by Michel Peissel. I wanted to verify this issue. Some photo are in the same situation (need verification, that have been taged by Futuretrillionaire. Could you restore File:Dalai mao colour1.jpg so that it can be included in the same discussion. Those who uploaded the files should be informed so that they too can discuss.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think some clarification is needed on the issue of copyright, see : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao dalai lama-1955.jpg. If you agree with, please restore the photo so as to include it in the discussion (it is the same photo). --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to it in the DR, as you've done, is sufficient. The content of the image is not important to whether another should be deleted and I can't think of any other reason I would restore what I suspect to be a copyright violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. I don't want to stick my oar in but I really don't think that this guy is a baddie or was trying deliberately to circumvent anything. (I have had some very tangential involvement with trying to help here ... > fail.) He is a newbie and does have a COI about which he is perfectly frank; but having been pulled up on the copyrighted photo of Alison, for which he didn't have clearance, he just went and took his own pic, which seems reasonable. The apparent circumvention attempt may have been caused by his re-using the filename but I honestly think it was a good-faith attempt to comply, and I would hate both EMI Classics and Alison to both be left joining the legions of people who think we're a bit, ah, carp because they tried to do something that seemed reasonable and were thwarted by TeH Evil Rouj AdminZ™ and cabalists. Just my 2p though I do acknowledge that its real value may be very much less. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he can provide some sort of proof to OTRS that he own either image, I'd be happy to restore it/them. You may be right, but I'm somewhat reluctant to trust that somebody whose first upload didn't belong to them would own the second image they uploaded on the same day of the same subject. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry! Tsk! I am shocked. Very very cynical and at your age too. :) I bet you a pint he is OK and it was not deliberately naughty. Mind you at the moment he seems to have gone a bit quiet and the photo is back where it was so who knows ... I am hoping to lose no further sleep over it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, but then I see this sort of thing, and I wonder if my cynicism is justified. Let me know when and where for that pint. You sound (type?) like a Brit, so I'm guessing you're in the UK? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. Clearly you are much older in wikiyears than me, despite my advanced age in the physical world, and have had more wikitime to get cynical. Yes, I am in Londontown, Englandland. The pint is probably best discussed by email. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a meetup in London (usually in the Penderel's Oak in Holborn) on the second Sunday of every month. The next one is a week tomorrow and the one after is on 14 April. I don't go to all of them because of the expense of train tickets down to London, but I like to go every few months, so if any of those dates work for you, let m know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems File:Sarcoscypha austriaca (Krulhaarkelkzwam) De Twigen.JPG is from the same set of images and got confirmed. Did you had a look at the OTRS ticket? --McZusatz (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. File:Diatrype bullata (wilgenschorsschijfje) De Twigen.JPG was the subject of ticket:2013020110008042, which doesn't specify a license; the client was asked to choose one but hasn't responded. File:Sarcoscypha austriaca (Krulhaarkelkzwam) De Twigen.JPG cites a different ticket (ticket:2013021210003679) from the same client. This one is better in that it uses the template and it was accepted by the OTRS agent, but both tickets originate from a free webmail address and the agent who accepted the second one doesn't appear to have made any attempt to verify that the client was the copyright holder (which is the whole point of OTRS). I'll point them to this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm the OTRS agent who has handled. I checked several data indicate that it is real.

• For example, the photo geolocation and the email sender IP are close.
• The only source located by searchers is commons. Copied from another site?? It is difficult (not impossible)
• EXIF is complete.

The email account is the usual get with free internet, many people using. Impossible to compare domain without other photo sources.

I am convinced that the authorization is good. (I can also confuse). Greetings, --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jup, I also think the OTRS tickets are valid. It just seems the author was not familiar with the licensing issue. --McZusatz (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We're happy that the permission is from the copyright holder. Do they specify which image(s) they're releasing? I can't see it, but something might have been lost in translation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The authorization is valid for a single image. HJ Mitchell, if you want I can copy the email in OTRSwiki so that you can read. --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take your word for it. Since that ticket is only valid for the one image, it looks like File:Diatrype bullata (wilgenschorsschijfje) De Twigen.JPG will have to stay deleted until we get separate permission. Thanks for your help, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding File:Slovenia Ethnographic Museum, Ljubljana.jpg, is there a particular reason why you have removed the OTRS template instead of replacing it?[3] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because my head hurts, but I've tagged it {{PermissionOTRS}} now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks; and for having concluded this case. I hope you will get better. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've just started the above DR that we discussed during your RfA. --99of9 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll see what I can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend! Could you check the OTRS Ticket to the file Manuela Bascón.jpg.

Thank you so much!

Greetings and hugs!

--G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 00:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I read your comment at Jimbo's talk page here, and figured I'll ask you the question I wanted to ask here and not there, since it's kind of off-topic over there. What I'm wondering about is the discrepancy between how much information is required to satisfy an OTRS volunteer, and how little is required in any other case. Personally, I fully agree with you that we need to make absolutely sure we do have the rights for the images we host, of course, and I'm quite happy that the OTRS volunteers take this seriously. But at the same time, everyone can upload most any pictures here on commons, and a simple "own work" or a link to a dubious Flickr account is enough to make sure the image will survive most every deletion request. For example, I just asked a user who uploads various pictures of genitalia about those pictures (see User talk:Bebop7), and all I can do is take his word that he has the rights to those pictures and that those pictured have given their consent. I'm fairly sure that an OTRS ticket would require more than that, but here I am, having to accept that. Or take File:Fellation Tracy and Rick-1.jpg, an image that surely would survive a deletion request, even though the source image has been deleted. Or File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg, which I did nominate for deletion, but quickly got a keep vote from another admin because it has been kept multiple times in the past.

My point is: Would any of these images survive as an OTRS ticket, given the current sourcing? And if not, why do we keep these images around? I'm honestly puzzled by the way commons handles these issues, and I'm hoping I might find some insight here. --Conti|✉ 22:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a short answer on the general principle first an come back to your specific examples later if that's okay. We like to trust that claims of "own work" are genuine, but it's not a suicide pact. If there's a suspicion that it wasn't created by the uploader, it's not undeletable. It is difficult to tell sometimes, but you can check a user's uploads for inconsistencies. Images grabbed from elsewhere will often be of inconsistent (low) resolution, they might be of varying quality, and the EXIF metadata will likely be inconsistent or missing altogether. You can also use tools like TinEye, which will tell you if the image appears elsewhere on the Web. Essentially, it's close to impossible to conclusively prove a claim of own work, but it's often possible to conclusively disprove it or to show it to be improbable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I'll hold off replying for now until you finish your reply, since I'm rather curious about those specific cases (and the countless similar cases that we do have). --Conti|✉ 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked into those two specific images. Assuming they had a compatible license at their sources (and they were released by the copyright holder), there's no problem with their copyright status. They are problematic in other ways (personality rights for a start), but those issues and copyright are not mutually exclusive: ie one can be fine while the other (very) problematic. OTRS should pursue "permission" in a personality rights sense as well as a copyright sense, especially for private or sexually explicit images. I call it healthy cynicism—we don't just take somebody's word for it, but we do a little digging or we ask questions. But alas, I have enough problems trying to get OTRS agents to do the most basic due diligence on copyright issues (if I had a penny for every time an OTRS ticket from a Gmail address was accepted without any attempt to check that the client is who they say they are, I'd be a rich man), let alone anything that's more difficult to prove. If you have a little time to spare, we could use your help. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to hear that OTRS isn't perfect, either. ;) But (as an outsider), all in all, I don't see any real problems with OTRS. OTRS on Commons works just as intended, as far as I can see. What doesn't work is everything else. My point was that OTRS has strict rules on copyright/personality rights questions, as it should, while Commons' rules about copyright/personality rights can be gamed without any effort at all. If that were the only issue, we mere users could play whack-a-mole with those that upload questionable content with even more questionable sourcing, but when users, admins and bureaucrats vote to keep such images in deletion requests (as some did in my examples above), then I honestly don't know what else to do. So, in short: Shouldn't Commons operate on the principle of "If an uploaded file has obviously no chance of ever surviving OTRS, it should be deleted."?

And thank you for responding and the offer to help out with OTRS myself. I thought about it previously, but a) I would not dare to touch anything copyright related, and I remain in awe that you guys do! And b) I rather work on raising Commons' low/nonexisting standards on personality rights for now, as futile as it seems to be at times. --Conti|✉ 17:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why these photos and this category [4] are necessary to the project? HJ Mitchell - who is such? Vanity young man? Tatesic (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me. I didn't take any of them. I didn't even create the category. It's flattering that people think I'm interesting enough to upload photos of me, though I'm really not that photogenic (I look drunk or tired or surprised in most of them!). But thanks for the tea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within your power to remove excess photos from the project. No need to turn the project into a personal playground for the publication of photos of the self. No need to thank me for tea. You can help me in saving of the photo which are really necessary to the project?: [5] --Tatesic (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tatesic:But I think this category (and other categories like this) and photos is/are very helpful and necessary! Some people (like me) love pictures of Wikimedia foundation persons. It was my question: "Who are foundation's persons?" I have another Phantasm about these persons! They are famous people in the world because they have special work on the world! --Mehdi^Talk 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not that interesting, and I don't work for the Foundation (I volunteer for Wikimedia UK sometimes, which is where most of the photos have come from). :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, You are interesting! Because people like u, make a knowledge for other people in the world! You are Wikimedia volunteer and You spend your time in this way! but other guys (Your age) spend their time in nightclubs and other places for do nothing! It is our (me and my other friend in fa.wp) wishes! opening Wikimedia foundation office in Iran, But we have lots of limitation from Iranian government and diplomatic system, So we can't do it! You are especial but u don't know! you have lots of freedom but you don't know! :( --Mehdi^Talk 20:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi, аll is well. I'm leaving the project. I wanted to help the project, but it's my fault. Me for many years, i am doing research, i have a lot of material on the artists of France. I'm an expert. Need to study the legislation of various countries. No need to compare the publication in the 19th century and DVD[6], this is - stupid.I spent a lot of time to download images of paintings, which were published in the 19th century [7], [8]. And these images have been published by the National Library of France, and other websites. Why was to hurry with removal of files? No need to flatter the administrator. The flattery - isn't worthy men.--Tatesic (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tatesic:Hi man, This project need to users like You and your specialty. You have a discrepancies with some users and you can resolving these discrepancies. It's not hard. You need a humility and Patience. Take it easy. You think I'm a flatter but I had not any friendship with this user and I have no idea about his personality and etc. But we can't say anything about other users and We can't make personal attacks anywhere. at the end:<<Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. (Eleanor Roosevelt)>> With respect:--Mehdi^Talk 20:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi,"we seldom attribute common sense except to those who agree with us..." (La Rochefoucauld). With respect. --Tatesic (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, actually. But Mehdi's right that we need editors like you. It's just that we have to be very careful to make sure that the files we host are actually in the public domain (or freely licensed), and that can sometimes get a bit tricky, but it's nothing personal. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will work. I hope for the help and understanding of administration.--Tatesic (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Killbot.jpg photo deleted? The appropriate permissions were submitted AND approved by OTRS MONTHS ago. The permissions came from an authorized releasing agent, Prospect Park Management, Killbot's management. I am also an authorized releasing agent for Killbot, JDevil, and Korn per their management firm, Prospect Park and the artists themselves. Nbcwd (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was J Devil (Jonathan Davis).jpg deleted? Again, I am the authorized releasing agent for JDevil per artist management. Authorization to release the photos was submitted and approved months ago. Nbcwd (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just took a large sweep through his mostly dubious uploads. But please undelete the following files that were valid PD images from the US military and had been tagged as such by me:

• File:An Iraqi crewmember.jpg
• File:8th-iraqi-army-division-familiarizes-with-shadow-uav 0904021.png

Thank you. De728631 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There's File:T-72 Iraqi Army 001 forum.jpg too. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a sample and they were all copyvios, but I've restored those two three. Sorry about that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks again. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick can of your deleted edits and I couldn't see any more, but if there are more, just let me know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Gunnex's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Many days ago, Fundación Ecuador Libre/Fundación del Barrio had send by mail to OTRS the permissions to use in Commons the photos I uploaded. In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mabel Velástegui is the list of the images requested for undeletion. Please check in the inbox of OTRS. --Mabel Velástegui (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please visit the updated WLM page, at Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom. You may want to move your name to an appropriate category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information.

I wrote the following mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as you wrote to me:

"File:Die City Preachers 1970.jpg Permission

Herewith I declare that I have the right to publish the File:Die City Preachers 1970.jpg ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Die_City_Preachers_1970.jpg ) international on wikipedia under

Creative Common Licence

(CC - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode)

without any restrictions of time and worldwide.

If you need any further informations please note me!"

I hope I have find the right words in English as it is needed in this case. I'm still new on Wikipedia and not absolute sure in all the rules. If you are missing anything in this permission email please let me know so I'll make hopefully no mistakes anymore in future in cases of copyrights! --MichiOne (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please checking this section. It's related to you. (ticket:2013022310004559 and Deletion log ). --Mehdi^Talk 06:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks looks like Trijnstel's handled it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you have warned User:Eleassar already, I am asking for your support also in the following cases: User_talk:INeverCry#File:Rajko_Koro.C5.A1ec.jpg --Hladnikm (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't really know the policies on Commons, but I thought I'd let you know I find a bit harsh to delete with no prior discussion nor delinking a picture as heavily used as Shreveskyline.JPG... Lucasbfr (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's unfortunate, but we can't keep images in violation of copyright just because they're widely used. This one belonged (by the uploader's admission) to a third party, and we have nothing to suggest he even asked them for permission. Given that the user had uploaded multiple copyright violations (including several obviously fraudulent claims of "own work"), one of which caused a complaint to OTRS, there was no way it could have stayed on Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I moved some images you had categorised in Category:Woolworths Group UK stores prior to 2008 administration into Category:Woolworths Group in England; the former was only for photos taken prior to the company going into administration (i.e. to keep separate the few that were taken *before* the glut of closed and closing-down shop images).

I have to admit to wondering why some images were moved out of Category:West Midlands at the same time though, when they *do* appear to be relevant to the West Midlands. I was going to restore the category, but thought I'd check why this was done first. (I notice you're involved with OTRS, so I'd assume you know a reasonable amount about Commons).

I appreciate that putting it in a more specific category would be preferable, but in the absence of that (and there's certainly no obligation upon you to do it), I'd assume it'd make sense to leave it in place.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that one confused me. I'm just clearing out Category:West Midlands (it had something 8,000 images in it at one point and it's still at around 4,000, which is only slightly less ridiculous), so put them in whatever category you think best. Except that one! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't have the time (or inclination!) to check 4000 images... and yes, I *had* intended putting them back in the "West Midlands" category!

My point was that while the onus isn't on you to improve the existing categories with something more specific, I'd have expected the existing ones to be left in place. An insufficiently specific categorisation is better than none, IMHO.

I appreciate there must be a point where a category is so broad (e.g. Category:Places) that it's only of any use as a parent to subcategories, and having images in that category itself is effectively worse than it *not* being categorised (i.e. it adds to clutter but is so broad as to be useless as a categorisation in itself).

Are you suggesting that images in the "West Midlands" category are in this position?

Cheers, Ubcule (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a category wit >4k images in it is in exactly that position—it's so large as to be useless. I don't really care where the images of Woolworths go, whether they go in a better Woolworths-related category or categories for the individual towns or somewhere else, as long as they don't go back into Category:West Midlands, because I'm trying to get that as close to empty as possible (and it's taking months). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I need to understand what exactly the problem is with these images? The owner gave me the right to freely make them available, I submitted the written permissions, went through the correct procedures and yet still they were deleted, what exactly is going on? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Accuracy_International_AS-50.jpg thanks in advance 81.110.28.183 11:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ, hope you're well. Since you're both OTRS and an admin, I was wondering if I could request that you take a look at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Avril_Lavigne? The email should explain everything and then the deletion request should be zapped. With hope, everything is in order. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I expect you will have seen my note to the WLM-UK 2013 mailing list suggesting a telephone call sometime soon to discuss progress and ongoing priorities. Are you available one evening next week? MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I can't think of anywhere else I need to be so I should be able to make it. I'll keep an eye on the list for an exact date. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looking at new records kept on Wikipedia, I saw your two photographs. I have assembled. Here is the result. I hope this is satisfactory. Cordially. (Translation by computer).

Bonjour, en regardant les nouveaux fichiers versés sur Wikipédia, j'ai vu vos deux photographies. Je les ai assemblées. Voici le résultat. J'espère que cela vous conviendra.Cordialement.François de Dijon (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Laurence%27s_Church,_Long_Eaton,_from_Market_Place_%282%263%29.jpg

Thank you very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

At your service. Cordially.François de Dijon (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. I took this photo myself and uploaded it less than 10 days ago on 7:09, 23 August 2013‎ . How is that someone else has moved the filename and is claiming to have uploaded it and as his/her own work? Regards, Chris. Kudpung (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a connection here. Kudpung (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved. Kudpung (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I've seen you have removed the WLM tag from some of my pictures:

Braunton (Devon, UK), Black Horse Inn -- 2013 -- 1.jpg Barnstaple (Devon, UK), Pannier Market -- 2013 -- 5.jpg Barnstaple (Devon, UK), Pannier Market -- 2013 -- 1.jpg Barnstaple (Devon, UK), Clock Tower -- 2013 -- 2.jpg

You've remarked this wit hthe comment "grade I and II only". I've had a look at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ . All buildings are grade I oder II . Please check this. In the description of the picture you can found a link to the web site with the grade level. Thank you! --XRay ^talk 12:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! I haven't seen that there is a difference between grade II and grade II*. You're right, the 4 images have only grade II. --XRay ^talk 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, there are three different grades—Grade I (one), Grade II* (two-star), and Grade II (two), of which only the Grade I and Grade II* are eligible this year. There are hundreds of thousands of Grade II listed buildings, so we decided to stick with the two higher grades for our first year. But thanks for uploading the photos—I used to live near Barnstaple, so it's nice to see some quality photos of the area. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the deletion. Since I work for the club, under which copyright am i supposed to upload it, without being deleted?

Hi there. I have a possibly abstruse question about an image's copyright status, and you've been very helpful in the past. Can you please stop by File:Detroit, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor Interurban car on the bridge over the Michigan Central Railroad just east of Michigan Center (near Jackson)..jpg? I've raised a question on the talk page. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if your statement that the company had been merged into other companies by c.1910 is accurate (I'd have no idea—not my area of expertise!), you're almost certainly right. There's not much harm in the license as it is—it's still compatible with Commons—but if you felt like doing a bit of detective work, you could ask the Flickr for more information and change the license if they tell you it was taken pre-1923. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, was not clear to me why you deleted this file of Irmã Dulce Pontes article ("not a work of Agência Brasil").
PauloMSimoes, 20 october 2013 00h58 (UTC)

Tanks, Harry, Gunnex informed me what was wrong ("divulgation image").

User:PauloMSimoes, 20 october 2013 10h30 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell,

It's not clear to me why you deleted this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mailbird_Email_Software_Program.jpg

I have followed the guidelines and email Commons from a company email with the provided template email (filled out). Please let me know what I need to do to have the image approved.

Thanks.

It's a screenshot, so you would have to get the owner to release the software itself under a free license. If you tell me the email address you used to send the permission to OTRS, I can have a look for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HJ Mitchell,

i uploaded some picture few days ago. For example "Scheusal.jpg" and you deleted it (18:58, 19. Okt. 2013) with the reason "Copyright violation". But that is false. I have the permissions of the owner to upload these pictures. Can you undelete it please?

thanks and greetings from GER Ragecore666 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ragecore666, what was the account you used to upload the files (it wasn't this one, because this was your first edit as Ragecore666)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you accepted File:Westbrook station USGS aerial 2008.JPG and File:Revere to Lynn Blue Line Extension.jpg for speedy deletion? Both were US Government satellite images available as historical layers on Google Earth (not copyrighted Google/Keyhole imagery) and thus public domain; they were in no way copyright violations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what does "historical layers" mean in this context. I don't really know what to do for the best here—I'm not sure how you can tell what's from the USGS and what's proprietary in Google Earth. I deleted those two along with several other images from Google Earth that were clearly copyrighted; had I realised they weren't just part of that group, I probably would have left them for another admin to decide. My best advice, and it's nothing personal, is to go to COM:UD and explain it there; hopefully the regulars there will be able to resolve it (and by all means link to this post if you want to how that you came here first). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures I uploaded are my own and I own the copyright!

Tom_Felton_with_David_Bass_(daveyboyz).jpg David_Bass_presenter_of_ITV_at_the_Movies_(UK).jpg Dubstep_Santa_2.jpg

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/− Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear HJ Mitchell, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 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 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

العربية | català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | magyar | Nederlands | polski | svenska | ไทย | +/− Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear HJ Mitchell, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Hi Harry, could you please have another look at this ticket? The sender of the permissions assured that the photographer gave him all rights on this file after I aksed him to clearify this. Thanks! --ireas :talk: 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The sender just sent the template in, but didn't specify how he owned the rights to the image (he just stated that he did). Another OTRS agent has since independently reached the same conclusion and sent a reply to that effect (the email's in German, so I didn't reply because I'm relying on Google Translate). I'll keep an eye on the ticket, and I'll happily undelete the image once we have the information we need. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to that second mail (30.12.2013 13:10) where S. F. says: die fotografin hat mir sämtliche verwrtungsrechte übertragen which means the photographer gave all reuse rights to me. --ireas :talk: 13:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perosonally I'd want something more than the subject's word (like an email from the photographer), but I'll leave it to the discretion of the agent handling the ticket. I've put an internal note on the ticket to that effect and offering to undelete the image once the agent handling it is happy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The handling OTRS agent was me. ;) As far as I know, we accept permissions like these (at least regarding the German Wikipedia) if they are plausible (example: File:B. B. & The Blues Shacks 2013.jpeg). This mail seems plausible to me. --ireas :talk: 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry - I didn't realise! If you're happy, I'll undelete it then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

... is on the move, see File:Manchester Cenotaph 2014-1.jpg & File:Manchester Cenotaph 2014-2.jpg. I'll try to get some pictures with my proper camera some time... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike. Let me know how the move progresses if you can. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by it yesterday and took photos with my proper camera - see File:Manchester Cenotaph 2014-3.jpg through File:Manchester Cenotaph 2014-10.jpg. I think they've taken the top off it now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all gone now! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dado que eres activo también aquí, te escribiré en castellano. Puedes explicarme porque has borrado las imágenes del estadio de Colón de Santa Fe??? Ciertamente estoy cansado de la prepotencia de muchos aquí en Wikipedia en Español (ya de por sí ello es una prepotencia, dado que el idioma se llama Castellano y no Español.) En los artículos en inglés vemos miles de imágenes, en los nuestros, que culturalmente no poseemos la cultura del copyright y trade-mark, dado que la cultura es de todos, sufrimos constantes ataques. Los equipos europeos en su mayoría tienen registrados sus escudos, y son utilizados de todas formas, aquí, en Argentina los equipos dejan a libre disponibilidad la utilización de sus insignias, sin embargo aquí en Wikipedia no se los puede utilizar...ni siquiera nos permiten a los hablantes en castellanos subir imágenes de los estadios.--186.62.206.114 00:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with this one. If it's not too much trouble, the other socks/images here are User:Xtro3, User:KevinTredder, User:Goout&shootamovie, User:NicoleGreenJo, User:AmericandudehereinUK, User:Logansrun1976, User:Marybleedingpoppings, User:Zoolander2, and User:MarkyMarker. As I said, he's been busy. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And User:Joey Pain just now. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody hell! He's nothing if not persistent! All this time he's spent promoting himself, he'll have no time left to run his business! (@NawlinWiki) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up, there was two different files and I copy-pasted two similar ones. My bad. The File:Steffen Kverneland Amputerte klassikere II.jpg should also be undeleted. Thanks! Jeblad (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Harry -- I am editing a current site in my sandbox. I check my progress by using Show preview. My question: If I use Save page, does it change the original site? Am I right in thinking that so doing it will only be saved as a part of my sandbox site, and from where I might then forward it for review, after which if accepted, it then replaces the original? 'Would appreciate a heads-up email when you post reply. Thanks much. Pat Kelso (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat.

If you're editing in your sandbox, pressing "save page" will only save your changes to your sandbox. When you're ready, you can edit the 'live' page that you want to change, and clicking save there will save your changes to the page itself. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You found my price. Very much obliged for your input. I'm working in my Sandbox on Graphical projection, subhead #2.2 Perspective projection. Its not hard to find something that needs editing in the Graphics Projection discipline. Pat Kelso (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Harry, I am editing in my sandbox on Graphical projection, section #2.2 Perspective projection. There are six other types of projection preceding. In my section there are a number of instances which call for footnotes. My question: if some of these called-for footnotes appear in the previous sections, do I repeat them in my section? In practice, I imagine there will be a number of people researching my section only so will not be aware of the previous footnotes. ‘Appreciate your email heads-up. Thanks. Pat Kelso (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block him? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry--do you mind deleting File:Birdsong, Mary (2006).jpg? It's the old filename (incorrect name) but it still redirects to the (wrong) photo. Apparently that redirect causes the file to show up externally under the wrong name. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Sorry it took me a few days; I've been busy elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't suppose you could add a geocode and/or location category for this image could you? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, I took it at the open day at Etches Park a couple of weekends ago. Not sure what category would be best as the depot doesn't have one (I'm tempted to create one once I've got the rest of my photos up. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could delete one of these two images as they are duplicates of each other Image 1, Image 2. If I am missing out on some procedure let me know. - SantiLak (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're exact enough (one has been modified) and they're both in use, so I'd rather lave it to people who deal with that sort of thing more often. Perhaps tag one of them with {{Duplicate}} or nominate one for deletion if you think it's necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings HJ, I can't edit ENWP but I wanted to drop you a quick note about your decision to unban and overturn the topic ban on MarkBernstein. I could say more about this and how disappointed I am over your decision to let this long term gamergate troll and drama user back, but I know it doesn't matter. What that action did do, was show me (finally I guess) that editors like me who want the project to succeed and have devoted countless hours and who have done hundreds of thousands of edits to it, are not as desired as editors like Mark who do nothing bu contribute drama. So I wanted to congratulate you that after everything, this action showed me once and for all that Wikipedia is not a useful place for me to contribute and spend my time. Kumioko/Reguyla (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mark was immediately reblocked for personal attacks. I can't say I am surprised. Reguyla (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from unjustifyable image deletions like this one, there's no one identifyable so no consent is required. Please file a DR if you see this different. Thank you. --Denniss (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's why I don't spend much time here. Because hey, let's spread some more photos of vaginas; who cares about pesky little things like whether the model consented to the publication or whether she's even old enough to consent. Honestly? It doesn't worry you at all that somebody who has done nothing but upload pictures of their own cock (because we all know Commons needs more photos of cocks) suddenly uploads a photo of a vagina, and you're not the least bit worried? You don't think it might be a good idea to check that the model is okay with that? Or do you think Commons is so desperate for photos of vaginas that we should waive basic. Human. Decency? @Denniss: . HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File a DR, raise your concerns. Do not delete them on your own gusto, especially if they are in use (you did damage the project by deleting in-use images, even ignoring at least one DR resulting as keep). And no, I'm not a fan of these images either as I frequently delete newly uploaded bad quality genital images I stumble upon. Let me repeat - there's no consent required if nobody is identifyable.--Denniss (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You deleted a photo of Alex Rowley, File:AlexRowleyMSP20140129.jpg, on the basis of copyright violation, yet other photos provided by the Scottish Parliament (such as those of Kezia Dugdale & Ken Macintosh) have not been deleted. I was just wondering why that is? Why are some of the photos able to be taken down by copyright but others arent't? Thank you. Brucejoel99 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HJ Mitchell,

Could you please exlain why this file is not a copyright violation? It was motivate clearly why this logo is above TOO. Natuur12 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took it into consideration with Commons:Deletion requests/File:ITV logo 2013.svg. Both had previously been kept, along with multiple similar files, and the nomination was malicious. It comes down to differing opinions on whether or not the logos exceed the TOO, and the consensus (taking into account both DRs and the previous keep results) appears to be that they don't. If you feel strongly, I recommend you start a new DR for all the ITV logos rather than deal with them piecemeal. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point. Valid arguments have been given why this logo is above TOO and the other ITV logos are less complicated. If I start a mass DR it will likekly be closed under the argument that they need idenvidual DR's so the weakness in your argument is obvious. If you want to talk about consensus. The consensus is leaning thowards delete and the arguments provided are never countered. Please reconsider this closing since the principle of significant doubt was met. Natuur12 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't think I am. The two logos are identical (except that this one has a "+1" in a bubble), so their fate should be the same. There are also several largely identical logos in Category:ITV logos, except that those are a single colour. They should be evaluated together for consistency, otherwise we get different participants, different arguments, and potentially a different result. There have been previous DRs which have resulted in the files being kept, so at the very least further discussion is needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are different colors is one of the key arguments why this logo is above TOO so your comparison seems to be false and therefor my statement that you missed the point still stands. The only argument that you brought up which still stands is that there is another logo that might have to share the same faith. This is never a reason to keep a copyright violation however. The fact that the file has been kept before is merely an ad antiquitatem. Nothing more. I have probably closed more DR's than you did in the past so I would appreciate it if we can address the copyright status of the image instead of discussing if the "format" of the DR was correct or not. You have been dodging my questions so please stop doing that. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to dodge your questions. I'm sure you have closed more DRs than I have; I don't do it very often, but my attention was drawn by a watchlist notice. I'm simply stating that there are two almost identical logos that between them have had four DRs, and half a dozen similar logos, and there is no clear consensus on whether they meet the TOO. I wouldn't be comfortable closing the DRs as delete without further input. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I waited with my responce so that things could cool down a bit. Logo DR's are often closed wrong because people don't always realise that some countries have a very low TOO. The question is: does the logo show creative elements? Yes, some elements are creative and therefor the logo can be protected by copyright law. But really, if you still believe that there are half a dozen similar logo's you clearly misunderstood the key argument about the colors. See also this DR which contains far more high quility opinions about this topic and are the logo's in that DR really more complex? I suggest that you open a DR for both the logos because if I reopen it people would merely accuse me of trolling. That doesn't work. But mark my words, one day some bored journalist finds out that we hoste complicated logo's of companies claiming that they are not copyrightable and than we are in deep trouble. Natuur12 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your maintance work regarding above DR which you closed yesterday evening with "All deleted by Yann" but in fact there are multiple nominated files still awaiting a treatment. Example: File:Wuxi Theatre.jpg. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I just reopened the DR, reinserting it and undid the archiving. Gunnex (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ! COM:CURRENCY is missing a few countries, notably Venzuela and Mali. Do you know enough about either to help fill in the page?? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know much about either place, never mind about their currencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You can restore files you deleted? : File:Finish logotyp.jpg and File:Finish Quantum Max.jpg. OTRS permission came. Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Uğurkent: Do you have a ticket number? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015090810016942 Uğurkent (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Uğurkent: I've undeleted the files and tagged them. You can respond to the ticket and let the customer know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Uğurkent (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticied that you deleted File:Within Mint17.1 on Ubuntu 14.04.png with "copyvio" as reason, without closing this related DR. Please provide a valid reason for the deletion and then close the DR, considering that the depicted elements in the screenshot are Free software. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Cleanup in aisle 7  Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking part in my RFA. With regard to your viewpoint on Colin's analysis, you may find it helpful to consider this dialogue over the last day. --Fæ (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting here since you suggested it but I also already sent you an email.

I only got unblocked today and nothing I did warranted a block let alone a ban discussion. WTT left a comment with a lot of incorrect and derogatory information and I wanted to reply. That was the only time that could be argued that I violated my "restrictions" that aren't needed anyway. There is no need for a ban discussion for a comment, there is no need to be banned again for zero reason. If this goes through, this ban will be for the sake of a ban. That's it. I agreed to the community unan discussion last year and that was violated and manipulated and undone by a couple people that opposed it. I am not going to abide by a ban that isn't needed or warranted. Its petty and childish to ban me for the sake of a ban.

Last August I was community unbanned and that was due to expire in February but no admins would do it so I had to strike a deal with WTT. I knew the restrictions were a setup for failure and told him that, but I had no choice and he was the only one willing to do any unblock. Otherwise I would have to continue to create new accounts periodically just to edit. I wanted to try and avoid drama but its obvious that's not going to happen.

I have done nothing but positive edits for more than a year. Yes I have used multiple accounts to do so because it was the only way I could edit. But all the edits were positive. Many were deleted by others. So no one can say I am not here to build an encyclopedia. Maybe if the community and you admins were willing to give me a fair chance to participate you would see that. But its obvious from that discussion you don't care and have no desire to have a fair and unbiased discussion let alone allow me to edit.

I have a problem with this discussion that I cannot even participate in. Its typical Wikipedia typical abusive bullshit. You don't like someone, create a discussion and then block them so they cannot participate. Then ban them and wait for them to respond. Then accuse them of socking, block evasion etc and continue the cycle. I hope you all know how stupid and petty that makes the project look. No one in that discussion has any interest in giving me a fair chance. Most of it is talking about shit that happened 2 years ago. Neil was looking all over for an excuse to block me and he was going to find one eventually so he picked one and blocked me for a month. Then started an AN discussion after blocking me so I couldn't participate. It sure is strange why I would keep claiming abuse of policy. Reguyla (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to what I said by email, I'm sure you could make a statement in your defence. If you can't edit your enwiki talk page, you can post it here and I'll copy it over for you. In the meantime, it would do you no harm to continue building a reputation as a constructive editor here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing here and I found it difficult to interact while blocked at ENWP. Besides, if the 500, 000 edits, hundreds of articles created, vandalism reverted, featured content, etc. doesn't matter, then why would a few edits here make a difference. People will just say then he can stay on commons. Besides its not as interesting too me as editing ENWP. My heart just wasn't in it here I guess you could say.

You and I both know that a statement in my defense won't do anything. No I don't have access to my talk page but unless I am actively engaged in the discussion its pointless and honestly, its so far along now with so many supports, by people who really have no idea what they are talking about, that its not going to matter. That was the point from the beginning. You think its a coincidence he blocked me before he started the AN discussion? I sure don't, it happens a lot on ENWP and its a well established and often used method of getting what they want in a discussion like that.

There are so many false statements an assumptions by people in that discussion it would be hard to reply to it all in one statement. But yes I know you aren't going to unblock me. Reguyla (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take for instance this edit by Neil. Of course I wasn't told that. Anyone can look at the talk page and see that. Its not in any restriction nor was it inferred.

Most of the Support comments are bullshit. I created nor caused any disruption. Hell I was hardley there long enough to do any edits. It was mostly responding to comments on my talk page. There is zero reason for a ban discussion. I mean really has the project gotten to be so slow that it needs to make drama where there is none? I sure hope not. I see a lot of people that are not going to support my return regardless of how long I wait. BTW, if you look at the history, most of those ban supporters have suported my bans all the way back. Its the same group of hustlers. Reguyla (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please don't remove location-type categories like you did here. The image is undeniably something within Exeter, and that makes it useful to categorise it in that way.

Having it in the parent category is not the best place for it, but there are plenty of more suitable sub-categories (eg Category:transport in Exeter or the perfect one this case Category:Exminster viaduct exists).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, it's technically within the arbitrary boundaries of a particular local authority, but it's just a stretch of motorway; there's nothing specific to Exeter in the photo, and it's neither use nor ornament in Category:Exeter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its just a particular stretch of motorway, but it is still within Exeter - and it has been placed in that category for that very reason. It is entirely appropriate to have images of the M5 in Category:Roads in Exeter - move it to the subcat instead of removing it.

If you think the file is useless feel free to nominate it for deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Mitchell,

Thanks for your feed back. The images of and album artworks of Jay-P that i uploaded and used in his page "Jay-P" that was recently deleted was with his and his record labels permission. You can verify that by contacting them.

I still seem to be getting it wrong with Wikipedia. I think am going to start wiki school all over. Can't afford to get it wrong again — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderGee (talk • contribs) 13:29, 02 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I don't actually mind Liz's comment in the slightest. That did not strike me as harassment, I do not perceive it as harassment, and I feel she was just being genuinely nice. As such, I do not want the last act on my page to be removed when it was a kind gesture. Feel free to restore her comment, though keeping the protection is obviously fine.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish [9]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the timing seemed to be taunting. Do you like apples (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Committee's own ill-timed ban that was responsible for that. Don't think clerks are familiar with what goes on in the ArbCom mailing list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per you suggestion I am posting here. Sorry this is long but I wanted to clear up a couple things in regards to my most recent ban on ENWP. My ban discussion here is full of lies where some have tried to typecast me into a disruption and even you seemed to agree. So please, show me some proof of this disruption. With the 15 year anniversary this issue has really been eating at me and I would really like to know what of the hundreds of articles or edits I did was disruptive. I was a high output and dedicated editor for 10 years. I did hundreds of thousands of edits, created hundreds of articles, and on and on and on but it doesn't matter, because I am just an editor.

No one, including you it seems, care about anything other than 3 years ago I got pissed because a few people managed to manipulate policy into a ban on me by submitting ban requests over and over until they got what they wanted and I was mad. Because they finally got a ban approved for a talk page comment that wasn't even bad on the talk page of an editor who clearly wasn't there to create an encyclopedia nor have they edited since. Everything I did after that is fruit of the poison tree. Had the Arbcom and your fellow admins done the right thing then and revoked that obviously abusive bullshit ban then, the last 3 years wouldn't have happened and ENWP would have about 300, 000+ more edits from me already and counting.

As for what I did do, I at least apologized and meant it for anything I did. I cannot say that of the arbs who tried to get me fired or the editors and admins who continue to hound and harass me on wiki and IRC.

But wait, it gets better. Then the community had a ban review, it was exceptionally well done and the result was fair (eventhough it still required me to wait 6 months with "no disruptions"). But that wasn't good enough for some people, so John Carter, GoodDay and Chillum/HighinBC decided to take it upon themselves to create a disruption on my talk page so that they would have something to charge me with, because they opposed me being able to edit again. Then they opened an ANI request, where they knew I wasn't able to edit and got my ban review revoked. Again, no one cared, no one did or said anything and again they simply manipulated policy to get what they wanted and negate a decision they didn't want.

So at that point I just ignored it and kept editing positively because at that point I knew that a few people were going to be allowed to do what they wanted. Then, WTT and I struck an agreement eventhough I told him then it wouldn't last. WTT unblocked me and within a day I was blocked again. Again for a bullshit reason and again a discussion was taken to ANI where I again was not allowed to participate in my own defense to refute obvious lies and hyperbole. WTT insisted he would step in and settle things but when the fighting started...no one around, because he was upset about a minor comment on my talk page. Fluffernutter was kind enough to at least post my comments so I had a voice in the discussion since I was blocked by Neil to prevent me from being able to comment there prior to starting the discussion. She took some heat just for ensuring I at least had a voice in my own Kangaroo court.

Bottom line, you can tell anyone who says I am not there to contribute or build an encyclopedia that they are a flat out lier and anyone who says otherwise had better be able to back it up with more edits, more articles created and more featured content than me. Not even to mention all the other stuff I did to help the project. Again I was banned, using the excuse of a minor comment I made on my talk page that could have been easily ignored and was far, far less than anything that had been said about me on that ban discussion I linked to above. It was just an excuse to justify a few people to get their way and claim a consensus where none exists. Now, after three years of me asking nicely and not nicely for the Arbcom to get involved they do. But instead of putting a stop to the bullshit ban submissions they make a statement that they will make sure personally that I can't edit again. Because apparently editors are no longer wanted I guess. Now, even if the community agrees to let me edit, the arbcom has to approve it and they won't because I hurt their little feelings because they wouldn't do the right thing when they had the chance. So now I don't care, I am just going to keep editing and there isn't a thing they can do.

So, I wanted to let you know that I have been editing almost every day for the last 2 months and I will continue to make positive contributions on ENWP regardless of any bullshit ban against me by people who don't care about the project. Last month I did about 800 with an account called Maj Turmoil. All positive, but Courcelles decided to vandalize some of my edits. Not because its required, but because he can. Not because the edits were bad, but because he can. As of last night, this month, I did 2016 edits (I stopped at that number on purpose). I had to use 5 accounts and 3 IP's to get that, but I did it. I spread it out and I used a combination of Tmobile, Verizon and Sprint networks just to hide them so people like Courcelles with vendettas against me won't delete them out of spite. That will ensure more of the edits will be retained even if some are deleted by vandals.

I know I am the jerk because I am just an editor trying to improve the project but I can live with that because I am improving Wikipedia. My hope is that someday people like Courcelles and his pals will stop acting like little children and unblock my account so I can edit with it again. Because I do want to, I really hate editing around my ban. Its time consuming and irritating. But I am not going to reward their abuse, disrespect of policy and the community and flagrant violations of the rules just to show the community what happens when you question admins, by following my ban. I hate bullies and they represent the absolute worst the community and the admin corps has to offer. They are why the project has such a hard time recruiting and keepting editors. Because they won't follow the rules and use their knowledge of the complex rules and policies to manipulate them to get their way. I know you don't care and I know you are not going to unblock me and can't, but I wanted to let you know that regardless of the childishness and immaturity of some like Courcelles, I cam going to continue to contribute. Because I still believe in the project and lies about me being a disruption are just that. Lies, to justify keeping me out of the project to ruin my reputation on the project and to use me as an example to the community of what happens if you don't let admins do what they want regardless of policy. If they want me to stop being a disruption then they should unblock me account. Because the only disruption is being caused by their failure to do the right thing and unblock it for the last 3 years.

Contrary to what some may say, there are a lot more people who want me to be able to edit than don't. But there is little incentive for them to say anything if others can simply submit another ban request tomorrow for something petty and again next week until they get what they want. I think your one of them, I'm not sure. Either way, I am not going to stop editing just because a couple of people supported a ban and called it a consensus. 10 people does not a consensus make.

Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the lies I was talking about. In the closing statement there are several things but at the end it says "Given the disruption which has almost always been associated with Reguyla/Kumioko". This is pure bullshit. Reguyla (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I am not the only one being run out of the project wrongly for "disruption". It looks like The Rambling Man just called it quits here. Reguyla (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have edited after I left the above message I will assume you saw it and didn't want to to reply. Which is perfectly fine. Its obvious no one cares about doing the right thing on ENWP anymore and its preferred that I just continue evading my ban on ENWP in order to edit so that I can continue to be an example to the community of what happens when an editor stands up to admins so I will continue to do that Cheers!. PS, I did another 200 edits so I am up to about 2216 now. Reguyla (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've made a few minor edits. Your initial post was nearly 1500 words (I just ran it through an online word counter), so even if it was my top priority I wouldn't be able to digest it and give you an informative reply instantly. Give me a few days and I might get back to you. If you have a specific question, ask it concisely and I'll see if I can come up with an answer more quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. The 15th Birthday of Wikipedia is eating at me since the project is falling apart with editors being driven out and few coming in. Yeah sorry it was long. Basically I just wanted to say that most of what was said in my last ban discussion was lies and hyperbole and its disappointing that people actually believe it. No need to reply, you don't have the power or desire to unblock me on ENWP and never did and its never going to happen so I'll just keep evading it. I don't trust the community to do the right thing anymore so there is no incentive to wait a year just to be told no and to wait another year and then repeat that process again. Anyway, Cheers and I would say happy editing but the editing environment sucks. Reguyla (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for what its worth I hit my 3500th edit last night on ENWP. Of course I had to use multiple accounts and IP's to get it. I have gotten into the habit of only doing a couple hundred and then dumping it so that if someone notices its me and decided to use it as an excuse to vandalize my edits, not as many edits are lost. 13 accounts and 7 IP's so far in January. That is the extent at which I have been forced to go to in order to just participate in the project. Oh and it screws up the active editor counts for the month too unfortunately and I cannot edit any of the areas of my interest like Medal of Honor recipients, but who cares about those articles besides me anyway really! Reguyla (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified by KrakatoaKatie on Wikipedia to notify an Administrator on Wikimedia Commons about this deletion nomination (and perhaps this as well, as it continues to be added to the 4th Impact page. It was her suggestion to request a completion of the deletion nomination to keep it from being added to the page, as well as a potential block to the uploader to forbid them from uploading said-content once again. Unsure if this can be done; just doing what another Admin on Wikipedia suggested I do, and your name is one of the only ones I recognize from the main Wikipedia database. Cheers! Livelikemusic (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help with that. I've deleted both images an closed the DRs. The uploader has only made two edits to Commons (uploading the two images) so it's probably a bit premature to be taking action against them here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you so much! As for the premature action, even Katie said she didn't know if it could or should be done; she just recommended it to avoid further complications with the user. Livelikemusic (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought it was less dramatic and more polite to leave a comment in a DR, rather than taking it further. I will move the issue to AN instead, as you appear to be intent on forcing the question. [10] --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktr101: , since this is addressed to you both, instead of starting two conversations.

You both owe him a public apology, or a retraction, at the least. You both, directly, stated that he had engaged in unethical behavior as if it was a proven fact, without providing either any evidence or pointing at a discussion on Commons where evidence had been provided. What's more, my rereading of the conversations on Commons from the time not only doesn't show that such an accusation was ever made (though it is of course possible that I missed something), but doesn't indicate that he was involved in any of the conversations surrounding the leak. Such a statement of 'fact', if it is not true (and I have no idea if it is) would be libelous... I am not saying that as any kind of a legal threat, but merely as an indication of how it's clearly unacceptable.

You are of course entitled to your opinions, to state them, to vote on the basis of those beliefs, and to explain why. What you cannot do is simply state that something defamatory is 'true', without proof. It's, in my opinion, well beyond the bounds of civil behavior to do so.

If your accusations were based on privileged information that resides on the OTRS wiki, that is itself troubling for different reasons, since not only could you not 'prove it' without yourselves leaking information, but it would be arguable that your statements were themselves doing so.

I'm not defending him, and this is really not about him, so please don't start arguing about that. It's about the two of you. Revent (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ Mitchell, I came across your rationale in regard to your vote in this RfA. Such unfounded accusations are harmful. Not just to the candidate in question but also to the process. Fortunately, it didn't make a huge difference in this case in regard to the outcome but such accusations have the potential to derail a candidacy and they possibly haunt the candidate even after the RfA. I am not aware that the source of the OTRS leak was ever found. However, if I remember correctly, the existence of a leak was taken as motivation to start closing inactive OTRS accounts more aggressively than ever before. I second the suggestion by Revent to retract that accusation in public. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to "second" their request. We have no evidence That Photographer is the one who leaked so we cannot call him guilty. Also, I do believe you owe Odder an apologies. He used valid arguments to criticize your behaviour. Attacking him with something he did, or didn't do a long time ago isn't appropriate. We don't expect admins to start attacking the person who criticised them. Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, given that you have edited the English Wikipedia since this was posted, I am assuming you are purposedly ignoring these two three messages from uninvolved users just as you ignored the crux of the message I left on The Photographer's RfA page. I am giving you till end of day (UTC) tomorrow to face the music or I will bring this issue to the administrators' noticeboard, hoping to move forward to a de-RfA if necessary. You can hide all you want, but this isn't going away anywhere until you answer the questions asked of you and apologize to The Photographer for posting unsubstantiated accusations against him. Pinging @Revent, @AFBorchert and @Natuur12 since they're involved in this, too. odder (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I am trying to assume good faith here but it is getting really hard. After Odder’s last message at your talk page you continued to edit the English Wikipedia while you are ignoring us and the topic is urgent. You damaged the good name of an editor and are not willing to back this up with evidence or withdraw your claim. At this point you are disrespecting the community and while I am not surprised that @Ktr101: is ignoring yet another issue I do expect better from you.

It is not like four admins who belong to the same tag team are criticising your comment. If four admins independently tell you that you crossed the line you cannot simply ignore the issue. I would like to ask you to either resign your tools voluntarily or come up with a really good explanation why you are ignoring this issue and start addressing the concerns mentioned above. You cannot reasonably expect people to work in an environment where admins make such attacks as you did and decide to ignore the issue. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In line with accepted Commons procedure, I'm leaving this message to inform you that I've just started a discussion involving you at the administrators' noticeboard (permalink). odder (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continues; I have now started a straw poll asking people's opinions about moving forward with a formal de-adminship request, which I intend to start tomorrow. I will inform you separately if this is the case. odder (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ Mitchell, I really suggest you answer to this thread, I believe your lack of answer is making things worse, while an appology could really improve things. Sincerely, --PierreSelim (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal notification that I've now started a request to remove your administrator privileges here on Commons. Please participate in that discussion; thank you! odder (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. Firstly, I enjoy speaking to someone who isn't afraid to use their real name while editing wikipedia, though I must say I'm still struggling to understand the elevated block level you gave me at <enwiki> as it has been 6 months since access even to my own talk page has been revoked. This I found particularly appaling considering en:WP:OWNER issues relating to Beyond My Ken's edits at en:Cooper Union & en:Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests (outlined on my wikicommons talk page). Ideally, we could discuss this on enwiki, which would require my talk page access be unrevoked, but if you prefer to discuss either here or via email, I can be reached at ferociouslettuce@gmail.com , lakerbball1@yahoo.com as well as on facebook by searching "Andy Okuneff". Even though I did vote for you to lose your adminship here, I am mostly judging based on this one interaction we had that I strongly disagreed with, and I hope we can move past that in having a more constructive future relationship. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have crossed like ships in the night! I've just left some advice on your talk page. If you contact the functionaries' list, I'll look into it if I get chance or somebody else might be able to get to it sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - still no news from FUNC.. Can I have access to my own talk page on enwiki? It's been over 6 months so I'd like advice on how to proceed (also wrote on my own talk page - don't care which we talk on). Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a simple request for both you and Ktr101.

From this point on can you both STOP referring to OTRS leaks, for there has never been any OTRS leaks.

If you refer to http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org at the bottom it clearly states: Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License

So, as you can see, there has never been a leak, but only sharing of text which is explicitly allowed under the CC-BY-SA licence.

Of course, as a Commons admin and OTRS agent, you would be well aware of what is and isn't allowed under applicable Creative Commons licenses, wouldn't you? 54.206.77.243 05:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Harry Mitchell,

I am currently about to submit an article entitled 'The Railway Navvy in 19th Century Britain' to the historical railway journal Bactrack.

I wish to request your permission to use one of your images in particular. It is at the following link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victorian_Railway_Navvy_statue,_Gerrards_Cross_station_(3).JPG

I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you will let me use this image for my project.

I look forward to your reply.

regards,

Federico Tak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federicotak (talk • contribs) 10:15, 02 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Federicotak: Yes, certainly. By all means use the photo. Please credit me (Harry Mitchell), if possible with a link to Wikipedia or Commons. I'd love to read the article if that's possible. I might even be able to find a use for it in a Wikipedia article. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked User:Haylettd18 for multiple copyright violations. I've just tagged a couple of images uploaded by new user User:TV gossip 2016 as copyvios. Based on similarity of edits by these editors here and at en.Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure that they are the same editor. I'm so sure that I'm going to open a sockpuppet investigation at en.Wikipedia, but I wasn't sure of the process for reporting block evasions here. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @AussieLegend: I've blocked the sock and left notes for the master on both enwiki and Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 13:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

HJ Mitchell, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) And to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia entrust Tom Reedy who has published books on one side of a controversial topic police contributors attempting to espouse opposing viewpoints? http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.149.108 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HJ Mitchell. 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/Aug-Sep 2018 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. – Kwj2772 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, how are you? I'm not sure if this is one you'd be interested in, but I just uploaded a bunch of photos of Category:Bangor War Memorial. I don't think it has a Wikipedia article. Ditto Category:North Wales Heroes Memorial. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and help record our local built environment for future generations.

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments UK website. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Many thanks for your help once more! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry!

I just corrected the description on a lovely photo of Lichfield which has recently been sed in an article. It shows the choir, aisle and Lady Chapel rather than the Chapter House, of which just a little is protruding on the right of the pic.

The pic needs renaming. Could you possibly do it, please?

Amandajm (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked? 24.131.1.128 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can Find Thee. 79.70.70.215 17:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ever Heard of an Electoral Roll?

I can Find Where You Live. Harry.

Eyes Up, Fascist English Nationalist Scum, Your Day Will Come. 79.70.70.215 17:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can read. That's nice. Although if you think I'm a fascist, perhaps you can't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got my camera in a stupid mode and only got one image of any usability - tweaked on flickr)[ https://www.flickr.com/photos/196366907@N03/52841693886/ (original or flickr)] in the unlikley event others haven't got better. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 08:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeirgeDel Thanks. Was nice to meet you yesterday. Will see what Geni and Pete came up with! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why thor bandit 2600:387:F:D14:0:0:0:7 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:A family of Gibraltarian apes (2).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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

— Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbary ape on a tourist's car (2).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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

— Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you have hosted to Wikipedia an image of the Arch of Remembrance designed by Edwin Lutyens. I am working with the Lutyens Trust for their comprehensive Gazetteer website of architect Sir Edwin Lutyens projects, and I would like to ask on the behalf of the Lutyens Trust to ask for permission to use the photograph of this Lutyens project for the Gazetteer website. If permissible, the photograph and you as photographer would be credited and this chain would serve as proof of agreement of image usage and permissions. And if so, what credit line would you like associated with your image? Thank you. VCannella3 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VCannella3 yes of course. Attribution to me (Harry Mitchell) would be enough but a link to my user page would be lovely. I'm a member of the Lutyens Trust so I'm glad to see them recognising his war memorials. You'll find I've uploaded photos of most of them and written Wikipedia articles on most too (including the Arch of Remembrance) so I'd love to get more involved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! we are very grateful for this contribution to the Gazetteer website. It seems it a small world indeed, I will certainly let you know if any of your photographs for Lutyens's other war memorial projects could be used for the Gazetteer as well. VCannella3 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hj Mitchell please unblock my ip address 2401:4900:1C68:86D8:4979:5BA0:8337:3314 06:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for bad english) Hello Sir,I recently made an account on hi wiki for Editathon. But when I try log in En wiki,it show a message that your IP is blocked so you can't even login. Without login I can't use my talk page or sent email to you which you provided on your user page. Could you unblock my IP Address https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2401:4900:3108:1AAF:7F88:7082:A3F9:842F Thank you sir Andrew Carry Tate (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell Sorry for ping, but it's urgent Andrew Carry Tate (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]