User talk:Nick/Archive3

Once again, I (and we) appreciate you helping out with closures etc., but close them properly [1][2]. Thanks, — Giggy 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who screwed up by nominating the image, so you can deal with the mess you've gone and left behind. Cheers. Nick 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the nom, I was unsure and wanted confirmation. I won't make the mistake again. — Giggy 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely stumped as to how you could think it was a copyright violation, but as long as you're aware of what to look for when it comes to Flickr sourced imagery, that's the main thing. We really don't want to upset one of our biggest sources of free imagery. Nick 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

Take it easy with the confrontational attitude, eh? Doesn't get the job done any better than being polite. We all make mistakes.

I saw you've written up User:Nick/Flickr. It's a great guide - I hope you'll move it into the Commons namespace and link it to pages like Commons:Flickr images. Could be useful to add a link to Commons:Tools about FlickrFlopper too.

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad you've found the guide to be useful, I'm not sure on a suitable name for the page if it were in the Commons namespace, perhaps "How to spot images from Flickr that infringe copyright" or something.There's a few tweaks and things needed to FlickrFlopper at the moment, it's still a little buggy but I should get that sorted out over the Christmas holidays, at which point I'll add it to the tools page. It might still break the odd template, so I don't want people running around using it who won't carefully check to see if they've broken anything - I need to know what it's breaking to solve any remaining bugs. Nick 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Commons:Spotting Flickr copyvios?

BTW a fair bit of tools-related discussion takes place on the commons-l mailing list, so if you want some beta testers or when it's time to advertise your tool, that's a good place. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more advice about finding other free images and spotting when the wrong licence is used, perhaps just Commons:Flickr advice or Commons:Using Flickr. Hmm, I guess I probably should sign up to the mailing list, but my Inbox is filling up with all sorts of other mailing lists too. Heck, what's one more list. Nick 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself had withdrawn the RfA. Withdrawn RfA = No more comments, hence Herby protecting it. I'll leave Nish a note informing him of what I did, but I really don't see what there is to discuss. Good luck in your next RfA. — Giggy 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed you cannot see the conflict of interest in removing a comment which mentioned you. If it needed to be removed, which I really can't see, considering it wasn't a vote, then it should be done by somebody uninvolved, or by asking the person who left the vote. It looks to me like you simply do not wish anybody to see the comment, which is really unfortunate. If that wasn't your intention, the comment should have been refactored and left on my talk page. Had I not chosen to Watchlist every page I edit, I could have completely missed NishKid's comment which doesn't seem right, somehow, does it ? I trust you will not make a similar error in future. Nick 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer you here as it is not pertinent to the RfA of a user I know & trust. I have been working across wikis for quite a while now. In that time I have got to see the work of many people. I'll always take that into account as I will their interactions with other users. Commons is quite unlike en wp in attitude and I am happy with that & will do what I can to see that it stays a co-operative place for folk to work together. My understanding of their ability to do that will colour my views on RfAs. There is no "clique" here - this - like en wp - is a community of people working together most of the time with a good will.

As to en wp I left there around a year ago because I did not like the way folk seem to spend so much time arguing that could be spent more productively. It looks to me as though it is still the same. I requested the rights because two pages there had been backlogged for a long time (despite the number of admins available) and because it linked with my work on Meta. Fortunately Hu12 returned and got the blacklist under control before I got the rights but I'd like to think I'd been able to help out with requests there. I've also cleared the backlog on the whitelist page which had been frustrating a number of users. If that does not mean that I've helped in your opinion then I am sorry.

I have supported a number of en wp people both admins and other users in RfAs here and will continue to do so - however that will not be the only thing I take into account in my voting. I have little doubt that you will see things differently & that saddens me but I hope you will be able to see some merit in my views and equally that you will respect that they are my views. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, inconsistency and double standards are easy ways to erode good will amongst the community, and I would urge you most strongly to show consistency in how you express your opinions on other users at RfA. I never said that you've not used the tools on the English Wikipedia, that's a complete red herring to draw attention away from the problem here. You.

You mention that you are now using your tools on enwiki, but at the same time, I and others could helpfully be deleting and undeleting images, dealing with page protections and doing other administrative work here on Commons had you not decided for whatever reason that we couldn't be trusted to administer Wikimedia Commons.

In my case, the comment you left on my RfA and those of others is plainly hypocritical when compared with how the enwiki community dealt with your RfA. You either ignored my experience and the fact I can be trusted on enwiki, which doesn't reflect well on someone who only a few days earlier was promoted on the English Wikipedia because we looked at your experience and how trustworthy you are on other projects. If we had invoked your way of voting on RfAs over at enwiki for your RfA, you wouldn't be an administrator and as you'll agree, that's not good, similarly, you can't be suggesting, I hope, that by not Supporting other experienced or trustworthy candidates, this is good (or isn't bad) for Commons. Nick 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I am confused. You do not appear to suggest I have abused the tools anywhere. I have voted for and supported en wp RfA candidates and I have told you that. I have also voted neutral and oppose regardless of where candidates are from when I felt that I was unsure or that they might not yet be suitable regardless of where they are from. Sometimes people have agreed with me, sometimes they have not and that is fine - it is their right to decide on their vote. I have never subjected anyone's voting to such scrutiny as you have.

That being true I can only really see that you are annoyed with me & my vote for your RfA which is a pity but nothing to do with dual standards. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my RfA does come into it, because we trusted you on enwiki because of your experience and trustworthy nature here, but you refuse to do likewise for enwiki candidates on a like for like basis. That is hypocritical. No matter what you try to say. Are you honestly trying to say that you genuinely believe that by Opposing me, that was beneficial to Commons. Do you honestly believe that by failing to Support other candidates such as My name, that is beneficial to Commons. Likewise, if we failed to promote you on enwiki purely because you're not active or haven't gained masses of experience on enwiki, would that have been beneficial. It's a two way process you know. Letting you become an administrator on enwiki benefits enwiki, in the same way supporting enwiki candidates here would benefit Commons. In fact, do you actually believe anybody you have Opposed or not Supported at RfA would damage Commons, myself included. Evidence for your comments would be appreciated if any exists. Do you actually examine candidates contributions on their "home" wiki, when their experience is gained from outwith Commons Nick Nick 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My vote for My name will have no impact at all - they will soon become an admin & I'm ok with that - you have a strange view of neutral voting!

I always review the work and talk pages of any user who has an RfA here.

In practice you didn't support me on en wp, you could have opposed me and would have been fine. Frankly I did not expect it to succeed - I merely felt for the frustration of users who had to face continually backlogged pages despite the available admins. I am sure that you are an admin who can be trusted. However your approach is something that I feel could do with softening on Commons. The aggression that seems to be a requirement on en wp is unnecessary here and unproductive. I assure you I do not begrudge you the time but I could be doing more constructive things than this & I would imagine you could be too? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been doing more productive things here on Commons, but sadly, I can't. Lack of tools, dear chap, though I'm doing the best I can. It's a bit of a bugger when I get e-mails on OTRS asking for images to be deleted and I can't help. You've still not said if you think me not being an administrator and my continuing help and assistance I'm providing is good or bad for Commons, I really do have to push you for an answer on that.

As you know, I requested the tools here for the same reasons you requested the tools on enwiki, because there are backlogs and a multitude of images needing attention and because I have access to deleted images on enwiki, I can deal with sourcing and license issues across the two projects, as indeed I am trying to do at the moment. Nick

We're pretty mellow here, for the most part. Even if we are not as mellow elsewhere. I think it will help to keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does being mellow mean I have to ignore hypocrisy when I see it ? Nick 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all. I would just encourage you to try to see things from Herby's perspective. He gives out supports somewhat begrudgingly, and doesn't see a neutral as a bad thing. He's a hard worker and I've never seen him knowingly misevaluate someone, he doesn't hold grudges, play politics or favourites, or cliques, or the like. Take that for what it's worth. I like you and I like Herby, you're both solid contributors, and I don't like to see people fight, that's all. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't say fighting, more trying to get each other to understand a little more about what we both see in RfA votes and comments, and perhaps trying to change each others opinions a little... Nick 17:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you can be trusted as an admin. However I find your continual aggressive questioning disruptive and I find your frequent assertion that I am hypocritical unpleasant and in my mind untrue. However any future RfA here will be decided by the community not me. Good luck and thanks for the work you do do. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not being remotely aggressive here and asking you for a straight answer here simply is no more disruptive than your refusal to answer some of my questions. Anyway, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of your Oppose on my RfA and how you vote on other RfAs. The problem is, and I don't know if you are aware of it or not, because people look up to you in the community, your comment on any RfA can have a really big impact on any RfA. There's few RfAs that go by that don't have some comment such as "per Herby". It's sort of true any RfA is decided by the community, but the community follows certain users, whether they are right or wrong. Nick 17:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That people pay attention to my voting is no more surprising to me than the fact that I (& probably you) are influenced by others votes when they are folk we respect. I've worked here for a bit, people have got to know me and I try and help when I can.

The fact that you are unaware of the impact that you have on others would also seem rather worrying to me. Our views obviously differ on "aggressive" so I'm afraid you will have to accept that that is how I find you - continuing to argue with me and preventing me from addressing other issues will only re-enforce those feelings, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I find you hypocritical and you find me aggressive. Looks like we're both stuck with those tags now. Nick 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you supported, opposed, or were neutral, thank you for participating in my RFA, which was successful. I started several days ago on the constructive comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For handling the deletion request. I should go take a nap, I'm making mistakes. Happy editing, Arria Belli | parlami 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem - You're not alone tonight though, there's been another couple of requests with the same problem, I'm going to have a look at the delete template and see if it there's anything that's been changed. Nick 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for taking the time to comment at my RfA! Videmus Omnia 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick. I deeply appreciate your support in my recent nomination. Finally, I've been appointed and I'm ready to go on working (this time with some extra buttons). If you need anything from me, don't hesitate to contact me. I'll be glad to help. Best regards and thank you again. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC) PS: I do think that there is a Commons community. However, I cannot see how the members of other projects communities should be treated as if they were strangers.[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to call you out on this particular image, but please remember to remove the deletion notice when you keep images. (I know we all forget from time to time; it's no big deal) Thanks, Rocket000 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Replied. BTW, I appreciate your admin work at en.wp; it's just that you can get out of hand sometimes. --Boricuæddie 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree once again. I consider using your admin tools to protect your talk page from an established and productive contributor, who you called a troll, abuse. I don't believe you can control yourself, and for that I refuse to support your candidacy to adminship. --Boricuæddie 16:38, 29 December 2007 (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 ∙ +/−

Nick, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to Commons:List_of_administrators and the related lists by language and date it references...

The template says my personal remarks go here. I admit I'm not totally sure what to put here! I remain concerned, but I am very heartened by your remarks and your positive affirmation that you are going to try very hard to be equanamable. I'd strongly counsel to keep that in mind. If the impulse takes you to bite back at someone trying to get your goat, turn the other cheek, or walk away. If you ever need any help or advice there are many many very good editors here to turn to, don't be afraid to ask for help. And if there's anything you ever want to ask or tell me, please do. All the best wishes for success, I hope to be working together with you here for a long time. PS don't forget to add yourself to the list of administrators on other projects. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Nick! — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and welcome. --Boricuæddie 21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Felicidades! Congratulations, I'm absolutely sure about your capacity and wishes to do your best. As you told me, if you need help with anything, here with Spanish-speaking users or whatever or on the Spanish Wikipedia, please, don't hesitate to contact me. I'm really glad your nomination has been successful :-) --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm personally satisfied he's taken the point on board and will try hard and will accept feedback more graciously, and if he doesn't I'm going to remind him of what he said here..." (Lar) - I think I will too ;) Congratulations though. — Giggy 00:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. Nick 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly don't agree with that deletion for 3 reasons:

1. IMO the decision was too quick
2. 3vd vs 2 vk is not what I call a clear conclusion!
3. the request is a pure speculation so if we delete a picture with such arguments, we can delete almost every pictures that people declare to be the authors because we generally can't prove it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem we've got with the uploader is that he's uploaded material with EXIF data that contradicts his statements about his authorship and when those photographs were taken. We know at least one photo was a copyright violation as indicated by the EXIF data and it's prudent to delete the other images. If we do get proof of authorship/ownership, just give me a shout and I'll happily restore the images. Nick 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry. I missed these arguments! I understand and agree now! Sorry again. Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-N 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I raise this on the Admin board, can you please tell me why you deleted a photograph that was used on several pages, with no notification to the uploader (me), yet you state you did?--DavidShankbone 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the people in the photograph requested the removal of the image. The request was filed through the Foundation Office who passed it onto the OTRS team, who in turn asked me to delete the image. I checked the ticket details and everything seemed to be in order (as it still does), which is why I deleted the image. I was under the impression you were aware the image would be deleted and were quite amenable about the image being deleted. If this isn't the case, I'm terribly sorry. Nick 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people in the photo did not request it be deleted. An IP troll who is taking aim at my work wants it deleted. It has been quite an issue at w:Orthodox Judaism, where they vowed to remove the image from Wikipedia. Unless there is some proof that one of those people were actually the ones writing it, I would like it restored since this has been a major issue on the English Wikipedia with an IP troll. --DavidShankbone 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other information you can forward to me, so I can determine if the request on OTRS is genuine or not. Please feel free to e-mail me, and I'll look into this issue straight away. Nick 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this, btw. Nick 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a little background, but I warn you it's bizarre. A few months ago I was at Virgin Records to photograph RuPaul, and there were some other minor celebrities there for the event, including New York's "King of Porn", Michael Lucas. I photographed him, and a few other people. As is not uncommon when I photograph someone, there are always these strange random people out there who think "Photograph = Friendship". This person who hates Michael Lucas began trolling all over Wikipedia that I was getting fucked up the ass by Michael Lucas, simply because I changed some semantic wording and corrected his birth name. The Lucas page has been an issue for awhile, least not because Lucas himself became involved. This IP, who claimed to be one of the people in the photo has been writing such vile things about me on COI, BLP, ANI, my talk page, Durova's talk page, et. al. But not least, w:Orthodox Judaism. Here's just one recent [3]

• Which brings me to this photo. First, don't upload it. It was the source of major contentious on Talk:Orthodox Judaism because I labeled it an "Hasidic couple on Shabbat" - when it was actually Friday evening, before sundown (not shabbat). I'm not Jewish, but apparently this caused an uproar to photograph Hasids on Shabbat. So, I have to retitle the photo. Another User cropped it and photoshopped it (you can see that version on w:Orthodox Judaism). But it is this IP threatening to have the image removed. It is the same IP who hates Michael Lucas and has connected me to him. I ended up doing an interview with Michael Lucas, and having to photograph his birth certificate (which he released GFDL! It's Soviet - so that was a score for the Commons) just prove who he was. So...this has been an involved issue, and apparently this IP will even use the OTRS ticket system to remove this photo that everyone else likes. Again, the long history is at Talk:Orthodox Judaism. I gave you some of the more relevant links. I have no problem having the couple deleted if it really is them asking, but I think that they should take a photo of themselves and send it with the OTRS to prove it; in this case, the photo and the threats have been too contentious, and vicious. --DavidShankbone 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's someone following up the ticket on the OTRS system. As soon as I hear something I'll let you know. I think the plan is to ask for a recent photo to be e-mailed in. Nick 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There are actually several Users who are threatening my work, including a very storied troll see here who used to re-upload my work to mess with it (as opposed to natural editing that goes with creating the encyclopedia). This User has been banned, but recently re-surfaced. Essentially, my photography is being targeted by a couple of different anonymous Users - if anyone writes in to the OTRS system about any David Shankbone photograph, can you please have it eyed suspiciously? It may increase. --DavidShankbone 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the war over this photo rages on with this one person, who constantly changes IP addresses, trying to get the cropped version removed too - for "irrelevance". I do not believe it is the couple or anyone associated with the couple (especially since they have made no attempt to contact me). I think asking for a recent photo, given the circumstances, is the right way to go. --DavidShankbone 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Oh, Nick, where to begin? David Miller, alias David Shankbone, has a clear penchant for equivocation and prevarication. I do not know if this is due to character flaws only or to self-destructive behaviors as well. He is reportedly convalescing now -- perhaps he is getting the help he needs.

I will address several points made by Shankbone in the post above. Though I am responsible for relating Shankbone's misadventures at the forums he's listed -- COI/N, BLP, AN/I and elsewhere -- I am in no way connected to any group of "minor celebrities" or "strange random people" present at the event mentioned. Therefore, I would not make any claim to being one of them in the photo. Please ask Shankbone for proof of his assertion that I claimed to be one of those people.

Prior to his recent misdeeds at the Lucas bio, Shankbone three times reverted an edit which removed reference to Lucas being a prostitute and founding his production company with money earned in prostitution. Later, Lucas posted a statement on the talkpage expressing dissatisfaction with that reference. Shankbone replied saying that it was too well-referenced to change, but later reversed himself and made the change, inserting "escort" and "escorting" in the place of prostitute and prostitution, despite the fact that the source clearly says prostitution. This is more than just a "semantic wording" change. To say he was an escort instead of a prostitute completely removes the sexual component of what he did during that time, among other serious violations of policy. I concluded that Shankbone did this specifically at Lucas's behest, and that he likely accepted sexual favors in return for the improper edits.

Shankbone uploaded a photo he made of an Hasidic couple in Jerusalem. This photo was taken from a distance without the couple's knowledge using a telephoto lens. Shankbone inserted the photo in the Orthodox Judaism article without announcement and without seeking consensus. I found his actions in this matter to be imperious and quite distasteful. The photo is not universally appreciated and does not substantially enrich the article.

Shankbone uploaded a photo he made of a document purporting to be the birth certificate of Michael Lucas, again likely at the behest of Lucas. This photo and two others purporting to be of Lucas's passports, slapped on the bio's talkpage, are being used to source info in Lucas's bio. The problem there is any photo or scan of a document will fail WP:V as there is no way to verify their provenance or accuracy. Besides, take a close look at the photo, the lower part of the right page: within the rectangular stamped area you'll see the date 24-06-1988 written in. Why does a 1972 birth certificate have 1988 written on it? I was just wondering; maybe you can have a Russian friend explain it? I would not want to labor under any misapprehension.

Lastly, I would take very seriously the request to remove the Hasidic couple photo -- it's totally legit. I had nothing to do with the OTRS thing. I think it the height of arrogance on Shankbone's part to insist that a current photo of the couple be sent to verify their identity. He has already taken a photo of them without their permission, now he wants them to send another? Is Shankbone for real? And he concludes the request does not originate from the couple or anybody associated with them because they have made no attempt to contact him? Again, is Shankbone for real?

Thank you for your kind attention, and happy editing! --72.68.126.5 03:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I would appreciate it if you would post something on En:Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo verifying that the foundation office has approved the request so we can put this topic, which was the subject of some contentious discussion, to rest. Because there's been so much contention and disruption, I would appreciate it if you would directly confirm that the photo you processed is the one of the Hassidic couple on En:Orthodox Judaism. Note that there's currently another photo of the same couple which was obtained by cropping the original photo. If the photo involved is the one it came from, could you delete it as well? Once again, because of the contention surrounding the issue, would appreciate direct confirmation before deleting the photo myself. Thanks! Best, En:User:Shirahadasha --67.189.242.231 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you know what's best for your talk page, but note that a set of IPs beginning with 72.68 were repeatedly blocked on the English Wikipedia for personal attacks against David Shankbone. Best, En:User:Shirahadasha --67.189.242.231 16:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this issue in an e-mail to the OTRS ticket, and I copied the WMF on it as well. Far more troubling than this photo is the notion that the OTRS system can be abused by anyone who wants something taken off of Wikipedia, and that adminis like En:User:Shirahadasha, who are well-aware of the contentiousness of this photo that NOT come from the couple but from some bizarre obsessed person with Michael Luca would presume that this not more of the same from that same person, but that indeed this random couple has contacted the OTRS system about their photo (and the uploader would never be contacted either by the couple or the WMF?) --DavidShankbone 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to presume anything, which is why I'm asking for confirmation. But if the Wikimedia Foundation has made a decision on the matter I will honor it. Best, .En:User:Shirahadasha --67.189.242.231 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS is not the Wikimedia Foundation. It's made up of people like me and you - volunteers. --DavidShankbone 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm troubled by the idea that Commons is being dragged into this, David is donating his time, skills and equipment to create high quality photographs, and even if these images are not to be used on the English Wikipedia, these images are still very useful for other Wikimedia projects, and for anybody else to use as they wish. If you don't like an image, deal with it on a local project, but please don't try to have high quality, high resolution images removed from Wikimedia Commons through fair means or foul.

We're currently awaiting a response from the people who lodged a complaint over the image, and hopefully once a response is forthcoming, we will be able to deal with this issue once and for all.

However, let me make one thing abundantly clear, any user who disruptively edited a local project over any of David's images and then comes to Commons will be highly likely to be blocked. I've not blocked anybody on Commons in the past couple of months I've been an admin, I don't wish to start, but if determined little blighters intend to push the issue, I sure as hell will. Nick 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have one small point to make: the chances that a Hassidic couple would know about photograph of them being put online and then emailing in to complain it is horrendously unlikely, because most of them do not have home Internet access. Hell, they don't even have televisions. Most rabbis have banned the use of the Internet except for work related purposes. See [4]. I simply can't think of how it is possible for this couple to have heard about what is going on here, when presumably everyone else they know are subject to the same rabbinical restrictions. User:Dev920 143.53.155.203 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and in light of the comments from the anon user above protesting about requesting proof the person requesting the image be deleted is indeed the person in the image, I think it's starting to look unlikely the request is genuine, but I shall give the complainant a fair hearing and await their response before deciding whether to keep or delete these images. Nick 17:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick,
Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship. I’m honored by your trust and will do my best to help build a better site. Durova 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start small, close obvious deletion discussions. Get bolder with experience. Pretty soon Commons will have ten thousand images! (giggles, flees) ;)

Hi, your botanical images are linked to both Wikipedia and Wikispecies, they should be in galleries here on WikiMedia. I am currently linking them to new or already used article galleries. Just an FYI. If you have time for future uploads could you please place them in image galleries Thanks WayneRay 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

I was going to go through and put them in galleries or categories once I'd finished uploading them. I'm on a wireless connection and it doesn't like doing too much at once. Opening a gallery at the same time as uploading has an alarming tendency to crash the connection. Nick 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you protected the template ngw. I think that is not correct. The template, after long discussion, was made in such away that I made it copyright free, provided that people notify me, see my talk page on commons. I also changed it in such a way that only my own images are under this template and not other images. This GijsVdL obviously does not agree and calls it vandalism, but if he continues, I would like all 6880 images that are taken from www.ngw.nl to be deleted on commons. I do not want this, I went for a good solution, which was obviously agreed upon by other members in the discussion, as none reverted or added more comments on the talk page. Only GijsVdL, who obviously does not want to discuss this. I never made the template and I never changed my optinion. The date tag that is now added on the template is therefore rubbish. Please have a look at the template how I made it last night and protect that one, to avoid vandalism by GijsvdL.Knorrepoes 06:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Knorrepoes knows, there was a discussion about the Knorrepoes revocation at NL.wiki. Knorrepoes gave his permission in Dutch, as anyone understanding Dutch can check easily by following one of the hyperlinks in the template. At 2008-2-26 Knorrepoes started to change the template to 'non-commercial', but of course he cannot revoke permission for already uploaded images. That's why I added the note about the upload date to {{NGW}}. GijsvdL 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to get in contact with Gijs about this, he has not yet called me. Still, I have never uploaded any of the images myself, others have done so during the years, all taken from my site, with the disclaimer there already present for many years and all without asking me. When I entered wikipedia about 1.5 years ago I noticed that over 6000 images from my site were taken into wikipedia and since then I have been fighting to get recognition as the author of my own images (the majority is NOT from me and is scanned. For those images I yesterday created the template ngw2). I thus changed a lot on many images to provide the proper source and added a small permission text on the Dutch wiki. This text to which Gijs refers does not state specifically commercial. That is also a bit my fault, I never realised that images on commons can always be used for commercial purposes. As there has recently been a lot of (mis)use of my images from either my site or wikipedia (that is obviously not clear) I stressed the non-commercial point. I did not create the ngw template ! Still, I wait for Gijs to contact me.Knorrepoes 07:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, Gijs refuses to talk to me even though I invited him to do so... Therefore some more things. Already for years (at least since 2000) the disclaimer on www.ngw.nl states :

''Use of the images in Wikipedia is allowed with reference to this site and/or the original source as mentioned on the site. It is not allowed to use texts of this site on Wikipedia without permission ! For commercial purposes permission of the council as well as the webmaster of this site is always needed. The webmaster of this site is not responsible for commercial use of the material provided.'' In spite of this, thousands of images have been uploaded to wikipedia (Commons and local) by others, in many cases without providing the appropriate link. There is thus nothing like revoking my permission, I have never changed my opinion. I noticed the ngw template last February and thus immediately changed it according to the disclaimer on my site. Like I said, it was/is my oversight to not notice that wikipedia provides free commercial use, but I never uploaded images until rather recently and thus never read the guidelines... I don;t want to have all images removed, but to come to a proper compromise. I think the template I made yesterday, with a free copyright sign (not the green one) and the text is a good compromiseKnorrepoes 07:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the discussion takes place here, so I will repeat what I wrote on the Dutch wikipedia (translated to English, of course):

I am afraid that Knorrepoes is right in this case: already in 2001, his web site mentions that only non-commercial use of the images is allowed, see archived version on waybackmachine. A template that has been used on the Dutch Wikipedia since 2005, also was effectively a "Wikipedia-only" license ("use on Wikipedia is allowed"). This was changed to "use (as on Wikipedia)" to prevent deletion of the template and of the images from Wikipedia, but the intention is clear. The template on Commons was only created on Jan 1 this year, and was immediately changed by Knorrepoes to "non-commercial". It is clear that Knorrepoes would gladly release the images for use on Wikipedia, but never had the intention to release those images (drawn by him) for commercial use. Unfortunately, this is incompatible with GFDL or any of the allowed CC licenses. In my opinion, a compromise is therefore not possible, and deletion of those images is the only option, although I would regret this, and it would be a loss for Wikipedia and the Commons. Pbech 10:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that no compromise is possible: either there is a license including unlimited commercial use, or not. According to Knorrepoes there is not, there will not be, and there has never been such a license. That's a pity: it means that all images on which he can claim copyright (i.e. the ones he has drawn himself) have to be deleted.

Others have uploaded the images involved through the years, and misinterpreted the license on Knorrepoes's ngw-page. Knorrepoes never confirmed unlimited commercial use himself. It's not clear to me why Knorrepoes is not allowed to make clear the copyright status of the pictures in the template (which has no other purpose than to clarify the situation). Fransvannes 10:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Knorrepoes did confirm his permission. GijsvdL 10:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! The intention is clear. Also, "use (as on Wikipedia)" can hardly be interpreted as commercial use. Pbech 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Wikipedia is not commercial. Therefore "use as on Wikipedia" is non-commercial use. That's very kind, but not enough. Fransvannes 10:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per OTRS ticket #2008040910005359, Knorrepoes has confirmed that CC-BY licensing can be used for the images that he has created. Accordingly, I've changed {{NGW}}, but images tagged with {{NGW2}} probably still need to be deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with his harassment of me. Cheers, "Jack Merridew" 08:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this to be protected here. I've uploaded it to Wikipedia and protected it until tomorrow, after which it'll be deleted. Stifle 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS if you need to contact me use me Wikipedia talk page, as I check my talk page here infrequently. Stifle 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed that you reviewed this photo. According to the flikr page, it was taken during a Broadway performance, which is prohibited for copyright reasons. Even if the photographer granted permission for it to be included here, she might not have the right to do so. Just raising the issue - I honestly don't know what the answer is, but wanted your input. SixFourThree 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

I'd start a deletion discussion, I'm not a lawyer when it comes to American copyright, so canvassing for some other views would be the best idea, I think. If you can point to some material or past deletion discussions which would create a precedent, drop me a note and I'll delete the image for you. How's that ? Nick 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer either, but here's a citation from ILoveNYTheatre's Q&A:[5]

Why is photography prohibited during the show?

Photography (with or without flash) and recording devices of any kind are prohibited by law in Broadway theatres.

Here's the local law.[6] While specifically targeting those who illegally videotape movies in theatres, it also expressly prohibits the use of still cameras during theatre performances. Now, I don't doubt that this was an honest mistake on the part of the photographer. Still, I think we ought to be very careful about benefitting from such a mistake. SixFourThree 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

I would strongly encourage a deletion discussion on this, Wikimedia being bound by Florida state law, I doubt any deletion on the grounds of alleged illegality in New York will go down particularly favourably here. If it's a federal law, then we would need to abide by such a statute, but it's something I'd prefer discussion on. Nick 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

I just wanted to say a huge thanks for your support in my RfB. It just closed, and I'm now a bureaucrat. If you ever want to discuss any of my actions, as a 'crat, admin, or plain old user, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 10:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your name Nick? Tharnton345 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick, I notice that the Image:National_Rail_logo_self_made.PNG appears to have been deleted. As this was a self-made image by another contributor then (it is my understanding that) it cannot be a Copyright violation. The British Rail logo (now in the hands of the DfT) is a trademark, but that is something different. ...and one that is available for use in relation to railway services within Britain. Note that the British Rail double-arrow (rectangular, red) logo is different to the National Rail (blue, circular) logo. The National Rail logo comes under much stricter terms (the brand belongs to the ATOC, not the DfT). It is certainly unfortunate that the file was incorrectly named.

Discussion and research is available at: en:Template_talk:Rail-interchange#National Rail icon. Thank you for your enthusiasm in helping to sort the templates out and keep them up to date. —Sladen (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a derivative work of a copyright image, not just a trademark, which makes it a copyright violation. It's the same problem that prevents us from having a self-made version of the Microsoft Windows logo. Nick (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it was (eg. traced), then it would be a derivative work. However, (AFAIK—though we should confirm with the author), the image was not traced... indeed, just by having looked at it, I can see that the proportions do not [quite] match the image which I am been used to seeing on railway signs since a young age.

If you are referring to the NR blue double-arrow in circle being a derivative of the BR red double-arrow, then the origin is the opposite. The generic BR logo dates from the 1960s (IIRC) and the NR logo (that encompasses the double-arrow), from the late 1990s.

The Microsoft Windows logo is a trademark; just as the BR and NR logos are. I would certainly expect that that aspect would keep the MS Windows logo off Wikipedia, as I suspect the owners of the mark would not be flexible about allowing its use. Something I do not believe is being prevented by the DfT's allowance of the generic BR logo in connection with british (small 'b') railway activities. Again, please let me know if I have missed something. —22:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Designs, such as the double headed arrow or the Windows logo are also protected by copyright law in addition to the trademark laws - companies such as BR and Microsft can (and frequently do) use a copyrighted design as a trademark, as we must assume this is the case with the double headed arrow. There's a reasonable chance that the image can be undeleted, but the exact copyright status of the image does need to be clarified.

You would need to prove that the image is not covered by copyright and is only a trademark (which is not the default position for artwork created by or owned by the British Government (everything is protected under Crown Copyright) - indeed, work created by state owned corporations doesn't automatically acquire Crown Copyright, so often attracts normal, longer standard copyright protection under British law. If the artwork copyright is owned by the Crown, you could possibly contend that the artwork is in the public domain if you can prove it was created and first published over 50 years ago. If, and only if the artwork is a trademark and not actually protected by copyright law, you can upload the actual artwork from the National Rail website and use that. At the moment, the lack of any statement confirming the original image is not protected by copyright, and that it is in the public domain precludes the hosting of the double headed arrow or any derivative work on Commons (we assume an image is protected, rather than otherwise). The only way you can clear this up is to make contact with someone who can confirm the exact copyright status of the image, such as the DfT or National Rail (a Freedom of Information act might be the best way to deal with this). The image, or the original double headed arrow could be uploaded to Wikipedia locally under a claim of fair use at the moment however, and you could argue for dispensation to use the image as necessary.

The other thing I note, Commercial and derivative uses are not explicitly permitted anywhere that I can see in any of the links discussed here. This is typical of an image still protected under copyright law, where the usage of the image is dictated by the copyright owner, rather than a pure trademark, but given there's no clear statement of copyright on the image, just that it's a trademark, it's not a lot to go on. I hope this helps in the meantime. Nick (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Nick!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Revision deletion history view.png is uncategorized since 31 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:First ScotRail Class 170 train by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Cotoneaster congestus by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Ballota acetabulosa by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Corylus avellana by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Microbiota decussata by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Hebe cupressoides 2 by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Rhododendron thomsonii by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Normand Flower by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Cryptomeria japonica by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Hypericum bellum by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Yucca filamentosa by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Yucca gloriosa by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Cytisus decumbens by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Betula pendula 1 by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Prunus sargentii by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Sciadopitys verticillata by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Sorbus aria by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Davidia involucrata by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Phlomis russeliana by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Vaccinium ovatum by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Melanoselinum by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Abies koreana by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Holodiscus discolor by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Sisyrinchium californicum by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Ginger Cat by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Hebe armstrongii by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Yucca glauca by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Thuja plicata by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Bergenia by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Juniperus horizontalis by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Hebe cunninghamii by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Rhododendron albrechtii by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Corylopsis spicata by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Bergenia crassifolia by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Betula utilis by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Hebe cupressoides by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Acer griseum by Nick.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

File:James_II_of_England.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） ∙ +/−

Thomas Gun (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick,

I have seen that someone has reverted my previous categorising of it to Galanthus woronowii.

As you can see on the label on the picture this is not a Galanthus ikariae, a species from the Greek Islands, but a Galanthus ikariae subsp. latifolius, an absolete name for Galanthus woronowii, a species from Turkey.

Consequently I will revert your change and adding in the description that Galanthus ikariae subsp. latifolius is an absolete name for Galanthus woronowii.

Best botanical regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Réginald, please feel free to make whatever changes are necessary, as you can probably tell from my rather poor categorisation, I'm not a botanist, so I'm more than happy for those, such as yourself, to put the images in the right place. I'm just hopeful that the images may be of some use.

Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you mind reorienting this photo File:Southwest airlines hq from east 2009-06-22.jpg so the building is straight and level? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let you know I have never uploaded anything from Fotopic. You must have the wrong person. If your are referring to the pictures of trains on ScotRail, i took those pictures, no one else.

A1personage (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch | Español | Italian

Dear Nick/Archive3. I am writing to you 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 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 (msg) 02:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where was this photo taken? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken opposite Elliot golf course, just outside Arbroath. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nick_Mason_uncropped.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） ∙ +/−

Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you can help me, but you're an admin so....

Okay, so as you can see I've uploaded lots of versions of this Megan Joy picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Megan_Joy_1.jpg

I wanted to know if I can request for an admin or someone to delete the past versions of the other pictures? I rather them not to be seen. I just want the default picture only. Can anyone help me? :( I see no "delete button" so I don't know if I could do it myself.