This is an archive of discussions from 2008 through 2017. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.
A small comparison of the two images would reveal that Image:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg is not a crop of the other image (the mouth is open and the bird is facing the camera) Therefore deletion by Wikipedia:CSD#I8 is invalid. Please restore the image. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe "This Wikipedian supports wikiquette and civility / NPA policy," why did you move my photo to Commons without first consulting me? Motorrad-67 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athaenara. Both images are correct and show the same molecule, but the Commons version is of higher quality (and is on Commons, i.e. the better place). If you don't want to delete by yourself, just ask a chemist admin such as Edgar181. --Leyo03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many admins cruise the deletion categories and will see it. As a non-chemist, I cannot discern whether either or both of two such dissimilar images are correct. — Athaenara ✉ 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NowCommons
→ in re: this message about images moved to Commons
Politizertalk/contribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for the deletions and moves. I've tried to remove more of them from articles I didn't want them to be in, and I wish I could've renamed them first. ----DanTD (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You just deleted File:ChicagoSpire 05 25 08.jpg, which I was just checking before deleting. That's fine - but the version on Commons is lower resolution than the one that was here. Please could you check that the resolutions are the same before deleting images? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I went to restore it after your message and found that you restored it long enough to upload the higher resolution image to Commons. Well done! — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! I am putting all my pictures on Commons now, but migrating the old ones is a great help! - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently tried to migrate seven images to Commons, but the CommonsHelper transfer did not work correctly. I believe there were two images which had multiple versions in their history, but in all cases, only the most recent version was actually migrated.
As I understand it, part of the deletion process is that the deleter is obligated to manually confirm that all data (including past versions of the image) have been transferred properly, so I was not expecting this to be an issue, or else I would have reverted the changes the script made to the Wikipedia version of the image page.
Can the Wikipedia version of the image page be restored?
There were two relevant images deleted; one was deleted by you and the other by a different editor. That other editor did not at first understand what the problem was when I contacted him about it. Please forgive me if this is information you know already, but just to be sure we are on the same page, I will paste my explanation from the other conversation below. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Please review this page, particularly items 8 and 9. Transferring the full image history is usually legally required by the most-used image licenses, and it's my understanding that transferring the full image history is considered "best practice" even when not a legal obligation." --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that somebody has uploaded a lot of my pictures to commons, and you have deleted the originals.
Because you have deleted the originals, the edit history has gone, so I can't find out what happened.
Further, I can't find out what was on the original pages.
But the most annoying thing is that ALL the categories have been removed, so I no longer can find my pictures!! And if/when I do, I'm going to have to manually add all the categories back in.
This sucks.
Who decides that a picture should be moved/copied to commons?
Why can it be moved without me being notified?
How can it be "F8" without me being informed and given the opportunity to say "hangon"?
Why is the category information destroyed?
And none of it is your fault - you just happen to be the only person who has left any traceable evidence! You have to laugh, don't you. I'm looking forward to you waving your magic wand and solving all these issues. (I mean, all admins have magic wands, don't they?) Failing that, I'm looking forward to your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I format deletion summaries as I do: I don't want the original page creators to be left with no clue about what happened to their work and why. GFDL (that "irrevocably agree to release" stuff) applies here, but notification (and a magic wand ;-) would be cool. As far as I can see, the categories are visible in the upload summaries on the commons pages.
Thanks! All sorts of interesting & useful stuff!! (BTW: Clicking on Special:DeletedContributions/Pdfpdf results in "The action you have requested is limited to Administrators." for mere mortals like me.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (Gee, that's really bad news about the magic wand ... )[reply]
galleries
I think it's a good idea for uploaders to put an image {{gallery}} on their user page or a subpage (e.g. User:Pdfpdf/Gallery in this case). What do you think? — Athaenara ✉ 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I did just that in December last year, I guess I must think it's a good idea! (User:Pdfpdf/Galleries)
(I also guess that it would be a good idea if I kept it up to date ... )
One thought: Stuff that is only licensed to appear on one specific page (e.g. images of album covers) could not also appear in the gallery.
On the other hand, we have "special" commands like this one.
However, galleries do have the advantage that you can annotate the gallery entries. It looks like there are pros and cons all over the place, and that's just from two of the possiblilities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you have delete the files "Odyssey2.jpg" and "Odyssey3.jpg" because I've transfered them in Wikimedia Commons. I wanna segnale that the image "Odyssey1.jpg" is still in English Wikipedia even if it has been transfer on Commons. I think that there is a mistake in that file, instead if I be wrong I'm sorry from now. --Kimi95★10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the original upload information was missing from the Odyssey1 file on Commons, so I added it (diff). I don't know of other mistakes there. — Athaenara ✉ 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for undoing my (aborted) Commons copy for the image. Everything seemed to go correctly with CommonsHelper, but I later found the copy didn't "take." <Sigh> Back to the help file...GeoffTC20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im contacting you due to an image issue. I uploaded [1] on commons today. I did not realise that [2] exists on en.wiki and when I tried to add the image to an article, I got the en.wiki one. Can u pl. suggest what I should do? Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're welcome; {{db-f8}} followup is one of my favourite admin activities because one rarely encounters ill will or incivility in the process. I agree that it's best for admins to share in the distribution of tasks rather than both tag and delete one-man-band style. — Athaenara ✉ 07:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I notice that you have deleted File:West footing of Humber Footbridge.jpg, despite the {{nocommons}} tag. Please reconsider. I've seen too many images disappear over at Commons for capricious reasons, with no attempt to contact the original uploader in this project, to want to have to depend on them keeping images I have uploaded, which is why I put the template on.Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help,Athaenara. I've also touched base with the editor who had tagged the images with the {{NowCommons}} tag, and he is reviewing his other tags. Risker (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree that removing local duplicates of files which are secure on Commons after having been properly transferred there is a good thing[tm] because it reduces duplication of services.
I've started from that central category many times. When a single editor has tagged a large number of such files, however, file history pages are directly accessible from that user's contributions page, which becomes a convenient starting point. (For example, in January 2010, BotMultichill tagged thousands of such files; in May you tagged thousands more.) If there is a single page comparable to the category but sorted by date I don't know where it is. – Athaenara ✉ 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the category I gave, you can see that the images are again sub-categorized by the dates. Most of the categories have only less than 10 images in them. Deleting those images on priority means that we can clear the sub categories and the main category as well. Hope I am making sense here. -- Sreejith K (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I checked the May 2008 categories and found that out of twelve files only one could be deleted per WP:CSD#F8, which reminded me of why I learned many months ago to rely upon the contribs pages of reliable image taggers. There are too many images transferred to Commons without original file histories, sources, and licenses; indeed some have been copied to Commons by users who claim license for themselves when the images were originally licensed by other authors. I find it disheartening and tedious to try to clean up after improper transfers or outright co-optation (I don't use bots or scripts). – Athaenara ✉ 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, I see in my watch list that the "Blanch Hagan Chapel" pic was deleted, something about in Commons. Am I reading it wrong, the pic is staying on the page, it just resides in Commons, so doesn't need to have a separate file?
You're welcome. The last time this happened was many thousand {{db-f8}} files ago, back in December 2009. Uploaders who tagged their images {{KeepLocal}} or {{NoCommons}} are well within their rights to remove {{NowCommons}} tags, which add their images to a speedy deletion category; the Commons images will still be linked on the local file pages, so it doesn't deprive anyone of information. – Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I compare files in detail and don't remove local files before I've verified that all the author, upload, and licensing information is included in their Commons equivalents, checking descriptions and categories as needed. I don't use scripts / bots, but thanks for the tip. – Athaenara ✉ 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm working on Commons:Category:License migration candidates and one of the files is File:Building mode0.png (there is a serie of those files). It has not been transfered to Commons via bot so the description page is not "the usual one". I checked the original on enwiki and it is GFDL with disclaimers but the file on commons is without disclaimers. Once the file is deleted on enwiki it is hard for users to check if file has been transfered correct. Therefor it is importaint that deleting admin checks that information has been transfered correct. I'm sure you know that and you just missed this one. Just wanted to let you know :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original license did have disclaimers in November 2006 per this version when the file was uploaded. In an attempt to get rid of disclaimers a new template with disclaimers was created ({{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}) and all files that had disclaimers at that time was changed (by a bot) so they used this new license (with disclaimers). After the big change was done the disclaimers was removed from the old license that should be used for new uploads. So the file had disclaimers when it was uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed recently you are blanking the file talk pages for files that have been moved to commons. I don't agree with this and wonder if there is some documentation somewhere that says to do this. The problem I have is by doing this it removes the file from the visibility of WPUS and thereby removing it from article alerts. This means that if someone submits it for deletion or discussion we have to actively watch the various pages rather than get a notification of it at the project page making it much harder to know about potential problems with it. --Kumioko (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been blanking any pages, so perhaps you mean deleting?
When WikiProject banners are the only content on the talk page of a file which has been transferred to Commons, I delete it after deleting the local duplicate of the file per {{db-f8}}. When there is discussion on such a talk page, I forward the content to the Commons file talk page before deleting it per {{db-g8}} and I specify that in the deletion summary (example). I don't know where the issue of file talk pages with project banners only has been discussed in general. Would Wikipedia talk:Moving files to the Commons be an appropriate place to open such a discussion? – Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ill start a discussion at the link you provided. I see both sides of the coin myself and Im not sure what the end result will be but since a link (for lack of a better word) is left on wikipedia to the File on commons and because the vast majority of files in use on WPUS are either on commons or eligible for it, not having the banner on the talk page like I mentioned makes the project lose visibility of the file. Thanks for being understanding. --Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over two years since I followed up on a db-f8 (then db-i8) for the first time, but even now the Commons seems farther away than it is. I think it would be a good idea if a few project members were a little more active there, putting files important to their project on their Commons watchlists. It would be a more direct way to keep track of the files and, over time, could reduce the need to retain local talk pages for them. – Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my watchlist shows you have deleted Falls sketches 12, 14, 15, 16 as they are available on Commons - but I don't understand whats going on.
I don't understand the Commons section - I don't know how I get there when I stumble in nor how to get out. So my level of expertise in this regard is extremely infintesimal not to say, miniscule.
Magog the Ogre has done a similar process to a number of other files I've uploaded. But as there are more files from similar sources which I would like to upload in the future and Magog sounds a bit of an ... ogre, and you sound nice, I'm appealing to you - can you help? :) --Rskp (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For these particular files, there's a detail which makes them very easy to reach: if you click on one of them as linked above, you'll find that the [edit] function for the 'Original upload log' section goes to the Commons file, and from there you can click on the history, edit the file, whatever.
My very best advice on this is to upload your images to Commons directly, thereby bypassing the whole evaluation and transfer and deletion thing entirely. I don't know how much I can help with other questions you may have, as I've only ever uploaded one image (File:LombergA1024.jpg), and that was to Commons in January 2008. – Athaenara ✉ 07:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the older versions were replaced by the sole author/uploader here who uploaded the final version to Commons, it seemed appropriate to let the local file go. – Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I could be so presumptuous, I might say that I think that is a bad idea. First, it's actually against CSD policy, for the very good reason that we lose a perfectly good file version. This can be remedied via a split, or FFD. Secondly, I did decline the speedy deletion, and I prefer to think it's best if admins honor each other's adminly decisions, though I suppose it's not strictly necessary as I didn't perform any admin actions.
On a similar note, I hope to soon be putting up content on the toolserver which allows for old versions to easily be transferred to commons over the same file name; this wouldn't have been a good case though because it should have been two different files. Regardless, if you see any files with more than one version in the history that should be transferred according to F8, feel free to just leave it up for a few days, as I've privately been using the tool on my machine for many months now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the three earlier versions were quite inferior to the final version. All four were by the same user. In cases like this where the other versions really are not usable, I prefer to honor the clear intention of the uploader. – Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image existed for two and a half years before it was overwritten. We encourage users to write to a different file so we can keep all of them. That file would not have survived a deletion request at commons, though maybe (maybe not) FFD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The local file was deleted last month per {{db-f8}} as a duplicate of the Commons file, but the Commons file was deleted yesterday or today. I restored the local file. – Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding deletion of File:Gary R. Englert.jpg
In the logs it says you deleted this file but when I clicked on the link the image is still there? Did something happen that I don't know about. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me. I'm a bit new at uploading images to commons. I saw on my watchlist that you tagged 'ILramzor2.png' with an 'F8'. I tried to understand what an F8 is, but reading the legalese is a bit beyond me.
I used 'Italian traffic signs - semaforo verticale.svg' created by 'User:F l a n k e r'. Flanker's work was released into the public domain. I changed the yellow color to match local signage. I then uploaded it to 'English Wikipedia'. Later I moved it to 'commons.wikimedia' so it could also be used on 'Hebrew Wikipedia'.
Where did I go wrong. (Without asking me to struggle with the F8 explanation again), please tell me what I can do to fix the situation. Thanks in advance for your help. --@Efrat (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later in the day - - "User:Magog the Ogre" retagged the file F8. I get the impression that it will only be deleted from 'en.wikipedia' but remain in 'commons.wikimedia'. If that's what's going on, then I shouldn't get hysterical???????????? --@Efrat (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You gave also deleted many other images uploaded or manufactured by me, all with a "keep local", perhaps you would like to undelete them also. Thank you. GiacomoReturned21:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for correcting my attempted move. I used the "Move image to Commons" tab but it didn't seem to produce the expected results. I initially wondered if it was some sort of cacheing issue, but maybe I didn't follow the instructions correctly. Anyway, thanks. --Trevj (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it was {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} here but transferred to Commons with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} {{GFDL}}. Thanks for fixing it (it might be good to mention it to Frank Schulenburg, the editor who transferred the file, as well). – Athaenara ✉ 07:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) Frank may understand it but sadly I do not think it is possible to get all the hundreds (or thousands) of users that move files to Commons to understand the problem. It is probably much easier to talk to the few admins that work on Now Commons files. If I find users that transfer a lot of files I tell them - otherwise I just fix it. --MGA73 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few (not many) of those. I stored a note in one of my work pages about the templates and hope to use them properly when the occasion arises. – Athaenara ✉ 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you not delete talk pages containing project banners or the like. G8 specifically excludes "talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons". Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why I was not notified that two files I uploaded were deleted? Basic courtesy, at the very least, seems to suggest I should have been. → ROUX₪13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an answer to my question, nor do your subsequent actions make any sense. Let's try again. Is there a good reason why I was not notified, by you, that two files I uploaded were deleted, by you? → ROUX₪01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification, if at all, is usually by those who tag files per Moving files to the Commons, and generally uploaders have such pages on their watchlists so they'll be aware when files have been tagged. If you wish the local copy to be retained, you may add a {{Keep local}} to it. – Athaenara ✉ 02:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care whether it's here or Commons. What I care about is your lack of courtesy, followed by bizarre actions, and refusal to answer a specific question. Which you still haven't answered. Why did you fail to let me know, as a courtesy, that you had deleted the files in question? → ROUX₪02:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring. However, you should check the link he posted on his commons talk page, and see if there actually is a copyright concern. I was expecting to see a "freedom of panorama" argument, if anything. Unless that's effectively the same thing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see one problem, at least. I had posted it as PD-self (under my previous ID, 6 1/2 years ago, when I didn't know anything much about photo restrictions here), and although I took the picture, I obviously did not paint the painting. Any advice? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you that if a Commons file has multiple versions in its history, that all of the file versions are required to be on Commons for it to be eligible for F8. While it usually won't come back to bite us in the butt if we ignore the rules on it, that's true for any deletion criterion.
If you don't have the time to transfer to old versions to Commons, let me know and I'll use my bot to do it; you can even let me know afterwards, because the bot can see deleted versions of a file. Again, my bot would be public but the toolserver admin has placed a very low priority on fixing the server bug that's not letting it function.
PS. I'm talking about multiple versions of the same image; not times when the image should be split. If it should be split, well then we just have to split it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I don't transfer files myself, but before deleting local duplicates I'll be more diligent in determining whether multiple versions of a file exist and have been transferred. If multiple versions exist but haven't been properly transferred, I'll try to remember to note that in the local file. – Athaenara ✉ 01:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, I wrote a script aaaaaaages ago that really helps me transfer files (hence the reason why my deletion summary always say (using Magog the Ogre's move to commons assistant)[3]. If you want access to it, and are geeky enough to know how to run php from the command line, I'll send you the source code. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons talk pages
Shouldn't talk pages that contain only project banners for files that have been moved to commons be deleted? Why did you exempt them? Of course, if the talk page contains discussion, keep it. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my view, but others have objected. See for example Martin (MSGJ)'s 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC) comment above in the "Talk pages of deleted Commons content" section. – Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File talk:The Chinese Spring Offensive Korea April 1951.jpg
That was more than six years ago. A bot had tagged it as being available on Commons in December 2010, and comparing that with the uploader's statement may have prompted me to tag it in January 2011. – Athaenara ✉ 08:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swaminarayan_Temple.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swaminarayan_Temple.jpg){kind=link}
