User talk:Missvain

Archives User talk:Missvain/Archives 1 User talk:Missvain/Archives 2 User talk:Missvain/Archives 3 User talk:Missvain/Archives 4 User talk:Missvain/Archives 5 User talk:Missvain/Archives 6

PLEASE DON'T COME TO MY TALK PAGE ASKING ME TO LOOK AT NEW OR PENDING DELETION REQUESTS. I REVIEW EVERYTHING CHRONOLOGICALLY WHEN I HAVE TIME AND ENERGY. THANKS!

Hi, saw the notice to delete and answered user User: IronGargoyle on Dec, 5th 2021 stating that the files were following the guidelines and there was no answer. The next thing I notice is that the files were deleted anyway.

For your convenience: the answer (originally in User talk:Hrbaptista):

Hi,

The files File:Placa prêmio Marta Rossetti Batista.jpg and File:Placa prêmio Marta Rossetti Batista.jpg are pictures of my own work of art. The drawing of the second (that is also appearing in the first) were done by me. I am the depicted son and only heir, therefore being the only one capable of authorizing the usage of my mother's image.

The File:Prêmio Jabuti 2007.jpg file is a depiction of the prize awarded to my mother (now in my possession). According to the article 48 of the Authorship Law in Brasil, the depiction of public statues (such as prizes) is allowed without prior authorization, provided that it is for informational purposes and that it does not produce financial benefits. The photo was taken by me, so the author of the picture is also in agreement with its publication in this page.

Cheers,

HB Hrbaptista (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it is customary to ignore a reply but it is not nice. Since you deleted the files (instead of IronGargoyle) I ask you to please respond to it.

Cheers.

I think you've made a mistake in closing this.

The PDF per the comment in the thread did have copyright notices in the scans for 4 issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't PD-US Gov work obviously, and the other issues earlier in the file are possibly no-notice (hence the license was updated from PD-US-Gov which was clearly incorrect.)

I renominated the PDF only on the basis of the comment about the 4 issues, only for someone to fail to seemingly not consider that the license tag might be in error, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cranberries;_-_the_national_cranberry_magazine_(IA_cranberriesnatio6668port).pdf (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ShakespeareFan00 - No problem. As my closure suggests - feel free to renominate! You already did and I'll defer to another reviewer to close. Cheers and happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you made a mistake by deleting File:98.9 WOKO logo.png, File:Q Country 102.9 logo.png and File:97.9 The Moose logo.png. The discussions of these files are more to keep them and was used inter wikis. Also you mention in the discussion "per keeps" and that the files can be renominated. You should restore them now. Thank you.--2605:B100:518:66AD:EC2A:4587:873F:592C 21:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I did! My sincerest apologies - it was an accident. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers and happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mind having a second look here? DS (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here ? DS (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Missvain. I am Justinianus, from Turkey. We saw a request recently, on that page. According to this request, this file was deleted because it was not an own work. But this work is public domain in Turkey because it was first published before +70 years. It was proofread at that page on trwikisource. According to Turkish laws, the works before published +70 years are PD. Also Template:PD-text can be considered as appropriate for this work. That would be great if we had a chance to reinstate this work. I'm looking forward for your response. Best regards, Justinianus (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justinianus - I undeleted it. The concerns presented by the nominator were legit. As you'll see on the image page, it's incorrectly licensed and incorrectly claimed as "own work." So, hopefully someone can update it accordingly. If not, it could be nominated again due to these misunderstandings. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we just need to find the original source of that work. Then we can update the info. Thanks for your help. Justinianus (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you name the reason for deletion? In the moment in the german article Deckfarbkasten there is now a picture placed that there is no picture for this question to find. The Deckfarbasten is pedagoical tool for pupils, so the picture was for a long time in usage as an simple pedagoical example, to see which problems with such colors of such "Deckfarbkasten" exists. Can you please look in the german Wikipedia and can you please fix the problem, which have made by the erase. The erase qeustion of yawn was a copyright question, which was not given. Yawn thougt it would be painted by another person not be the uploader. This is readable. However. Look thereː https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deckfarbkasten and Thereː https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuschkasten Please give a precies reason for this ersase. On the rules of erase is also to read that a picture could only erased if it is not used in a language version of a wikipedia article or it could be placed by another picture of it in such language version. It could be another case, if this picture would not used such a long time in the German wikipedia for a "pedagogical" article. But it was used. However. Maybe you have not really read the entire text and looked on the usage in the wikipedia. ;-) Please the reason would be interesting, is it again the "confirmation by email"? which was the reason for delete request, which was not given. If, "yes" how I have written on the discussion page or you may write me what a confermation should be useful in this case. Thank you. --Sönke Rahn (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC) If you have questions to unterstand the problem. You may ask me. I have placed the problem there also againː https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A_Copy_of_Van_Gogh%27s_Terrace_of_the_caf%C3%A9_on_the_Place_du_Forum_in_Arles_in_the_evening,_A_Watercolor_ink_painting_of_Soenke_Rahn_(schooldays_in_the_80s).JPG friendly greetings --Sönke Rahn (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sönke Rahn - I understand how frustrating it can be to have a file deleted. Including those you have created, it has happened to me before. However, I agree with User:Yann that permissions is a good idea - hence "per nomination" (honestly, on Commons, we get people claiming things are their own all the time - sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't). It's all in good faith. If you disagree, like my comment says when closing it out, you are welcome to request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests or send in COM:VRT and if accepted they will undelete it. Again, this is all in good faith for the sake of the project and respecting copyright, creativity, and education. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe you have not understand it completly. I have made the picture (photo) of a painting I have painted. It is in usage in a pedagogical topic. It may be funny. Yes I got the best grade in the 1980s for this picture. But however, it was not a masterpiece. How should I prove it, that I have painted it. The picture lays on my mother's cupboard. I could make more pictures of it ??? May be a picture with an acutual newspaper. Should I signature it again under the picture? A signature is above to see. But, surely I will not change something on the picture because it's also an relict of my schooldays, a memory. Ok, however which informations would be important by such e-mail? I have never made such processs, because I placed never something which is not my own on the wikipedia, and in this case it is also mine. Sorry, this case is a little bit strange for me, I suppose you can undertand my view. ;-) --Sönke Rahn (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you can either send permissions to COM:VRT or you can request it to be undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests. Both pages have directions to walk you through it. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will request you maybe again. Because, I am not sure. But, if I read it right, on the VRT-Page I can only ask under permissions-commons@wikimedia.org what they want in such case, because in gerneral the VRT-Page ask for permission if somebody will upload something, which is not his own. I will write that this picture was painted by me and ask what they want. Thanks first, for this answer. --Sönke Rahn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the fifteen files here, you left one undeleted (File:L'Enigma Iber - Barkeno, capital dels laietans?.jpg) when closing the discussion. Was this deliberate based on its content, or an oversight? The file page still has a deletion template on it. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Belbury It was unintentional. I would have stayed in my closure statement if it wasn't. Sometimes the tool that I use overlooks things, it's rare, but it happens. I'll delete it. Missvain (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see that you have blocked some of the IPs that I used in the past month to nominate some files for deletion, based on this discussion and the block of IP 223.255.225.69. I know that given that you are blocking my IPs for three months I should not intervene, but there is a mistake, so please let me explain.

The blocks are an error, since I am not the same as IP 223.255.225.69 (the IP location is completely different), who obviously copied the rationale from my early nominations. After I was advised to change the language of my nominations by Achim on 2 November, I changed the language accordingly, not nominating any other file for being a "child drawing". I also apologized and explained the reason of my nominations.

Therefore, I think that the block of my IPs and the automatic closing of all the nominations I made as "keepings", regardless of the rationale and votes, are mistakes detrimental to the quality of the website. Most of the nominations are of low quality files, duplicates, or inventions of users.--37.162.73.24 19:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann was the original admin who blocked your IP for 3 months. Then you stated that even during your block you would evade the block by using other IPs. I appreciate your apology, but, I also think it's inappropriate that you're intentionally evading block, and still nominating content in the same subject area for deletion. I'm also very confused - it sounds like you are denyign you are the user who was blocked for inappropriate behavior, but then you're saying you're the same person. I'm pinging Yann because if they think it's inappropriate that I blocked you (Again, evading and what is noted Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_87#IP_37.160.0.91_–_COM:CIVIL_and_UCoC_violations here) for the appropriate three months, then I"m happy to unblock, but, I find it appropriate to block. It remains disruptive for the time being to evade blocking by still nominating content for deletion. Missvain (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My blocked IPs are those which begin by number 37 (the first noms were made with [1]) and they were all blocked by you Missvain ([2], [3], [4], [5]). The IP blocked by Yann (223.255.225.69 who edited in September) was not me, but in November he copied and pasted the rationale from one of my earliest November noms, after I had already agreed with Achim and others that my language was too harsh. This message and the former one are the only edits that I have made since you began to block my IPs on 14 December -- I have saved the links of the IPs and noms, this is why I noticed the blocks --, and I will not edit further until the misunderstanding will be clarified or the blocks confirmed.--37.162.44.91 20:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You closed the DR as Kept, but you deleted the file. See also

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Holy Resurrection Melkite Catholic Church (Columbus, Ohio) - iconostasis, St. John the Baptist.JPG

Regards, Yann (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann Oops - fixed. Thanks! Did you also see above? It sounds so fishy.... Missvain (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I had all the info to restore Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Christophle par Jean Nicolas Truchelut.jpg as part of other restorations, I over rode your deletion and restored the file. Please forgive my over-reach in this case, I won't make a habit of it! Merry Christmas and all Holidays to you and yours! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my last comment here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:RM_band_recruits.jpg I asked Dvader2 about writing a request for a replacement photograph. That included asking where that request could go. Considering that they have not answered, what do you think? --Dreddmoto (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As my closing comment states: "We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved." If they can get permissions from the copyright holder to have this image freely licensed to be housed here, then we can undelete. But, at this point, I do not feel comfortable keeping the image on Commons any longer. It's been a month. Missvain (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain I appreciate your reply but, that's not really what I was asking about.

Perhaps the best thing to do will be to write a request somewhere for a new photograph to replace the one that was deleted. Where do you think that request should be written? --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Missvain
	Hi Missvain, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Share similar holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Davey2010/MerryChristmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hello Missvain! You've written here: "Next time, please be sure to post a deletion template on the file page. I noticed you haven't on any of these nominations." Recently, I've made new nomination of one TimedText file. And as usual, it was done via Nominate to delete button from the left collumn of Tools on Wikimedia Commons. You could see the deletion nomination code template on the TimedText, even if it's not rendering as usual on other namespaces. Would you mind to explain what exactly I need to post on the file page and which one? Thanks a lot in advance! Pacha Tchernof (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pacha Tchernof - Yes, please use this template and also be sure to let make sure the original file uploader knows their file is up for deletion. Thanks! Not sure why it the nomination tool isn't putting it on the file page! Missvain (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain, thanks for the details! Probably, once or twice I used {{tl|Speedydelete}} template by myself and this could be the reason why the uploader wasn't notified about the nomination. I'll fix it in my further manually made nominations! Thanks a lot for pointing me it out! Just to confirm on the example of the mentionned nomination above, Nominate to delete button do notify the uploader of the original file about the nomination automatically. Please have exceptionally great holydays! All the best, Pacha Tchernof (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently deleted one of my uploads. I am sure that you did so for the correct and proper reason but I am still stumped on what the actual policy reason was. You described it as a "personal image". But I cannot find any reference to personal images in the deletion policy or the scope. My understanding of the scope was that anything that was "realistically useful for an educational purpose" was allowed, which I think my image was for the reasons I stated in the discussion. Furthermore, I cannot see how it is a personal image other that it is of a world of my own design which is necessary for any fantasy map uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or otherwise it would be a copyright violation.

I would be happy if you could clarify this to me, especially as I do not see how I can responsibly contribute to Wikimedia Commons if I do not understand what content is permitted. ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El komodos drago - What file was it? Thanks. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Gaia.jpg. The discussion is at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Map_of_Gaia.jpg#File:Map_of_Gaia.jpg. It's just my experience of content uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and the standards that have been applied to my art work seem to differ substantially which has left me confused as to what is permitted. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El komodos drago - The case presented by User:Enyavar is why - the quality of the image, another fantasy map. Don't take it personally. We really don't want folks uploading personal images - graphics, artwork, maps - especially for non-existent places or places/things that are not notable. Also, take a look at COMMONS:SCOPE for a general overview. Thanks and I hope you'll find other ways to contribute to the project! Missvain (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is a personal image besides the fact that I made it. If the uploader making an image being the creator is a problem then as I have said it would be impossible to legally upload any fantasy maps. I know its no modern day Da Vinci but I didn't know that's what Commons required - all I understood was not too low res, and not blurry (it was neither, it was made with a high quality scanner).

I have come to hate contributing to Wikimedia projects. I have been repeatedly insulted, and I find that 50% of edits are reverted. I have found the community utterly unsupportive and frankly I regret ever starting to contribute. I think that this may well be the straw that broke the camel's back and finally persuaded me that it isn't worth contributing. For that I thank you, it has been a demotivating waste of time and I will probably be happier when I get to call it quits. ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Missvain, on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murals by Arturo García Bustos you wrote that despite "interior murals are covered by WP:FOP" (of Mexico? the link is red) the pictures should though be removed because "these artworks are NOT public domain in the United States yet due to the painter's death". I do not understand. There are thousands of pictures of sculptures and other artworks in Commons covered by FOP in the countries the pictures were taken, but of whom the artists are not dead or not dead for at least 70 years. I always thought that if FOP applies to artworks in the home country, it is OK to publish photos of them in Commons, no matter of copyrights in the USA. Can you inform me? --JopkeB (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I process hundreds of deletion requests each week and sometimes have errors or make the occasional mis-evaluation. However, this seems like a weird case and I'm of the "Better to be safe than sorry school." The link should go to COM:FOP - I also edit Wikipedia so I made an error linking to a non-existent WP:FOP link, sorry. I fixed it. Anyway, I believe that the files you nominated are of concern and should not be housed on Commons at this time unless the uploader wants to provide VRT. Missvain (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ofcoarse you make occsional mis-avaluations, that is only human. I do not blame you. You do a lot of good work here. I am glad that FOP outside the USA is not limited by USA copyright law. And I agree with you that the nominated files should be deleted as long as there is no VRT ticket, or (my addition) untill there is proof that FOP Mexico indeed also applies to to interiors of museums and palaces, that they indeed are considered to be public places. --JopkeB (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Was that file supposed to be deleted as per your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Sunkissedguy#Files of User:Sunkissedguy 2 or was that just an oversight? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JWilz12345 - Just an oversight. I closed a lot of nomination today so no surprise I missed one! Thanks. Missvain (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this discussion and deleted File:Dhondutai Kulkarni.jpg, but not File:Dhondutai Kulkarni.png. Is the latter a different conclusion than the other? Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Fourthords - I just missed it in the nomination. Sometimes when people nominate files after they already nominated their initial file it can get lost in the clutter. In the future, you can help reviewers (which lately seems like I am the only one) by using bullet points to list the files for nomination. Thank you. Sorry for the oversight. I have deleted it. Missvain (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10-4, I'll try to call more attention to such in the future. Thanks! Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Missvain, you have accidentally deleted this file, still used on wa.wikisource : s:wa:Indek:L’Aclot.pdf. Could you please restore it? Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reptilien.19831209BE1 - My sincere apologies. It has been undeleted. Missvain (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;-) Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Missvain, thanks for the good work reviewing the tons of deletion requests!! Also I have a question: I noticed you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vishal rozario as deleted but it appears you only deleted one of the two nominated files. Just wanted to know if that was on purpose, or an oversight. Njd-de (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Sorry about that and thanks @Njd-de for bringing it to my attention. THanks for the kind words, too! I really appreciate that (it's not the most pleasant volunteer task, lol!). Missvain (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to offer direct assistance to the uploading editor, please. They claim ownership but the OTRS process may bewilder them Timtrent (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timtrent - Hmmm...Looks like you've already offered it - by contacting COM:VRT. There are instructions there. I'm not a VRTS volunteer anymore, so I can't really assist much more than that... I think it's rather simplified in the instructions. Missvain (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they would just benefit from simple reassurance by someone who is not me Timtrent (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about "pictures within a photograph" as far as copyright goes?

• File:Anna Seniuk 3 (33426033562).jpg
• File:Anna Nehrebecka ... (38063359866).jpg
• File:Anna Milewska 2 (30695662906).jpg

If you don't know the answer, perhaps you could point me in the right direction. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krok6kola - I suggest the "copyrighted photos" in the corner get cropped out. They are notable people - all actresses that have Wikipedia articles. Missvain (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Seniuk 3 (33426033562).jpg This request contains the two added files. I'll crop them as you suggest. Thanks. Krok6kola (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• These are fixed by the uploader User:Matlin and no longer need deletion. What about File:Agnieszka Cegielska ... (31714832558).jpg? If she is a writer, maybe these are her works? Krok6kola (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please just keep it to the nomination pages. If you're concerned about an image, please nominate it for community discussion. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your advice! Krok6kola (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Say. If you ever feel like you want to see my 'very cute' aardvark picture again, you can always look at him right over here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fni942XKrIIgzX85gQlcjZ3kkYRYgOOg/view?usp=sharing But perhaps I could take better-quality aardvark pictures for my personal animal photographic collection in future!

Re: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADowntown_Indianapolis%2C_1904.jpg&type=revision&diff=618048112&oldid=485422462 Meridian Street is 20 miles long, with most of it not being in downtown Indianapolis. Why did you remove the category? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koavf - I know. I used to work on Meridian Street and my parents owned a building on Meridian Street, in fact. The reason is because Category:Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument (Indianapolis) is already categorized on under Meridian Street and Downtown Indianapolis. I don't think there is a need to get redundant when the monument is clearly the focus of the photograph. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just removed files that are categorized as Downtown Indianapolis and also Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument. Good thinking. Happy 2022! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This photo of glamping is very nice!

— hike395 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:hike395 - Thank you so much! Missvain (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Missvain, could I request a close to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heutige deutsche Mundarten.PN[6]. I set up another formal request to delete, as I found yet another duplicate copy of the highly questionable maps showing the purported distribution of the German language/dialects in central Europe created by Postmann Michael, who if you recall from past cases, was banned for: "01:28, 25. Mai 2006 Elian (Diskussion |Beiträge) blocked Postman Michael contributions for an unlimited period of time (POV from dubious sources, trivialization of National Socialism. Harms Wikipedia.)" (link). --E-960 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E-960 - Not until the full week is up. Deletion requests must run for seven days unless they qualify for speedy. And blocked users uploads don't qualify for speedy. Please note the post on the top of my talk page - folks need to let requests go for a week for full discussion. I prefer people to let the process proceed accordingly versus pinging me on my talk page to close nominations. Thanks for your understanding. Missvain (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked that point, sorry about that. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, just a quick follow up on the closure request, as today marks the seven day review period. I'm really concerned about the spread of these questionable maps, especially that the various copies/versions were spread across or moved over various Germany related categories on the Commons. That's why I keep running in to these Postmann Michael maps and was not able to submit a request for all at the same time. --E-960 (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Frente_escuela_1915.jpg When we nominate for deletion, a notice goes to the uploader. My requests on deletion nominations are not to the administrator, but to the uploader - unless I clearly state "Closing administrator please..." I am a little surprised at the ordering tone in some of the recent closes. We do try to work with the uploaders, it's not just an admin to admin situation. If you are feeling overworked, do step back. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ellin Beltz - No problems here. I'm great. When you review hundreds of deletion request pleasantries get a little old. I often don't think that public domain content needs to be deleted because of lack of information. If it really does appear or really is public domain, I'll often keep it. Feel free to let another admin review it. No skin off my back. Cheers. Missvain (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The first thing to come to mind: published in 1915 and taken in 1915 are two entirely different things inasfar as establishing its copyright status. Then again, there's tons of content on this site to which that applies. Cheers.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some files of this DR were not deleted + the uploader did recently upload even more images under false own work claims. You may want to speedy those and warn him. --Denniss (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]