User talk:Prosfilaes

English: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Prosfilaes!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Hi Prosfilaes, Hope you don't mind my asking, you seem knowledgeable on getting a photo up on Wiki. I have taken one with permission of the painter, it is a self portrait of an artist.. he want's me to put it up, but it needs a certain permission or license it seems, and I can't figure out how to do this. Does he/I need to send permission somewhere? Or ? Hope this makes sense, I'm a newbie, Thanks! RudiBassSelfPortrait70s.jpg is the name I thought I uploaded.. davenru aka Dave

Image:MONATO 20085.jpeg

Hi. I've undeleted this file. However, we cannot still check whether the uploader is who (s)he claims to be. Please check Commons:Email templates out to solve this issue. Regards. --Dodo 07:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 871e7d48d437ab3585020e85a1ed634b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg

If your vote is based on precedent, you should know that the deletion of the image of US Soldiers was actually undone, then it was redeleted (despite an 11-2 Keep ratio), now it's being undone again. As has been pointed out, we have all kinds of images of people from my Lai, the Holocaust, Guadelcanal and Hurricane Katrina which are images of deceased people, recently deceased people, and people whose families could be "offended". The best example I can offer is File:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg, I'm in regular contact with the w:Khadr family; whose son is depicted in the photo - and needless to say the image is disturbing to them, but it ran in newspapers, documentaries, news broadcasts, and it would be poor judgment for us to delete it simply because of "feelings". Sherurcij (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Springs Preserve pics

[1] is a pretty good list of the plants I photographed at the old DDG, should anyone wish to add cats. While I've been to the post-reorg Springs Preserve, I haven't photographed there yet. Stan Shebs (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

URAA litigation

Greetings. Do you know how I can find out more about litigation against the URAA in the U.S.? I saw you mention it on the admin noticeboard, and I'm keen to know more. Quadell (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for message Levent Abi (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep comments on talk pages

---

Please do not post comments or opinions on images, articles, or categories. You may post relevant comments on the talk pages by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of the page; useful comments and discussions are always welcome! However, please refrain from adding personal opinions or irrelevant/rude comments, as the Commons serves an educational purpose and is not the place for such statements. Thank you!

Please be civil. If you want to discuss the Wikimedia Foundation policty about foreign works affected by the URAA treaty, please start a discussion on Commons_talk:Licensing, or even better on MetaWiki. There is no need to vandalize pages, like COM:L, in order to provkoke a discussion. You even tried to provoke me in doing it on Commons:Deletion requests/Mystic Treatises. Sv1xv (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a community. If nobody is interested in a discussion based on your agenda, then so be it. Sv1xv (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

COM:L

Please drop it. You know it's not the right way to do it. If you think our policy has not been applied correctly, discuss that issue in the appropriate venue, but don't modify the policy without prior discussion. –Tryphon^☂ 05:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

question

WRT to the Pangnirtung images, I am curious -- do you know how isolated Nunavut is?

I am not going to speak in favor of those images. I uploaded them in good faith. And the original flickr uploader had placed them under a CC liscense -- apparently without understanding what that meant. The email request the original uploader sent me embarrassaed me. She apparently thought that the wikipedia and wimimedia were like flickr, and that I, as the uploader, could delete the images I uploaded, without consulting anyone else.

I have got to say I disagree with you about the scope. Geo Swan (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request regarding User:Quahadi

FYI: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Selected images of User:Quahadi. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User Jagrob / Change name

I'm sorry, but I'm the photograph. This was a mistake, I dont' wont any traceability with my name. Please dont' change without discussion! Tanks a lot. Jagrob (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note template

Template:Painting--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pic rename

Ooops, sorry! I have to admit I somehow hadn't seen the deletion notice - I happened on the pic while sorting through Category:Unidentified Anatidae, identified and recategorised it to Cat:Domesticated ducks; and seeing such a grossly POV title, decided to rename after checking first that it wasn't in use anywhere (so thought renaming would be safe!). Given the nature of the deletion request, shall I just delete it? - MPF (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Alinka w krainie cudów

Hi, I'm sorry for the late answer. I have only uploaded some images on request of its owner, who wished to remain anonymous. He was so kind to send us some scanned pages from his book (it's very first Polish translation and no library in Poland possess another copy) and I haven't heard from him since. Best wishes, Filip em (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Your were correct to rollback. I'd like to think I am usually more careful.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

comment

Basicly I told brooks that he should not quote me as I was convinces otherwise by Avraham/Avi who provided me with accurate translation of a Court rulling in my talk page. It not ment to be rude but many people have difficulty writing and reading in English. Including me and brooks. If you felt insulted, I deeply appologize. Deror avi (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kissing Parkers.jpg

Reason explained. Sorry for the technical problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Amaterasu

Please do not delete this image of Amaterasu. Please give me the reason for that. This image is really my work, so I don't see any reason for that.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I take a pictures of some book but I am creator of those pictures, isn't that right? Or what should I do about it?

What I must to do about it, so that my images would not be deleted?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look what I found: If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?

So, I do the same thing - use a camera and take a picture of something that is in public domain. That I take image of sky, that is obviouse in public domain, isn't?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Corpse pose-Relaxation-Savasana.jpg

CG? I thought it was real. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The original poster marked as CG. If you look at the blouse and the hair, it's pretty clearly not real.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sega CD Logo.jpg

I'm somewhat confused by your statement; would you please elaborate on it? Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

respect your input

Because of what you said at the NORAD Santa image deletion debate, I would ask you to take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Convenience store Shisa in Isigaki island Japan.jpg and see what you think.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:675 Sixth Avenue 101 5491.JPG

Excuse me, is there a reason that you're butting into this? I uploaded a file under an incorrect name, so I reuploaded it under the correct name, marked the old one as a duplicate, and then uploaded a "Please delete this file" under the old name, just to make sure it got attention. Why do you insist on reverting it because "this is not the way to delete a file"? I was under the understanding that we're, generally speaking, result oriented and not hung up on process as the be-all and end-all. What possible difference can it make to you? I'd appreciate it if you'd just back off, since it doesn't concern you and has no wider implications. Thanks, and please don't bother to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: NHC Advisories

Before You upload a current advisory you need to upload the old advisory first Anikingos (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Precession_torque.jpg

You reverted my change here with no explanation, reinstating a diagram that misleads viewers. Please discuss on the talk page for that file. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh!

Oh, so thank you!(→ File) --Idh0854 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:USSPittsburghBallastBlow small.jpg

Greetings! I hope you don't mind, but I came across File:USSPittsburghBallastBlow small.jpg and noticed that it's extremely noisy. So I edited it to reduce the noise. I hope you like the result, if not, you can always revert to the original. regards! -- Orionist ★ talk 04:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TinEye

Thanks for mentioning this tool, as I normally just do a Google image search, which usually works. Although something that I found earlier that was a copyvio through Google didn't come up on TinEye, it's good to have another source for copyvio checks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

T:protected

what is the correct template for a talk,please?--Alpha (^{my name is nobody...}) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about GNU Free License

Hi again,

I had asked about the GNU licenses for use of a modified image in a thesis. I contacted the creator of the image but haven't yet heard from him. Could you help me understand how I could use that image under the GNU free license? As for the "document" defined in the GNU free license documentation, I am still confused about the word document. Does that mean the image itself that I've used or would it mean the entire document in which that image is used? I am wary of uploading my entire thesis to wiki, but I would gladly upload the compass rose image that I got from wiki and subsequently modified. My grad school requires a writer to obtain permission from the copyright holder. I have used graphs and photos from books in my thesis and have gotten permission from those copyright holders. To comply with that permission and the grad school requirements I must cite the copyright holder as having given me permission just below the image and keep the documentation of the written permission (most of these have come via email). It it also highly advised to thank those copyright holders for the permission in the acknowledgment section. I believe if I comply with the copyright/copyleft requirements of the image license, that would suffice for my thesis if I am unable to get permission directly from the author in time. Any advice? Thanks!! Friesweg (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

2257

Hello Prosfilaes, sorry, what the number template to possible for delete the pictures nude childrens ? Thank you very much. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, when I fixed the incomplete listing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali zee1.jpg I linked the wrong image, it's fixed now. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Angel-Dvambazki.jpg

Umm... did you mean to type {{vd}} instead of {{vk}}?[2] Jappalang (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And I was laconic enough when I wrote that comment that I probably came off as smart-ass, too, didn't I.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your singnature

Hi, you should check your signature. It seems that there is a missing trailing </small> in it. I noticed it because the todays DR page is in wide parts completely in small and I'm currently busy to correct it. Thanks. --JuTa (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Knute Rockne Image

Hello Prosfilaes - I just saw your response to my query about the copyright issues related to the Knute Rockne image. I appreciate the explanation of the copyright laws. With a bit of checking, I located what may be the source of the image used here [3]. I'm wondering if this -

Date Created/Published: [no date recorded on caption card] - Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Bain Collection - Reproduction number: LC-DIG-ggbain-38914 (digital file from original negative) - Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication.

changes the status of image usage, especially as regards the image's inclusion in the L of C collections and the the absence of known restrictions on usage. regards, 69.229.4.48 06:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

apologies - I forgot to log in to Commons - the comment above is from me. Sensei48 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

By definition, a personal attack must contain commentary on a -personal- attribute of an individual. Their words or online behavior is not considered a personal attack. This claim is incorrect. There is nothing even offensive about the comment.

This is a list of examples. Please read over the examples before misapplying policies, as accusing others of impropriety when that is clearly not the case is a breach of incivility and not acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Applying your own standard, this is a personal attack: [4] "Someone needs to take a cluestick to about.com about how to legally reuse our photos." It is also nasty commentary that has no place in deletion discussions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Then there is this nastiness. ""There is no use for an image of urine" strikes me as pretty absurd statement." No one in 2 years used the picture. It is obvious that you substitute your personal politics for policy, make incivil comments, and accuse people of wrong doing to try and "win". This isn't a game. Please don't act in this manner again. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• • So you disagree with me. That doesn't make my statements incivil. I commented on the content, not the contributor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a disagreement, it is your outward false statements on policy to try and cause harm to another that pointed out that you had no actual position in a discussion. That is not acceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, you act as if no reasonable person can disagree with you. That's completely unconstructive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See below. An image of "drinking urine" that has no drinking nor any actual urine and not used anywhere on the WMF is not within scope. It requires some kind of use and a non-misleading title if anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning 2

You were told to stop making things up about policies as that is incivil. You edit warred and did this. You said: "It should be indisputable that your statement violated the "comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all""

It actually says "When in doubt, comment on the article's content..."

The policy also says: "That is, they should be directed at content and actions". That means that we are allowed to comment on on-wiki behavior.

This misquoting the policy to attack another user is highly inappropriate. Is it merely a mistake or do I need to take this to the Noticeboard? This is not acceptable in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to take to the Noticeboard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are not done with being nasty and that you will continue to act incivility to promote a point of view that is damaging to Commons as a whole? It is odd that you would act in such a way over an image that is one 1. not someone drinking anything, 2. not necessarily urine, and 3. not used anywhere on the WMF. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not over the image; it's about your habit of committing personal attacks. And what I'm saying is that you complained to the en.WP Arbcom, and got a permanent block. I doubt the Noticeboard will block you permanently, because they're laxer on stuff like that here, but I know if you take it there, you'll get the lion's share of the blowback.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been pointed out over and over that you are making things up. A personal attack, by definition, is a statement that discussions the real life individual and not on wiki statements or actions. You claimed that I made a personal attack by saying: "I don't know how you would even attempt to justify the image." Not only is there no person involved, the "you" is the hypothetical "you" meaning anyone. It expresses bafflement. Your statement is so unbelievably off base that it is done only to attack. The fact that you are unable to discuss this situation proves that you have no grounds for an argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is part of your problem. When I say that I have a problem with your actions, you consider it an attack. If I said that I didn't read that statement as having a hypothetical you, and as you were quoting someone, I still don't, you're not going to reread that statement and try and look at it through my eyes; you're going to simply accuse me of making things up again.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't say you have a problem with my actions. You misuse policy to try and belittle and intimidate me. That isn't civil. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*Shrug* As I said, you haven't bothered to try and listen to me. You just assume the worst about me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, you went after me, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Village Pump

Thanks for your help there, I have replied on the thread I started and noted what I have done in relation to cleanup. Your assistance in the cleanup of my foul-up was most welcome. Apologies for causing this large pile of manure to descend. BarkingFish (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard notice

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Prosfilaes. You have been reported] for outright distorting what cases say to push a fringe view and for bullying and making up claims about others to defend that fringe view. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:At the Earth's Core

Hello,

I don't understand why I reverted my renaming of Category:At the Earth's Core (film) into Category:At the Earth's Core. As there is no ambiguity about the name of the category the parenthesis are not necessary.

Can you explain me why I am wrong ?

Regards

--Hercule (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When I did it, I assumed from memory there was a book category called Category:At the Earth's Core that the film category was a part of. There certainly is potential ambiguity, as At the Earth's Core is the name of a fairly notable book whereas At the Earth's Core is a fairly non-notable movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just uploaded from Wikimedia a dust jacket for the book, so we certainly need categories for both.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answer --Hercule (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Teleoceras Harvard, part 2.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

I've taken liberty to copy[5] your sig from the first part of your comment to the second part, where it was missing. --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Anna Marie Franziska of Saxe-Lauenburg.jpg

Hi, I do not understand why you have reverted it. It is unnecessary. Why create a problem out of thin air. The picture of just her head looks silly. I will revert your edits politly as I see this is not the first time you have done this. Kindest regards Picture Perfect Prince (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Picture Perfect Prince is a beginner which does not yet sufficiently know the rules: no edit warring, but separate uploading of cropped and full versions. I asked an admin for revert to the first image on page File:Anna Marie Franziska of Saxe-Lauenburg.jpg, deletion of all later versions and protection of the page; the three images then have each their file then. greetings, --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be protected; there is much room for improvement on all three. Even if we can't find a better picture of the painting, someone could apply their graphic skills to improving the head shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a cooling down time, protectiion ends automatically.--Havang(nl) (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fake images of elements

Of course commons isn't wikipedia. However, a very large quantity of images on commons are used on wikipedia and we don't need unscientific innaccurate fake images there. But neither do we need them here, on commons. Besides the fact that they were fake the images were also poor quality and served absolutely no purpose. I don't feel that opposing everybody's deletion view on the basis that this isn't wikipedia is entirely valid since the fact that the images were in use on wikipedia was usually only part of the users reasoning. This is of course moot because the fake images have fortunately now all been deleted. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's none of your business what images Wikipedia uses. You don't have the right to delete images to protect poor stupid Wikipedians who don't know any better from them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You're 100% wrong there and the idea that you think "poor stupid wikipedians who don't know any better" only goes to show how in truth you know these images are unfit for purpose. They are innaccurate and have zero educational value. In fact they are misleading and as such fail commons policy. So like I said, if users of wikipedia wish to comment then that is their choice. At the end of the day the same policy which makes such images unsuitable for wikipedia make them unsuitable for commons. Polyamorph (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You think they're stupid, because otherwise you would be fine letting them choose which images to use there. I think the concept of having pictures of things we don't have photographs for, whether it be dinosaurs or elements is a good one. The policy says that when a Wikipedia has chosen to use a picture, we don't second guess it, and you ignoring that policy is Wikipedia-hostile.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No it's not because you're ignoring the fact that many of the users who commented on the deletion discussion (including myself) are scientists and edit the chemical articles on wikipedia and see absolutely no value in fake images of elements. Like I have repeatedly said they were scientifically innaccurate. Sure the idea of illustrating things we don't have real images for is fine but at least some degree of effort should be made to ensure such images are accurate is necessary. Otherwise they are misleading and pure fantasy. If you support that then you're entitled to have that opinion but as is clear you are in a minority as the majority of us prefer scientific accuracy over scientific fallacy. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So what? You're obviously in a minority on the Lithuanian Wikipedia, since they kept the images up. You're invoking the tyranny of the majority here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is no excuse for hosting blatantly scientifically innaccuarate and misleading images. This is such an important point that any idea of responsiblity of hosting other projects images is overuled by the fact that by doing so readers receive incorrect and false information. There is no justification for hosting such images and so fact goodness sense prevailed and the images were deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

clicked upload twice on same picture, by mistake

Thanks for adding the proper license tag to the picture I uploaded today: "File:Collier's2-2-1924." This might seem very minor, but, there are three uploads for that picture. The middle one with the time of 22:28 is bogus, and should be deleted. What happened was I uploaded it and then realized I left no "comment," so went back and uploaded it again three minutes later with a "comment." It's the last of four pictures in the article, "Paul Martin (illustrator). Thanks, or skip it if too minor. JimPercy (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Laraine Day Photos

Hello, would you mind terribly chosing, or maybe uploading a new, picture from the Wikipedia Commons and adding it to the Laraine Day page at Wikipedia. For some reason I am temporaily blocked from editing, the downfall of a shared computer, and I can't and I noticed there are a lot of pictures of her here on the commons but on her page there isn't a lead image anymore. Would you mind adding a lead one there real quick so that saves time for others?68.70.27.96 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons Help Desk discussion

Hi. Can you or someone else please answer my question, or at least explain to me why it can't be answered? I've been trying to get someone to respond to my last post, but neither you nor anyone else will, and the thread was automatically archived. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no point in carrying on a discussion about license terms with someone who can't be bothered to find the actual license terms. If you can't see the link on the license template at Commons, Google would have found them for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you maybe?

Hi, Prosfilaes, are you able to edit pages on Wikipedia. If so maybe you can add one of the new Laraine Day pictures as a lead image for her article. There has been some abuse their lately and when I tried to add one in one of the bots or editors reverted everything and won't let me fix it. Can you help me out with that? She was my Great Grandmother and it would mean a lot to me.Rosalie My Darling (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're bothering me with this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't mean to bother you. I won't do it again. I don't know whether you can edit on the actual Wikipedia site and I thought maybe you can add a lead image of her there from one of her files here because lately people have tried to edit her page with information and lead images and the site is just reverting everything left, right, and sideways. I'm sorry I wasted you time, I won't do it again.Rosalie My Darling (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

vandalism of flyb.jpg

Hi there, thanks for your message. This is user $01734071290912$ on wikipedia. I dont have an account here. As part of a copyright dispute concerning all my uploaded material which was taken from a flickr account, i am removing all the copyright licenses which were created fraudulently. Is there a way i could make this clear so that my changes do not continue to be reverted? Thanks

Your changes will continue to be reverted; take them to DR and explain clearly your case if you want them deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

did not realise i'd ever be defending wikimedia's copyright policy against a wikimedia administrator. I'm getting stick from wiki about copyright i shouldn't have to do the same with you. Thanks for your input though.

You should be able to anonymously demand and get the deletion of any files you want? I think that's a stupid idea.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to put files forward for deletion where there is a legitimate reason and not face opposition from wiki administrators working against wiki policy. Don't kid yourself that i'm suggesting anything more drastic than that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.45.32 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I look at your contributions, and don't see any evidence that you put any files for deletion and gave a legitimate reason. Instead of nominating for deletion, you removed information from files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, i explained that in the first message above thanks. The information i was deleting was the stuff that was fraudulent which made sense to me. Then you explained that instead i needed to enter a deletion request detailing this fact. My technique worked ok for the other photos and would have worked just fine again here if it wasn't for you being the worlds biggest noob. xxx

It made sense to you; it was nonetheless wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

URAA

Note to self, for future discussion: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies#Office_Actions meta:Legal/Legal_Policies#Office_Actions says:

Importantly, the Wikimedia Foundation does not advise the Community to ignore laws that are under challenge.

Example: The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to challenge a copyright law in Spain that affects whether certain art falls into the public domain. Users who are subject to Spanish law should continue to comply with that law while it remains legally valid. This is so even if the Wikimedia Foundation itself is challenging the law.

--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kiek in de kök regnr3015.jpg

That picture was nominated for deletion by author because of confusion. He wanted that picture to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments competition, but uploaded it mistakenly with the general upload wizard. So he nominated it for deletion and wanted to upload the picture again with Wiki Loves Monuments wizard, but it wasn't possible. User WikedKentaur (who is one of the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments in Estonia) added appropriate competition templates and removed the deletion tag. Please don't revert that. Thank you. Adeliine (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an open DR on that. Until that DR is closed, the deletion tag shouldn't be removed. What should be done is an explanation put on the DR page and why it shouldn't be deleted, and let an admin close the DR as a keep.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW. What language is that? Where I come from, we just say it. -- Queeg (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

a defensive fine point

It is defensive and it is a fine point, yet I make it anyways.

I thought "photobucket" to be appropriate because the idea of having those images tagged "Anna" "Family" "Rome" and "Great" on Flickr was as painful to me as the way they had been uploaded here.

Now you know, my defensive fine point about all of this. -- Queeg (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Demi Lovato Signature.png

I know (I'm definitely not so noob) but that's a known puppeteer. Have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Lost Prince.djvu

The work was speedily deleted after the enWS contributor believed that the images are copyright (presumably based on UK copyright thoughts). It is a US work and we need to chase it down through there and if you are able to assist that would be great.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:N1 booster lp.gif

Please elaborate on why in your expert opinion PD-RU-exempt 'doesn't seem to apply'.--Alvez3 (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Signing comments

Why did you leave your notification on User talk:Tm unsigned? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I didn't think that I should have been the one to do it, and I was really grumpy about placing a notification for a user who had never bothered communicating with the person he had a problem with, even to the extent of notifying him he was bringing the issue to the Admin's Board. It needed to be done, but I didn't want to sign it as if I were the person who had the problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read my response to your deletion request ...

of Pi.tif. I think we are in agreement as to deletion, however, our reasons are different. Could you respond on the deletion request page to see if we are understanding each other? Doug youvan (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For love of Pete, people, I have a wishlist. If you want my opinion on a DR I've spoken on, at least give me 24 hours to see your post to the DR and let me respond.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to put any time pressure on you. I was just shocked that the image went up for deletion, so there must be a misunderstanding. Let's converse on that deletion page for consistency. Doug youvan (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Village Pump Discussion

I just added this: From User_talk:Kraaiennest / Crowsnest: "Dear Doug Youvan, I do not intent to make the code available, since it is (in part) the property of others." Doug youvan (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that we are arriving at a consensus. Could you comment on the Pump as to what the quote (given above) implies for our discussion, please? Doug youvan (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What part of "give me at least 24 hours to comment on a discussion I'm actively in" did you not understand?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

More apologies. BTW, what is the deal with NOR on Commons? OR is fine here, I thought. Can you please place your answer on my talk page?

RfCU

Thank you for your support.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain

Hi, I'd like to bring to your attention Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. COM:WPPD aims to support the Commons community's efforts to organise Commons' public domain materials, and to ensure that these materials meet Commons licensing policy. Please consider contributing to developing the project. Rd232 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#Blocked

I am just popping in to ask that you refrain from engaging in irrelevant discussion with other editors at User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#Blocked. It is not doing anyone any good, and it is totally irrelevant to the block, or unblock. I do not think I need to point which parts of the irrelevant discussion I am talk about. If you wish to engage in irrelevancies with other editors, please do so on your own talk pages, or via email. russavia (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. russavia (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Яндекс

Hi Prosfilaes, sorry if I would had used a clearer edit summary, but actually I already explained you who is targeting that RfD ;)

--Vituzzu (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh I already said that, but keep in mind there where already similar reverts on the page which was, definitely, a low-traffic one, finally there are so many stuffs to revert I hope I don't have to always explain even obvious ones. Anyway, I have two questions for you: since you surely knew what I was doing, why did you rollback me rathen the simply asking me to use clearer summaries? Why didn't you answer to what I wrote you on Jan, 9?

--Vituzzu (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting a vote is never obvious. Reverting any change on a discussion page that's merely adds a comment and isn't abusive isn't obvious. And sockpuppet or no, leaving one message on their talk page makes it clear to both them and others why you're reverting their posts. I didn't know what you were doing at the time; I watch a lot of pages and forgot about the IP revert on this one.

What did you want me to answer on January 9? I could have taken this issue up with you then, but I was in a mood to let it lie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the history it should have been almost obvious. Actually he knew why I was reverting his comments, you can see he understood I cannot lock him by myself unless it's an unified account. If you didn't see the page history it was your fault, not mine.

Saying it in a few word I ought be clearer and maybe I shouldn't rely so strongly on others' eye ;p

Finally, dealing with Jan a quick feedback is always welcome and prevents further misunderstandings. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to argue with you in January. Isn't that my right, not to participate in discussions when I don't want to?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-Afghanistan

I did give the user a detailed explanation in their talk page if you have not noticed. You have just broken categorization of all Afghan images disrupting the ongoing copyright review after the establishment of Afghan copyright law - something that has been ongoing since early March. In commons we do not normally remove working code without prior discussion particularly if someone states that it has a use. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when do we not discuss edits on the talk page of the item being discussed? This is not a private discussion between two users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is. You discuss first and then remove code that is in use. Otherwise it is a private discussion or private disruption if you will. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

DR tag

If I don´t remember bad, you had removed the copyright violation tag first. So before giving me such advise, be respectful with my previous edits on the logo. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don´t want to start an edit war with you, I have better things to do. And if you want to search for all my uploads and nominate them for deletion, so go ahead, have fun. Fma12 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Middx v NZ 1905.jpg

What I really admire about you is how persistent (or just stubborn?) you are. I think you have kept an eye on every move I make on Commons, just to edit exactly the oppose I had edited first. You could be really collaborative if you wanted... (and I would really appreciate that) but you always prefer to take the other way. A pity. Fma12 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you refer to the AFA file, I put a copyvio because I thought that logo was a clear copyright violation (from my opinion, of course). Then you changed it to DR, what is ok, but your next move was to substitute the logo (more than once) on all WP pages where it appears. Moreover, you accused me of "stealing" (or something like that) the SVG file although I never attributed the authorship of such file (which is already registered). What do you want I respond in the edit summary? We have different opinions, probably I'm right, probably you're right or probably both of us are wrong. But you preferred to start an edit war instead of trying to reach a consensus, for example using my talk page. That's what I refer when I talk about "being collaborative". I hope things change, really, or this will be the neverending story. Fma12 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to a DR, then you changed it back to a copyvio notice on the 9th of April.[6] I have no edits on Wikipedia in that time period. You uploaded the SVG file to Wikipedia and dropped the name of the person who turned it into an SVG file.

I have no clue what you mean by "registered".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

New Message here

You have a new message here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Times of India front Page 15 August 1947.png. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Prosfilaes. You have new messages at Darwinius's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

der Stürmer

Why have you deleted the 4 front pages of the Stürmer, published more than 70 yrs ago? They are copyrightfree according to the Zeitungszeugen.

You must not be more royalist than the King. And do not forget the policy of WP has always been to fight the liberty killing copyright --FLLL (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are times you must be more royalist then the King. In any case, I didn't delete the images. They were deleted because they had no license, and they had no license because of all this talk about "Zeitungszeugen", nobody bothered to put clear licenses on them. Feel free to take it to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎, and be ready to explain clearly why they're actually copyright free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check this article of Blomberg: Early Nazi-Era Newspapers May Be Reprinted, Munich Court Says; By Karin Matussek - March 25, 2009 - Regards --FLLL (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you: if you read carefully the article you will see:

• Bavaria has acquired the property rights of Third Reich propaganda material. (it is not limited to publisher)
• The court gave authorization to publish the Zeitungszeugen which included inflammatory cartoons (see article) and photos. In the case of the nazi propaganda, the rights of the artists and authors are owned by Bavaria and free after 70 years of the publication as per court decision.
  

I repeat: Why do you want to be more royalist than the king, if the court considers the Nazi propanganda material to be free of copyrights after 70 years of publication.--FLLL (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you posting here? Go someplace that gives a damn. I can't do a damn thing one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Chez Paree Live Nude Girls

Rather than cross editing, perhaps it might be better to discuss our perspectives at File talk:Live Nude Girls Totally Naked Girls Live On Stage.jpg. Best wishes, Infrogmation (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Zoroaster picture

Found this picture here http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B4%D8%AA, sorry.

Article Feedback

You may remember that back in January we talked about the possibility of enabling AFT for Commons images. I've finally written up an RFC on enabling it - would you mind taking a look before I make it public and start inviting comments? The draft proposal is at User:Andrew Gray/feedback. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Now moved to a formal RFC: Commons:Requests for Comment/Feedback. Thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Relax

Hey, comments such as this and this aren't exactly helpful. You've been around long enough to know that, so chill out, and take the dog out for a walk -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your prior participation in a discussion

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg

You previously participated in a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

There is another discussion ongoing, again, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

Please if you wish to do so you may voice your opinions and comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You and Penyulap

You were already warned two threads up to avoid personal attacks against Penyulap, however your recent comments here, while not egregious, are still not particularly acceptable. I don't care if you like Penyulap or not - I certainly don't have patience for him myself - but this really needs not to become continuing pattern of behavior. I suggest you spend the next few weeks avoiding him entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

US copyright ends when Canadian copyright expires

THE US copyright office says regarding extension of copyright via the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994: that for there to be a US copyright it must be that The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection." That is, when its Canadian copyright expires its US protection ends. see http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html circular 38 b online here Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I watch most of the pages I edit on; please don't bring up discussions on my page that are better served on the general page, in this case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbara Ann Scott City of Toronto Archives.jpg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Linguistic flags

I've moved the DR to the gallery page. I've made the needed adjustment to the DR page and the transclusion. INeverCry 04:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-30858-001, Berlin, Bücherverbrennung.jpg

Hello,

the code (or "watermark") is required by federal license - die Zeile (oder das "Wasserzeichen") ist vorgeschrieben durch Freigabelizens des Bundes.

Greetings, MrBn (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it's not acceptable on Commons. Cropping is one of the most basic and frequently necessary edits, and COM:L requires "Publication of derivative work must be allowed."--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:.22_13_-_ITALY_-_monuments_of_Milan_in_art_-_marking_pen_drawings_colored_by_children_-_Teatro_alla_Scala.jpg_.E2.80.8E

Hello :) I gave an answer to your questions HERE, and I did as required to dissolve your concerns, if you are now convinced please change your opinion about the restoration of images. Hello :) thanks --Pava (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Favour to ask

Where you nominate files for deletion at Commons that are used and within scope at Wikisource, would you please be certain to add a note to the discussion that the files should be treated as {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} and allow that process to take place before deleting from Commons where that is the decision. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with the URAA

Hi, I see from your posts at Commons talk:URAA-restored copyrights that you are interested in tackling the problems that the URAA causes us here on Commons. I've started a new policy that might help, at Commons:Hosting of content released to the public domain globally. Could you have a look, and also add your thoughts to the talk page? I hope you will support it! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-record

Template:PD-US-record 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 template, 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. 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!

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A passing comment

Hello,
You responded to a couple of editors on a thread on the village pump. I'm not very experienced on Commons (I'm more active on en.wiki) but those editors' complaints are part of a larger campaign which is coordinated offsite. Presumably that canvassing should be acknowledged, or considered, or labelled in some way...? bobrayner (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Asit Kumar Haldar 1913 The Beginning Tagore.jpg

I just noticed that you opened a DR for File:Asit Kumar Haldar 1913 The Beginning Tagore.jpg. As a heads up, I had some discussion with Yann about his decision to not delete this file over on his talk page. In addition, he has opened a closely related undeletion request for the other image from your original DR. I'm not certain whether keeping or deleting these images is the proper result, but your input would be welcome. —RP88 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record

Hello, since you were a participant in the above Deletion discussion I wanted to make sure you were informed of the new Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue. Wikilegal left a notice on Template talk:PD-US-record saying "Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD

I opened the discussion in Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:Murder. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:CAB 2-3-1959-Buddy Hollys Crash.pdf

File:CAB 2-3-1959-Buddy Hollys Crash.pdf 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:Allow WebP upload

Hello Prosfilaes, it seems you are getting excessively worked up at the "Allow WebP upload" discussion. Try to keep a calm attitude and lets keep the discussion etiquette mature and professional. If you need any help on installing and using the software so you can handle WebP files, let me know. If you have further questions about the WebP format you can post them in the "Allow WebP upload" section. Thanks and have a great day. Offnfopt^(talk) 03:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice tone trolling. Do you want to respond to my points?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And professional means adjusting to the standards of the environment you're working in, not coloring all your posts in a green hi-light box.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I saw at the village pump that you mentioned model releases. Do you know of any draft of a Commons model release? I am seeking one for a test case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; I don't have any familiarity with them; I just know they're needed in some cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

John Everett Millais - Christ in the House of His Parents

Hi! I think no need of this other version because there is the category now. Also, need reporting all or none. (Sorry for my English) --Micione (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jaws-paperback.jpg

File:Jaws-paperback.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The unsourced mushroom cloud data and diagram.

I don't know where you're trying to go with that mushroom cloud diagram. You're better off finding the missing sources for it instead of picking a stupid fight. That diagram is thoroughly unsourced, and so its inclusion anywhere is invalid. If the diagram cannot in due course be adequately sourced, it should be deleted. In the mean time, a warning should be in place to not to use it until it is sourced. 108.20.176.55 06:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why its inclusion anywhere is invalid. b:Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks doesn't say that. There are dozens of Wikimedia projects all with their own rules.

It would be more productive for you to find sources for it, or sources that disagree with it, then to pick a stupid fight. There are lots of pages on Commons without sources, and our rules on sources are pretty lax compared to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're somehow implying that WM's standards of includability allow for the inclusion of unsourced data, well then you better show evidence because that's highly dubious. This isn't just a pretty picture, it represents data, data that is unsourced. Even if the inclusion of unsourced data in WM were allowed, it would only allow for the image to remain undeleted, it wouldn't preclude a warning in the text that the data is unsourced.

Why are you fighting so hard against a simple warning that the data is unsourced? It's already been included in numerous other "WP's" without sourcing info and that's the harm it's already caused.

My goal is 1) see a warning in place or 2) see sources in place, or 3) see it deleted. Putting a warning in place is an easy solution and solves the problem in the shorter term giving time to find real sources (or determine the data is faked). Against all WP/WM tradition, you're insisting that a simple warning not be put in place and that the only acceptable solution be a perfect one, and that's ridiculous. If you just can't handle a warning being in place as a stop gap, then the onus is on you to find sources now so you're in pain for as short a period as possible. The other alternative for you would be deletion.

108.20.176.55 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing; you rail on about verifiability, and when someone points out your claim is wrong, you insist it goes onto the image page unverified unless they can cite otherwise.

Because it's not a simple warning? It's falsehoods, like that it's not verifiable (which means that nobody could possibly find sources) and that it's not includable (again, Wikibooks and Wikiversity rules are quite different, and I'm not even sure about all the different WP's rules). It's not a template; you're inserting it right into the description, on top of the description.

If you want it deleted, go for it. It will not be deleted, because it is perfectly in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative wording? I just want a warning to stand out to someone who casually clicks on the image so they know that the source of data is not given. That would mean the warning-text should appear about where it is now, but I'm not hard-over about asserting "verifiable" and whatnot. If there's some alternative wording that's acceptable to you, it might work for me too.
How about: "Caution: The data represented in this diagram is unsourced, so it cannot be verified with information available here. Depending on the context of this diagram's use, it may or may not be includable without named sources for the data." What do you think? 108.20.176.55 21:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is really stupid. If the source of data ist not given you see it by looking on the description page and don't find the source. There is no warning needet. --Kersti (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone believe ?

In the file:Pluto via New Horizons (composite).jpeg Is Own work? Someone go to pluto and take a photo? author NASA--EEIM (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not a photo of Pluto; it's a composite of several photos made by a Commons user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

File talk:Mary Phagan.jpg

Hi Prosfilaes. I have a query about the source link and licence for the Mary Phagan image. See File talk:Mary Phagan.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpunk and Cyberpunk 2020 books covers

Hi,

would you be so kind to help me understand why these were listed for deletion? I understand that both pictures contained copyrighted materials but there are pics like this at Commons already. Examples: [7] [8] [9] [10]. What's the difference between these and mine? How can I make my pics acceptable? Angel-0A (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The last three have OTRS notifications that indicate that we have explicit permission from the copyright owner. The first one is text with some boxes, and is arguably simple enough that it wouldn't meet standards of copyrightability in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Thanks a lot. Angel-0A (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Spring Preserve

On en.wiki there's "Las Vegas Spring Preserve". Thus, either is wrong there or here... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And? As I said, Las Vegas Spring Preserve is wrong. Can we fix it here now?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes we can, no problem. Meanwhile, you do the same on en.wiki? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

DR

Can I get your opinion. This is copyright violation?

• File:HMS Dreadnought 1906 Hull longitudinal section.svg - one of the sources"
• File:HMS Dreadnought 1906 armour.svg - one of the sources
• File:HMS Tiger 1913 armour profile.svg - one of the sources---Sas1975kr (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would have put more distance between the source and my work had I been doing them. However, given the factual nature of the works, I don't believe they are copyright violations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not possible without sources. According to the current consensus files without sources will be deleted from Commons...--Sas1975kr (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoops.

So today I learned what HotCat is. Had *no* idea hitting that button was actually making edits. Sheesh. Sorry bout that. Evilphoenix (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Attribution-Yale-University-Art-Gallery

Hi, I did my edits to exclude the involved files from Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Now they are back in that problem category. Please revert your action or find a different way to remove the files from that category, or the files will be deleted for having no license. Jcb (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Attribution-Yale-University-Art-Gallery&curid=61627832&diff=266510002&oldid=266455682 is right; their requirement of attribution would seem to contradict "public domain". This is more like a (slightly informal) free license. Note that we have Template:PD-Yale-University-Art-Gallery for 2-dimensional works, where the photo would be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles Times

Can you look at the copyright wording at Category:Los Angeles Times and see if I am interpreting the renewal information correctly. RAN (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's actually free up to much later; I listed the individual contributions I could find that were separately renewed, but that's hard to make exhaustive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your great answer to my question at the village pump. That was exactly what I was looking for. Temporary or permanent is not relevant to anything in US law, so long as it's fixed, and per Berne Convention nations fixed (essentially made) includes temporary artwork. I"ve seen my OSU steal so much from students over the years I have no intention to contribute to any of that shit! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Chelonoidis nigra

"Chelonoidis nigra" is extinct

Galapagos tortoises used as proviant on the ship "Valdavia"

In Reptile base and IUCN the former subspecies of Galapagos tortoise "Chelonoidis nigra" are now treated as species and the former Chelonoidis nigra nigra is now named "Chelonoidis nigra". This is the island race from Floreana which is extinct since 1850. Therefore a new photo of a life animal is from a different species. --Kersti (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/03/Category:Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni

File:Georgia O'Keeffe, Series 1, No. 8.jpg

File:Georgia O'Keeffe, Series 1, No. 8.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!

103.25.182.254 19:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

New version of File:Alice Hutchison.jpg?

If I may ask.. why? I don't see any improvement. Maybe you had missed the first revision? In cases like these I sometimes upload the original or uncropped photo and upload a cropped portrait over it. I could have uploaded it as a seperate file as well, but in cases like these I don't see the point. The uncropped original is available in case anyone disagrees with my crop or wants to do some restoration work. I don't see the added value of the Hathitrust image, but I admit the Hathitrust website doesn't work here so maybe I am missing something. - Alexis Jazz 00:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was larger and clearer, and assumed by cropped you just meant removed the edges, not half the photograph. I probably wouldn't have done it had I taken a close look at the second upload first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Books Condemned to be Burnt - James Anson Farrer.djvu

Why did you revert my upload? While the Google Books scan is easier to read, this scan contains the original color and much clearer images. I get why you would want clearer text, but the book has been basically completely transcribed on Wikisource (bar images). -Einstein95 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this scan did not have the original color; it had some approximation of the current color of the book after acidification. I don't see the images as much better, and just because the book has been transcribed doesn't mean that we then throw away the scan. If you want to upload the new version, do like any other image and upload it to a separate file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

For colour, I was meaning the red text that is present on the title page, which does not appear in the Google Books scan. -Einstein95 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Russian 1 May Poster 1920.jpg

File:Russian 1 May Poster 1920.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!

Стальной Детройт (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Answer

Hi. I promised to answer your opinion about the usefulness of the image in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black and white bikini.jpg in your TP. Please take this as a "cheerful talk". (The "serious" discussion on the file is at the CfD.) I do believe (bold) we may keep several "stock images" of, say, "female models (although not known) in bikinis, black and white or orange, or any colour; IMHO this youngster at a beach or wherever does not qualify for that need. Where will it be useful? For mothers who will tell their daughters not to eat too much fast food with mayo if they wish to go to the beach and attract admiring looks? :) Regards. --E4024 (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off with your body-shaming.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Texas historical marker for Wild Horse Lake, Amarillo, Texas.jpg and File:Oliver-Eakle historical marker, Amarillo, Texas.jpg

• An OTRS exists stating all Government of Texas Historical Markers are in the public domain (an example is accessible here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masterson_2013.jpg

There are over 800 markers in Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_markers_in_Texas Pi3.124 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Then that needs to go on the individual pages. Posting on my talk page doesn't help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Indentation

I thought that every reply should be should be placed slightly further than the question, however I may be wrong.--Carnby (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Each reply should be indented relative to the statement it's replying to. I was replying to Ruslik, so it was indented one step from that and the same as your reply to his post.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry.--Carnby (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer ǃ

On the village pump ː Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/12#Paper_or_book_using_Wikipedia_contain_but_published_with_copyright... Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} 00:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Nudity

Commons:Village pump#Are users who do nothing but upload other people's sexual content welcome on Commons?

"I've had an idea for a while, but never any money to fund it, and likely never will have the windfall that would let me do it alone. Let's pay Abby Winters or some other reputable organization to produce a set of imagery that would cover basically all needs we might have for sexual imagery or videos, with all the careful releases. We'd have photos and videos of the sexual acts, enough for any Wikipedia, no matter how explicit, or a Wikibooks version of the Joy of Sex."

We may not need money at all for that. Why create new content just for Wikimedia when perfectly good media already exists? Pretty much every well-known porn company has sets of promotional galleries, usually consisting of about 15 photos. These are intented to be distributed for free, no, actually, people are paid to distribute them with referral links. All they ask for is a link back to the source? Creative Commons attribution can take care of that! It doesn't feel like a huge stretch to ask them to release some images of specific acts under a Creative Commons license.

We should probably make a list of acts we'd like pictures of and what they should be like (for example, generally no close-ups) and possibly gather some community consensus. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: even if we get community consensus, people like AshFriday who are on a mission to erase all sexual content including educational ones, would likely oppose it and will continue to cite COM:PORN without any other valid claim any the images meet COM:PORN standards. I am pretty sure there are many people here who game the system and wikilawyer, while creating a general ad hominem theme. They don't care about Wikimedia's mission. Most of them don't disclose their mission unlike AshFriday. Masum Reza^📞 10:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: We don't need AshFriday. We don't even need any actual consensus, we'd would only do it to a) Collect information about the kind of material we want/need and b) to show the companies we would contact that multiple Wikimedia users would welcome their content. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Antanas Lingis 1934.jpg

What is wrong with this picture? I've found it myself (as with all other my pictures that I've downloaded here; it was hard work to do so, sometimes takes few years) in some private collection, scanned and retouched it myself, and shared it with the world. This picture already has been publlished in books and magazines in Lithuania without any restrictions.

I have no idea what that file is; it doesn't seem to exist or to have existed on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion categories

Why have you been wrapping "noinclude" tags around undeletion categories? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Because categories like Category:Undelete in 2024 shouldn't include categories like Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/19.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of template:Published...

Hi.

Would you please explain me it's PD, so it's hard for them to have done it illegaly? I wrote "unclear" because in the thesis they mentioned the name of the author but there's no link to the wiki-file, only "(wikipedia)" in the title. So for me it's unclear in the thesis.

Maybe I didn't understood well how to use this template...

LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 00:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The question is did they use it according to the license. The license is "public domain", which imposes no restrictions, so legal should = yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Johannes Safis

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bolschewismus heisst die Welt im Blut ersäufen.jpg. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Dragons in nature

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Dragons in nature 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 project page, 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. 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!

Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pulp magazines

Started this IA run, you may want to check the category. It'll probably finish 2 or 3 hours from now unless there are some unusually large scans. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 090 FullPagePhoto_201706       351.7 MB (☒ 7) 
 115 McCluresMagazineV33n02190906 167.6 MB (☒ 7) 
 120 McCluresMagazineV34n01190911 180.2 MB (☒ 7) 
 121 McCluresMagazineV34n02190912 164.4 MB (☒ 7) 
 130 McCluresMagazineV35n06191010 169.6 MB (☒ 7) 
 132 McCluresMagazineV36n01191011_201902 122.5 MB (☒ 7) 
 305 arg_rmm_1919_04_05         275.1 MB (☒ 7) 
 312 asm_1909_08                278.5 MB (☒ 7) 
 399 popular_1915_07_23         318.2 MB (☒ 7) 
 400 popular_1915_10_20         348.3 MB (☒ 7) 
 460 the-english-illustrated-magazine-v-21-1899-04-to-1899-09 277.4 MB (☒ 7) 

FYI these are the 'residuals' which have had 7 unsuccessful upload attempts. They would probably continue to fail. --Fæ (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Menehune Fish Pond, Haupu Mountain, by Alfred Richard Gurrey, Sr., 1928.jpg

Hi Prosfilaes, would any information in the extensive description at here change the evaluation wrt the publication-state of the painting? --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

File:The impact of science on society.pdf

Do you actually mean PD-US-1988 ? The publication date field says 1985. The No notice template relates to pre 1978 items. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you've already repaired that. Thank you. I think there are other files on Commons that may have this issue. Do you want to do a more widespread review, because 'retaining' as many files as possible would be good :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have used one of your photos

Hello David!

I have used a photo of Solenodon paradoxus in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org)

You can see directly in the follow link and clic over "Siguiente" ("Next"): http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/imagen.php?id=52074

If you wish (and I hope yes), you can send me (via [email protected]) some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor profile" in Animalandia:

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=David+Starner

I want show to my students (and so everybody) that Animalandia is make for "real person", and I can tell them about "generosity", "share" and other similar words that we use very few at this time...

This is my "contributor profile" and others, for example:

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Carmen%20Jim%E9nez

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=David%20P%E9rez

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Steve%20Garvie%20%28Rainbirder%29

In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!!

Regards!

Fernando Lisón, from Spain --Fernando.lison (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ANU

Thanks for your explanation. I still think that he is “accusing about me” and not “talking about things”. Among the people I know around here, apart from Reke, only Geographyinitiative dares to speak me like that.--Kai3952 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a problem. You need to learn how to work with other people. Nobody gets to talk about people "daring to speak to me like that" unless you're a king or dictator willing to execute them. I could assume that you didn't mean it that way, but if you want to push the complaint about Geographyinitiative, I'll be happy to point out to people on AN/U you communicating in an overbearing and dictatorial manner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Because he didn't prove that his accusation is true. Look back at the whole discussion, he keeps misinterpreting my intentions and then make excuses to attempt to frame me. I didn't make the rule that his edits must meet my expectations for Category:Tongyong Pinyin. I also never intended to become the kind of person who hinder reaching an obvious good for the Commons. I just told him the underlying and substantial cause of the problem I saw, and that problem is not me myself but the category. However, you told me: "You need to learn how to work with other people." So what you mean is...if I don't want to be regarded as a problem, I shouldn't find any opportunities that might to promote a good development for Commons?--Kai3952 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Superfluous pipe character

You wrote: "{{en | some text | }} is wrong. It should throw an error, since it's it's silently ignoring a pipe character."
You can tell it wrong, but an error cannot be thrown. It is exactly the same as when you write {{ En | 1 = some text | 2 =   }}, so the template coding (or a module if there was any) get only that there is one parameter value for the parameter # 1, with the value "some text". You can write as many following pipes as you may think, as long as they are empty (without text) for the template it is exactly as not-written – the template may check it but gets no access to empty parameter values, and will never know how many pipes are written; as long there is not a value, as e.g. the "x" in ((en|some text|||||x}}. BTW, the example is identical to ((en|1=some text|2=|3=|4=|5=|6=x}} or ((en|1=some text|6=x}}, again it may followed by pipes after the "x".
The Wikimedia template language is anything than perfect, it is rather a bit poor and lacks some properties, but we can do a lot with it besides of its weakness. -- sarang♥사랑 15:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TheContemptibleDotCom Islamophobic Website.jpg

Could you please review this picture of potential BLP issues? --Trade (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Weird Tales Volume 6 Number 6 (1925-12).djvu

Copyright status: File:Weird Tales Volume 6 Number 6 (1925-12).djvu

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Weird Tales Volume 6 Number 6 (1925-12).djvu. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 13:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Public domain

I undid your change about "public domain".

To put things into perspective - consider the phrases:

1. The statue is free.
2. The statue is in Australia.

If the statue is free, we could also write "The free statue ...." because "free" is an adjective, but we could not write "The Australia statue ...", because "Australia" is a noun. We could however change "Australia" into an adjective by writing "Australian" and then we could write "The statue is Australian" or "The Australian statue ....". Unfortunately there is no equivalent transformation for the phrase "public domain".