User talk:JuTa/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:Swedish road sign 13 1.svg

Hi,

I undeleted this file. Josve wanted to do an attempt to find the source but in order for do that he needed to see the file etc etc. To make a long story short, the no source problem has been resolved. Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats fine for me, thx. --Ju Ta 19:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir need your help & attention

Dear sir,

With due respect, i beg to state that your unilateral decision of deleting our authentic map & redirecting the link to a fake & biased map is very shocking for us. Because this user (maria0333) is abusing wikipedia for his/her nationalistic agendas against our province people. My map is based on the official census, practical reasearch work and various international works like ethnologue but unfortunately this user is reverting that map by a biased, wrong and crude map, for the sake of his/her secret motives which is defaming the credibility of wikipedia. It is requested in your honour that my contribution & this person contribution should be compared which will tell you, who is useful for wikipedia & who is vandal for it. So, it is my humble request that this person (user maria0333) & his map must be deleted from wikipedia, for the sake of free & fair knowledge and our map must be restored. Thanks

Hi, there were 3 pages you dif a heavey edit war with this user. I now left File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg (in your version) and File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtun khwa.jpg (in his version). The third one File:KP - Constituency & Language.jpg I removed as duplicate and redirected it to one of the 2 others. I also protected the 2 files to stop the edit war. You can now choose which ever image for which ever wikipedia aticle you like. But be aware: if you continue the edit war there those aticles (or you and him) likely get blocked there as well. regards. --Ju Ta 06:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello JuTa! User Adilswati is claiming election constituency map (edited with language colours) as official . I asked to name of offical web site endorsing his map but he failed. Which are those international works he is mentioning? Only offical last census was held in 1998. If you visit Statistics Division of Pakistan it has each disrticts booklet with census 1998 data. My map is based on district language %ages of each districts mentioned in district profile booklets, as well as consulting detailed linguistic work of Grierson, Shackle, Nataliia Ivanovna Tolstaia, Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe, Susan F Henssonow . I request you to delete biased pashtun nationalist map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_languages_of_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa.jpg because it will invoke edit wars at WP articles. Maria0333 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I just stopped multiple edit wars between you two. --Ju Ta 11:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have done so on WM Commons but what about en WP? His map has no single refrence and amzingly he is merging election constituencies with linguistics. Kindly ask him for (official census, practical reasearch work and various international works) he mentioned in his edit on your talk page. On my talk page he abused me and said that his map is based on his visits to diffrent parts of KPK. He is continiously changing his positions. He usually edits Pashto relevant WP common images which prooves his Pashtun biasness. Maria0333 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not admin on en WP, other admins will tape care of that if there are edit was too. This might result blocks of articles and/or users (I mean you both). --Ju Ta 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

But sir as admin on WM commons how can you entertain un sourced nationalist claimes in a map ? Please re consider your action to allow false map of Adilswati. You read my talk page and his talk page to understand abusive nationalist mindest Maria0333 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see sources on either one of these maps and am considering nominating both of them for deletion due to lack of source. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Hi JuTa, FWIW, I am an admin on the English Wikipedia. Maria0333 has been an unrepentant sockpuppeteer for years. [1]. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiederherstellungswunsch

Hallo JuTa! Bitte stell File:Preisträger Bremer Friedenspreis 2013.jpg wieder her, ich habe OTRS Permission ticket:2015081310009862. Vielen Dank, Doc Taxon (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. PS: Du kennst Commons:Undeletion requests schon? --Ju Ta 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Danke sehr, Doc Taxon (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

??

No word to say do my execution pressure to you./signature:kilbiyik--Veliban (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

100 List of the greatest turkish people/cagatay gurturk--Veliban (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you talking about? --Ju Ta 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

İs no one your button?

That's an order,Ju ta.From you I had wanted to delete it ?talking about kaptan kılbıyık.no more close on this matter. Are you okay?kaptan kılbıyık ı sil.okay mi?--Veliban (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. You are talking about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Veliban, correct? Well, if you think those drawing are wihin Commons:Scope you should bring your arguments on the deletion request page, not here. But currently for me you speak in riddles for me. I will not decide this deletion request because I started it. Another admin will do this, and he will only see your arguments if you put them on the deletion request page. regards --Ju Ta 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I give you my word.I wouldn't upload time to time.Be relax your psycology !--Veliban (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

captain kılbıyık the creator of the page by Mr. Fatih Çokoy.This key people is transmitted on this matter.Whom is wanted to know that doing ? İf you want to take it, Will be know a your job !--Veliban (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on User:Saffron Blaze/license

See this discussion. J e e 06:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wante to prevent that such images will be marked as Category:Media without a license: needs history check again and again. if this was allready the case in the previous version feel free to revert me. regards. --Ju Ta 06:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. This is just a friendly notification about what is going on. J e e 06:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thx. --Ju Ta 06:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Claude Verlon - photo pour sa page Wikipédia.jpg

Hello Ju Ta, Thank you for your comment. Can you, please, help me? Indeed, I do not know wikimedia commons use so I do not know how to make this photo is accepted. For the record, Claude Verlon is a sound engineer of the French radio RFI and who was murdered in Kidal November 2, 2013: the drama was relayed by the press and this photo was taken from his Facebook page in newspapers facilities include Television and the press. I wish that this picture could illustrate his wikipedia page because this photo is that he chose to illustrate his facebook profile page and that he had set for the public as you can see from this link https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=556014067769577&set=a.198851686819152.42745.100000829670437&type=1&theater I know he loved this picture which was taken by Ghislaine Dupont died with him and he was glad she could illustrated his Wikipedia page. In advance, thank you for your help (I'm sorry but I do not pale German and very little English and I hope you will come to understand what I have written to you)

Hi, every image on commons has to be reusable for everybody in the world for any purpose - see Commons:Licensing. Facebook images generaly dont fulfit that, because published on facebook means facebook gets an exclusive license. You could try either to find a page where this image is published by its fotogafer under a free license - see Commons:Copyright tags for a long list of possible templates, or you have to try to find and contact the originaly fotografer and ask him if he is willing to publish the foto under one or some of these licenses. If he agrees he has to send an email to the commons support team to confirm that - see Commons:OTRS. Once you know that email was sent, please enter the template of the license of the copyight holders choice and add a {{subst:OP}} to the image description page. This will prevent deletion of it for some weeks or until the case will be decided as valid or invalid. regards. --Ju Ta 07:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ju Ta much for your quick response. Unfortunately, the person who took the photo is Ghislaine Dupont: she was murdered with Claude Kidal and it is therefore not possible to have an agreement ... like to have the agreement Claude ... Claude had told me that it was she who had taken probably from the Claude camera. The fact that Claude has put this picture for the public on its Facebook page can allow the picture falls into the public domain and I believe that we can allow to use it? Besides the press and the television have used once. I do not know how the bands you mentioned. Claude especially liked this picture and I would have liked to please him she can illustrate his Wikipedia page. I do all this for the Claude memory whose absence is hard every day and it takes me a lot of energy but if this is too complicated I'll drop it. Thanks for your help. Best regards --Wikimalin (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if the author Ghislaine Dupont is dead, you have to ask her heirs for the same permission as you would have to ask a living author. Copyright lasts until 70 years past the authors death in most countries. regards. --Ju Ta 00:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Cimetière de Bagneux.gif

Hi, I have reloaded the file as I got permission from the Mairie de Paris thru mail dated 12/08/2015. If something is wrong with my upload, please tell me here : VALP — 23:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi, the email has been sent to the commons support team? If not please do so as soon as possible. I now add {{OTRS pending}} to indicate that such a release is ongoing. regards. --Ju Ta 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I just sent it.

Please restore file

Dear JuTa, You have deleted the file Champs_concert_in_Paris.jpg because it had no license. I don't understand, because (I think) I followed all rules and procedures. On my requirement, the author of the picture Julien Lepeut sent a mail to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org on June 30th to give his authorization for GFDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. I still have the mail in my mailbox if needed. I mentioned on the file page in Wikimedia Commons that the license was in progress. It's not my fault if the OTRS Team did not treat the request! Now what can I do to restore the file and have it licensed? Please help. Yours wikily, --Hervelam (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hervelam, I restored the file now and renewed the problem tag. Every image on commons needs a valid license, otherwise they get deleted within a week. The OTRS pending tag does not replace a license. I got convinced by that through this discussion. Please add the license(s) of the copyighters choice a.s.a.p. otherwise the image will be deleted again after a week. PS. A long list of possible license templates you find at Commons:Copyright tags. regards. --Ju Ta 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear JuTa, Thanks for having restored the file. Meanwhile I have sent 2 reminder mails to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org again and still got no answer! What is the OTRS Team doing? I know the OTRS pending tag does not replace a license, but if the OTRS Team does not assign the licenses in time, what can I do? I am full of good will and want to do things properly, but I also want to avoid such troubles as cadging file restoration again! Like I said, the author is OK for GFDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. What more can I say and do? Please help. Yours wikily, --Hervelam (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Assign the license template yourself. Thats not the task of OTRS but the task of the uploader. OTRS is normaly badly understuffed, they have a normal backlog of weeks sometimes of months. regards. --Ju Ta 13:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against assigning the license myself. What do you mean, license "template"? And if it's not the task of OTRS Team, why is it written so in the procedure? And if OTRS Team is "badly understuffed", why deletion people aren't? I can't help thinking there's something wrong in that all. Something that is wildly discouraging the good wills like me! Look: while we're talking, you've just deleted the file again! Please tell me what do I have to do now? I'm feeling lost and just don't understand the process. And I keep repeating I do have the agreement of the author! Regards, --Hervelam (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of possible license templates - Commons:Copyright tags. The copyright holder has decided for one of them, and sent a mail naming that license to the commons support team as documented at Commons:OTRS? (Yes or No) If yes: Which license excactly is the one of the copyrighters choice? Please name it here and I will undelete the file and apply the coresponding template myself. If you don't know the license you should wait for the OTRS progress. They will undelete the file if eveything checks out OK. You could also try to ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for your case. regards. --Ju Ta 04:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright holder, i.e. the author of the picture Julien Lepeut, sent a mail to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org on June 30th to give his authorization for GFDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. That would be nice if you could undelete the file and apply the corresponding template yourself as you propose. --Hervelam (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back again and I now put the license templates in place - see here. but be aware: after about 2 months non-confirmed OTRS pending cases will become eligable for deletion again. This will be likely beginning of next month in you case. I recommand you should ask for it on Commons:OTRS noticeboard before it gets deleted a third time. regards. --Ju Ta 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. I will ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard. Regards, --Hervelam (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Statue of Solomiya Krushelnytska in Ternopil

Hi! Please restore category!--Mykola Vasylechko 19:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. --Ju Ta 02:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mykola Vasylechko 04:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

deletion of image

Hi - just an inquiry about undeleting this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coral_grouper_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 Permission information can be found here - http://eol.org/data_objects/21031529 - can I ask you to undelete it so that I can add that information, or is there some other procedure? Thanks, Hal peridol (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, thats a "non-commercial" license, which is not compatible with commons - compare Commons:Licensing. regards. --Ju Ta 02:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah - OK, thanks, I hadn't realized that. Hal peridol (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Logo

Hi, After you keep logos such as STAN may be you should renew next one (identical case). I marked all them within single pack. Though, I don't understand enough, why the similar logos are being deleted as they consisting of simple geometric shapes and text as well? Thank you.--Kacir (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the other admin left out this image an felt no decision, otherwise I wouldn't touched it 2 days later. If you think so feel free to open a regular deletion request. --Ju Ta 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No me, but you "feel free" to keep these kind of Czech parties logos on Commons. So, in my view it's a little be strange to delete only one and to keep the rest. May be I file DR to understand this dual access. Best regards.--Kacir (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright for an uploaded image (Bill Watterson)

I have looked all over for an appropriate source to figure out where in Creative Commons it fits, and have found none. I just found the one with the highest resolution and provided the website to where I found it. The most information I've been able to find about the photograph is that it's from the 80's, as said here.

This hasn't been the first time I've looked for the actual source of the photo or more information about it. I've searched for it many times over the past several years. The most I can surmise is that there is no actual source, and if there is one, it's long been lost along with its information about copyright. AychAych (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please restore the images

і тіло повідомлення: Hello. I have asked User:antanana to upload my images and I have written on their talk pages that I am content with the license. We are talking about File:Lviv's konference Logo 02.gif and File:Lviv's konference Logo 01.gif. You can check the history of the talk pages (I have been logged in) and the text of permission line in the files you have deleted. Thank you! --Krutyvuss (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please confirm this by sending an email to the commons support team. See Commons:OTRS. regards. --Ju Ta 06:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me please, I am the author of the files (please check the description of the files), I am a Wikipedian, I am logged in. I have confirmed the license on the talk page of the files you have deleted. These files have never been published before so there is no valid reason to demand using OTRS system. Please restore my files so I can edit their descriptions and confirm the license. Thank you --Krutyvuss (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that not a 100% proper way, but anyhow: they are back. Please confirm your authorship on the file description pages now. regards. --Ju Ta 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

plese delete the files

i have uploaded the files [file:ക്ഷ്.JPG]and [File:ഹ്ദ്.JPG].these two are not supposed to upload. they are my personal files. i have removed all the contents because i failed to delete them. soplease delete the files file:ക്ഷ്.JPG and File:ഹ്ദ്.JPG. --Dvellakat (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OK,

Done. Next time you should use {{Speedy}}. --Ju Ta 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Michael Wildes, Bill Clinton, June 2012.jpg

I have permission for the file (Michael Wildes, Bill Clinton, June 2012.jpg) you deleted. Can you restore the page if I forward the email to you or the appropriate party?--Ashershow1 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it had {{OTRS pending}} since 14. June. Did you or the copyright holder send the permission mail to the commons support team like documented on commons:OTRS? If yes please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for your case. If no please do so and be patient afterwards. It can take weeks before such cases get processed. If everything checks out OK OTRS stuff will undelete the file for you. regards --Ju Ta 16:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete File:Michael Jones at RTX 2015.jpg and File:Luke McKay and Griffon Ramsey.jpg

Could you kindly undelete these. They're both my photos and I give permission to use them. Links with appropriate details here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/count3d/20515036672/in/album-72157656753006470/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/count3d/5791064792/in/album-72157626854020054/

--Count3D (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, they are both published on flickr with a non commercial license, which makes them incompatible to commons - see Commons:Licensing. You should either change the license on flickr or confirm a compatible license by sending an email to the commons support team. See Commons:OTRS. regards. --Ju Ta 06:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Count3D (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, the other file is back now too. I changed the license and added a {{Flickrreview}}. regards. --Ju Ta 17:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Women's Premier League logo

Hi. With regards to the image I loaded of the Women's Premier League logo, would it be possible to use it under fair use, similar to the logo for the FA Women's Super League, which I believe from the image information was downloaded from a football team's website, thus was acquired in a similar manner to the FA WPL logo that I had uploaded.

Hi, on commons fair use is not accepted but on some "local" wikipedias - compare commons:Fair use with i.e. en:Wikipedia:Fair use. You may upload it to the required local procect if that project accepts fair use. regards. --Ju Ta 17:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Oxygen480-mimetypes-application-x-zerosize.svg → File:Oxygen15.04.1-application-x-zerosize.svg

Hello JuTa, I've seen you have replaced (an) old file(s) with an new. I wanted to point you out that this is not according to the rename/replace rules. You have also not merged the old (original) information. So please consider this next time, thanks for your work here. Greetings ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes you are correct. I hope that's better. regards. --Ju Ta 19:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hej JuTa, I would point out you again, that the main issue was the replacement of old files (and usage) with new duplicates which seems clear against the replacement rules. I hope you doing is a very special case otherwise it would be a never ending game (with this duplicate set updates). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just going through Special:ListDuplicatedFiles from bottom to top. I dont see where that conflicts with Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. I could do it "the other way around", so keeping the older and redirecting the newer one, if thats more suitable for you (and others?). regards --Ju Ta 07:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wiktionary-logo-vi.svg

Please desist from making logos use non-standard titles. These logos, and their standard naming pattern, are of extreme important to Wikimedia wikis. --Nemo 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was a duplicate and the other one had much more usage. Its still possible to use this name. regards. --Ju Ta 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

DisGeNET logo

Dear JuTa,

I am a postdoc working on the DisGeNET database in the research group that created and maintains the database (httpː//ibi.imim.es/). We are creating the wikipage for DisGeNET and we would like to include the DisGeNET logo in the infobox of that page. Now, i talked with the PI responsible of DisGeNET and the license of the logo has been agreed. My question is how could i add this license info linked with the logo image in wikimedia, in order to use it in the DisGeNET wikipage? Many thanks in advance.

Best regards, Núria

Hi, every image on commons has to be reuseable by anybody in the world for any purpose including commecial ones. A recommended license which fullfits this is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. A manager of that company should send a confirming email to the commons support team naming the license of his choice as documented on commons:OTRS. But please be patient because such a release can take weeks. If everything checks out ok they will undelete the file for you. If it takes too long you may like to ask on commons:OTRS noticeboard for your case. regards. --Ju Ta 19:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories removing

Hi JuTa. Please, could you remove the Category:Featured pictures of Pará and Category:Featured pictures of Rio Grande do Sul? Unnecessary categories because it has only one file. Better Category:Featured pictures of Brazil. Thanks. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not empty. You allready opened some discussions abozut them. Now please be patient. --Ju Ta 18:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "Prospetto chiesa San Gabriele Arcangelo in Mater Dei.jpg"

Hi there, I noticed you deleted this file because it had no OTRS ticket. I approved it some hours ago, so may you please restore the image? Thanks. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, its back. Please complete the OTRS task now. regards. --Ju Ta 03:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Doing it right now. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File deleted

Hello, Same problem as "Hervelam" about this file you just deleted >>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St%C3%A9phane_Pajot.jpg

No answer from OTRS since the upload of the file (June 21st) and the mail of the author with agreement (June 22nd) :-/

I'll put a message on OTRS Notice board

Eric Brosselin (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

.Hi, yes, thats what ou can do. I'm not a member of the OTRS team and cannot check those mails. I just clean up some backlogs from time to time. regards. --Ju Ta 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Spinning the moments.jpg and File:Gene bandstand 1970.jpg

Hi JuTa,

You deleted two photos of Gene Pierson from Wiki commons and from his wiki page. I thought I had given all the permissions for them to be on wiki commons, but can't check it because they are gone. Nor can I upload them again. The images were given to me by Gene Pierson himself because the page currently only had one photo and he thought it would be useful to have some older ones. As Gene is the subject of the photos and the copyright owner, and as he has given full consent for them to be on Wiki Commons, why were they removed? How can I have them restored? I can have Gene Pierson email his consent if needed. The tag needed is probably {{cc-by-3.0-au}} because Gene is Australian.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodiebrownlee (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Upload help#Images removed from wiki commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think you allready got a good answer on the other page. regards. --Ju Ta 07:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Radio_BIP_2015.png

Hi,

I just realized you deleted the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Radio_BIP_2015.png It's a logo that I personally made and I have all the rights on it (and the organisation I made for, also gave the permission to be used on internet, especially on the it's page on Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_BIP ). Now I want to re-upload it, and it's forbidden. What's the problem ? Wikipedia started to look like the worst place to share anything ...

Hi, a representative of the radio station should send a releasing email to commons support team as documented in Commons:OTRS. If everything checks out OK they will undelete the file for you. regards. --Ju Ta 21:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg

Hi JuTa

The previouly deleted File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg Haven't problems with copyright, because is the flag of an municipality of Parana State, in Brazil, which have the official flag defined in the law 1636 of 2005, July 18, which says in her chapter II, Article 3 (translate not official, made by me)

Art. 3º The Jaguariaíva Municipally Flag is originary form a aggregate of studies, elaborate by the artistic and cutural comunity of jaguariaiva, based in advanced search with base in the description maked by heraldist Arcinoé Antonio Peixoto de Faria, of Municipalist Heraldic Encyclopedia, and present the following characteristics and forms

I - Quartered in saltire, forming the loaded quarters of geometric figures irregularly cubic, green in color, and consist of four yellow bands, arranged two by two, in-band and bar, and starting from a central circle, where the Municipal coat is applied in accordance with the descriptions provided for in Article 9 of this Law.

a) The quarters are loaded with yellow pine brought into abyss

II - The Municipal Flag in accordance with the tradition of Portuguese heraldry, which inherited the canons and rules, obey the general rule laid down for making municipal flags.

III - The coat at the center of the flag represents the Municipal Government and the circle where it is applied is the host city of the municipality.

a) The circle is the heraldic symbol of eternity, for them not to be found beginning and no end.

IV - The tracks departing this circle, dividing the flag into quarters, symbolizes the irradiation of the Municipal Government, to all parts of the territory of the municipality and thus constituted barracks symbolize the existing farms in territorial extension.

V - The green color alludes to the abundant natural forests and plant extraction and is the pastures where cattle are apascentado, symbolizing this context abundance, victory, courtesy and hope.

VI - The yellow color represents great fortune, the splendor and wealth arising from the plant extractive industries and agriculture production from the labors of the field.

VII - The white color is the eternal symbol of peace, labor, prosperity and peaceful coexistence among its inhabitants

(Font: Law 1636/05 - Municipal Chamber of Jaguariaiva)

In chapter 4, article 9 of this same law, is descripted the coat of the municipallity, as is, the image share the same license of File:Brasaojaguariaiva.png, which was maintained in common even being from the same law

because this i think that the exclusion of thos image from commons was of no reasoned explanation, based on a legal provision which another picture which is still held shares

no more to treat, wait return

Graciouslly

Jose8122 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, accoring the used license template it has to be created before 1983 to become valid. But according the description of the file it was created in 2005, which maked the license not applicable here. regads. --Ju Ta 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

But is object of a Law which put the image in public domain Jose8122 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thats a case you better discuss Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Might be there is a better fiiting license template. Might be a license template is missing for this case an should be created. Might be you misintepreted something and the image is not in the public domain. regards --Ju Ta 19:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Roadsigns

Hi!

I see you deleted this that lacked source. Could you please restore all the deleted signs in Road signs of Sweden and then I could try to get a source. Its so hard to find the source when I cant see what signs it is. If you give me a list of the ones you restore here and then give me like 24 hours and I will give it a try and then come back to you and you can delete again if there is someone I cant dig up. After all they are free if there is a source. /Hangsna (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I now restored the files I could in in my history and renewed the problem tags:

You now have a week to add sources before they likely get deleted again. regards. --Ju Ta 10:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! /Hangsna (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Help me

I have been attacked by user:Herby in [2] --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think ou allready got a good answer here. regards. --Ju Ta 12:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

i uploaded near 10.0000 pictures. my OWN pics.no one thanked me,alwyas warning me.so, users see my dis page, and thinking i am a sabotage user. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

you should know , that users in Iran, are using a type of interntet that count on Uploading/Downlodaing. that mean we give money for every kilobyts.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As you wrote allready i.e. here some of the images are not taken by you, but by other people. I would see a chance that some images are kept if you honestly name the images which are not taken by you. Then the deciding admin might tust you and might keep the rest. For the rest you could ask your friends if they like to send a releasing email to the commons support team confirming that they willing to publish the images under a free license of their choice - see Commons:OTRS. regards.

i remembered this is a personal thing. bcz of "diffrent cameras" saying of the user i explained how can a user can upload files with difrent cameras. i said they are not taked by me. but at all they are mine. they sent to me them for uploading (or i accesed to their Archives) .the Real photographer are not active in cyber world. they are not like me. in fact. this picture are MINE. all people of the world are not members of wikimedia are not user here. all people of the world are not online to send email to wikimedia.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

if u want delete Some my own pictures, i prefer to delete All. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Weiterleitungen von cat: rolling stock ...

Hallo, du hast die Seite https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rolling_stock_of_Matterhorn_Gotthard_Bahn, die aus einer Weiterleitung bestand, gelöscht. Durch das Verschieben der ursprünglichen Kategorienseite ist die Weiterleitung nicht überflüssig. Dies insbesondere deshalb, weil noch lange nicht alle "rolling stock ..." Kategorien nach "reil vehicles ..." verschoben sind. Wenn du auf der Suche nach Beschäftigung bist, wäre das Durchführen weiterer Verschiebungen wesentlich nützlicher als das Löschen von Weiterleitungen. Danke. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, diese Kategorie war mit gut 70 weiteren in Category:Broken category redirects. Am 5.9 . hab ich diese abgearbeitet. Die Zielkategorie war zu diesem Zeitpunkt gelöscht. Du hattest sie erst hinterher wieder erzeugt. Wenn Du meinst diese Kategorieweiterleitung ist sinnvoll erzeuge sie neu. Gruß --Ju Ta 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Joseph page/pjimage.jpg removal on Aug-22-15

Hi JuTa,

I created and edit the Patrick Joseph wikipedia page and I had included a file I uploaded "pjimage.jpg". You deleted on Aug 22. Could you undelete please?

You should ask the photographer, likely Anna Weber, if she is willing to publish this image under a free license of her choice - {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded. If she agrees she has to send a releasing mail to the commons support team - see commons:OTRS. If everything checks out OK they will undelete the file. regards. --Ju Ta 06:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion requests

Hallo JuTa! Deine Idee war jetzt leider auch nicht die beste, Du hattest mir aber immer schnell und kompetent weitergeholfen. Wiederherstellungswünsche auf Commons:Undeletion requests einzustellen hat jetzt erst mal nichts gebracht. Des Weiteren sehe ich da sogar unbeantwortete Anfragen aus dem Juli, und das kann's ja nun wirklich nicht sein. Wenn ich eine solche zentrale Seite schon zur Verfügung stelle, sollte auch sichergestellt sein, dass man immer mal wieder drüber fährt und Liegengebliebenes mitnimmt. Da das bei Dir immer so gut geklappt hat, bin ich nun doch wieder hier mit diesem Wiederherstellungswunsch: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Johan_Zagers_in_Mechelen.jpg Besten Dank, Doc Taxon (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, bitte vergiss nicht einen Lizenzbaustein setzen. Dann darfst/sollst Du die "problem tags" gern selbst entfernen. Gruß --Ju Ta 07:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

vielen lieben Dank, Doc Taxon (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A new file to delete...

Hi,

Sorry for my (second) mistake, I posted this file (File:EuroBasket 2015 logo (Ukraine).jpg) at the wrong place on Wikipedia... can you remove it? Thank you.

InfraRouge77 (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Next time please use {{Speedy}}. regards --Ju Ta 13:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Saint Mansuy vers-1700.jpg / File:Saint Evre vers-1700.jpg

Hi,

I'll try it in English

First thanks a lot for watching my work (even if no good) It's first time for me using Wiki commons

I think these 2 pictures are in "Domaine public" (is off-patent ) Coming from Gallica :

see the condtions of use : http://gallica.bnf.fr/html/conditions-dutilisation-des-contenus-de-gallica and the details of these pictures on Gallica it is said that the image fall into the public domain

I don't know how to put the right tag as

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse

or other

Could you help me ?

--Letazwiki (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Plan de la Ville de Toul Éditeur : [s.n.] Date d'édition : 17.. Sujet : Plans de ville Sujet : Toul Type : carte,image fixe Langue : Français Format : 1 flle ; 430 x 300 Format : image/jpeg Droits : domaine public Identifiant : ark:/12148/btv1b8492617h Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE D-14510 Relation : Notice de recueil : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb40593927f Relation : Appartient à : Registre C ; 08730 Relation : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb406246596 Couverture : France – Lorraine – Meurthe-et-Moselle Description : Échelle(s) : 200 [Toises = Om. 067 ; 1:5 820 environ] Provenance : bnf.fr

Hi, I fixed that now. See here and here. regards. --Ju Ta 16:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of Pakistani celebs

Hi, Last spring, Saqib got some pictures of Pakistani celebs from a famous photographer ([3], from File:Mahreen Raheel.JPG until File:Ali Zaffar.jpg). This photographer agreed to send a permission through OTRS, but it seems it was not done. Now he agrees again to send a permission. Do you agree the files to be undeleted with a {{OTRS pending}} template? It would be easier for the photographer if he can check the pictures while sending the permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, why not, go ahead. regards. --Ju Ta 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yann (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sagra delle rane di Usago

Gentile JuTa,

Non esistono pubblicazioni al mondo, e non troverai nessun sito Internet, con le immagini che hai cancellato o fatto cancellare. Questo semplicemente perché sono di mia proprietà ed io ho deciso di renderle di pubblico dominio gratuitamente. Combatterò senza mai arrendermi perché non posso accettare questa ingiustizia nei miei confronti!!--Robert Moscjon (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But you did not created the original writing/poster in 1912/1930. You might own the originals an ou might have scanned/photogaphed them. But that does not make you the owner of the copyright of them. Thats normaly the writer/designer of those works or his/her heirs. So the question is who originaly wrote those texts and designed the poster. If these people are not dead for more than 70 years their heirs still own the copyright of it. In this case you need to find and contact them and ask them if they are willing to publish it under a free license of their choice ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded). If they agree they have to send an email to the commons support team as documented at Commons:OTRS. If everything checks out OK they will undelete the files for you. regards. -- Ju Ta 18:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

JuTa, you did well deleting the file because it lacked basic information about its copyright. Anyway, for my experience, that is the typical case of poster not eligible for copyright because of PD-Text or no longer under copyright because it's an anonymous work published in Italy more than 70 years ago (85 in fact). You did nothing wrong, but also on it.wiki the bloke took it personally mainly because he, most probably, is not aware of the difference between "free licence" and "public domain". Thanks for the attention. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

File: Logo_Yeni_Vatan_Gazetesi.gif gelöscht

Liebe(r) JuTa!

Wir würden gerne wissen warum das Bild "Logo_Yeni_Vatan_Gazetesi.gif" gelöscht wurde. Als Grund wurde "No permission" angegeben. Wir haben aber bereits letzte Woche (rechtzeitig vor der 7 tätigen Frist) die geforderte "formlose E-Mail", von einer offiziellen E-Mail-Adresse der Yeni Vatan Gazetesi, gesendet.

Warum ist damit die "permission" damit nicht gegeben?

MfG

Hallo, ich hab' das Bild wieder hergestellt. Wenn eine solche Mail geschickt wurde sollte man die Vorlage {{OTRS pending}} auf die Bildbeschreibung setzen - am besten mit {{subst:OP}}. Sonst sieht der abarbeitende Admin nicht dass dies "in Arbeit" ist. Gruß --Ju Ta 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you quiet your bot

Various Trainz Wikibook images are papering and peppering my talk page because I'm in the middle of re-catting after updating the key sub-template. Can we call a truce? If they say Trainz in the title, I'm already working the list: See: User:Fabartus/sandbox! // FrankB 20:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thats not a bot. I'm an admin currently working on Category:Media without a license: needs history check. And those images are/were missing a license tag. Those "trainz" templates are no license templates. For some I recovered your (invalid) CC tag and marked them as no permission for some I tagged them as no license. If there is a valid license template for those screenshots you should apply it. regards. --Ju Ta 20:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And as far as I can see in User:Fabartus/sandbox you will likely get more messages about missing license/permissions. --Ju Ta 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, joy! I already did. Are you telling me that [The process I started with this post back when] (15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)!!!) never got authorized by N3V Games? I'd been told it had been handled after putting in a service request for releases! Good thing we caught this SNAFU now though... we're only looking at 50 images... it could have been many more if I'd not gotten hurt last November and hit stride on writing tutorials sooner! It's taken me much of my leisure time since that post to get the Wikibook organized for threading and turning into a good reference!

I suggest you leave these alone for a few days, since we're talking solely about images findable by WhatlinksHere on the template, Literally 50 maximum, so whether these need transfered to the Wikibook under Fair Use guidelines or whether I can raise some hell with N3V's CEO (we occasionally trade emails) should be put off while this gets resolved.

Best regards, FrankB 23:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No license tags for images from User:Saffron Blaze and User:Chriusha

See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/08#What_to_do_with_images_with_home-brewed_licenses and user talk pages. These licenses are somewhat problematic but not invalid. Please revert your nld tags as there's still ongoing discusssion about them. --Denniss (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that discussion is archived an not ongoing, the last post was about a month ago. What do you recommend to do with those images? We could either declare those "private" templates as valid license tags, which seems not to find consensus (i.e. User:Jarekt has removed the "other license tag" - see here) or we don't accept them and have to delete those images. They now felt several times into Category:Media without a license: needs history check and need lately a decision. regards. --Ju Ta 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to observe/take part in the user talk discussion. If there's no change to the licenses until the end of September I suggest to file a centralized DR about these templates. We should also add a rule to permit only approved licenses, home-brewed licenses must always have an additional approved license. Plus at some time we should transform any home-brewed license tag in user space (usually credits and/or usage instructions + approved license tag) into a credit-only tag while adding a stadard license tag to the images.--Denniss (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start such a centalized DR and remove the no license tags. But I fear the result wouln't be anything different. regards --Ju Ta 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: minimum User:Chriusha clearly stated that he is not willing to change the license-tags for those images. --Ju Ta 22:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to make policy on your own let alone issue ultimatums. The licenses are valid until such time as the policy is changed or clarified. Request you not do that again, especially in the manner in which you just tried. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@JuTa: Richtig! Und wegen Reaktionen wie die von dir hier und die von dir lancierten Schnellschüsse werde ich mich hüten, in dieses Projekt weiter Zeit und Wissen zu investieren. Das geht ja bekanntlich auch anderswo! --Хрюша ^?? 05:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

SLB001

Halo JuTa! It well can be the case that you already know this but otherwise please notice that file SLB001 is being discused for deletion as its licences are inadecuate or, to be more precise, nonexistant.
It was in 2006 that I started editing and uploading images to Commons. Those were simpler, and for me more ignorant, times. Therefore I thought that coins were some kind of public documents and that public documents were public. Wrong on both assumptions.
I don not live in the Solomon Islands and have no knowledge of their laws in respect to coins. The obverse I think was designed by Raphael Maklouf. As for the reverses I don't know. I have no time to start contacting people who know who owns what rights and if they would let us do anything about. Now a days I only upload images of coins that are old enough to have all their lawyers dead (as Encyclopaedia Britannica says, death is when you no longer can go to court) and even then I am not particularly fond of uploading that stuff.
The first time I realized that there was some incoherence in the way some companies use copyright law was when I found some pictures of Brazilian coins deleted. Brazilian coinage images mostly cannot be uploaded. I had no right to do that so the deletion was fair. The silly part of the equation comes when you learn more about the Brazilian mint, which is a commercial company. That company is trying to gain a bigger share in the market of coinage for sovereing countries. It has a communication policy that stresses the virtues of their products, that they manufactured not only for their home market bur also for a handful of other countries, Angola or Cape Verde for instance. They have strong competitors in companies from Britain, Spain, Finland, the US, Canada, Australia, Singapore, France, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Chile... It's quite a crowded market indeed. And the Brazilian mint starts by not letting people show its products.
Not that all that information affects in anyway the fact that SLB001 should be deleted as far as it is not demonstrated that it could be kept. I'm sorry for the folks reading about the Solomons, but Dura lex sed lex as the old Roman said (and I can say because it's no longer copyrighted).
Have a nice day! B25es (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I found your image and this derivate marked as having no license. But there was a license. All I did was converting this to "no permission". regards --Ju Ta 07:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for File:Alice-2-screenshot.jpg

Hello.

I noticed that you requested additional permission evidence. I've added one into the |Permission= field. Be advised, it is a 116 MB download.

However, in the light of the recent deletion discussion and the policies that I cited there, I think the request for more evidence is unnecessary.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the problem was with ust the free text as the license, it would never get "accepted" by automated tools or bots. I hope Jarekt fixed that with this edit. Up to now it "felt" 3 times into Category:Media without a license: needs history check. Another possible solution would be to create an "oficial" license template for that like Template:Alice 2.0 license even tough only one image might use it. regards. --Ju Ta 19:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We had those problems before with other rarely seen software licenses. After a while I got tired of creating "official" license template and created {{Free screenshot/license}}, which should keep it out of Category:Media without a license: needs history check and Category:Files with no machine-readable license. --Jarekt (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, did you noticed that this image is still within Category:Files with no machine-readable license? Does that mean it will likely fall back into Category:Media without a license: needs history check or not? --Ju Ta 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The files in Category:Media without a license: needs history check are using the "old" style check and are totally independent of Category:Files with no machine-readable license, so the file should not be in tagged tomorrow. I will look into Category:Files with no machine-readable license situation. --Jarekt (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I it is unclear what my colleague Jarekt is attempting to achieve; but alice.org/index.php?page=license is the wrong license agreement. Hence, the reason I reverted him. Sadly, bots in Commons are ... inelegant. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, then it will likely fall back into Category:Files with no machine-readable license again an again. An will likely be marked as no license or similar again and again by various people looking into it. I now reapplied Jarekts change hopefully with the correct URL. regards. --Ju Ta 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Löschung von Margret Kiener Nellen 2015.jpg

Hallo JuTa Du hast offensichtlich die Datei "Margret Kiener Nellem 2015.jpg gelöscht. Ich möchte wissen warum, da ich informiert habe, dass auf dieser Foto kein Copyright besteht. Beste Grüße --Alfar123 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, ich sehe nicht wo Du dies informiert hast. (Fast) jedes Foto ist urheberechtlich geschützt. Dieses Foto wurde (nach Deinen Angaben) von Kurt Bläuer erstellt. Dieser müsste sich bereit erklären es unter einer freien Lizenz zu veröffentlichen, welche Weiterverwendung (auch kommerziell) und Veränerungen für jedermann weltweit erlaubt. Eine empfohlene Lizenz ist {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, dann muss er immer als Urheber genannt werden und muss an der nachgenutzen Stelle ebenfalls unter dieser Lizenz stehen. Dazu müsste er eine Mail an das Commons-Support-Team schreiben um dies zu bestätigen. Siehe dazu Commons:OTRS. Wenn alles OK ist wird die Datei wiederhergestellt (kann allerings erfahrungsgemäß Tage bis Wochen dauern). Gruß --Ju Ta 19:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Datei Tinta Caiada.jpg

Hallo JuTa: Du hast die Datei Tinta Caiada gelöscht. Da liegt doch eine Freigabeerklärung für eine ganze Reihe portugiesischer Rebsorten vor. Das Bild war schon richtig bei der Sorte Parraleta - die Namen sind ident (Synonyme). Bitte die Löschung rückgängig machen. HG Karl --Bauer Karl (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, die Datei File:Tinta caiada.jpg hatte seit 5. Juli die Vorlage {{OTRS pending}} ohne eine Reaktion eines OTRS Mitarbeiters. Nach ca. 2 Monaten fallen solche Bilder automatisch in Category:Media missing permission und nach ca. einer weiteren Woche werden sie gelöscht. Dies ist hier geschehen. An beste fragst Du auf Commons:OTRS noticeboard nach ob das übersehen worden ist, oder keine Feigabemail vorliegt. Ich kann auf diese Mail nicht zugreifen, da ich kein "OTRS-Mitabeiter" bin. PS: Du hattest beim hochladen die Ticketnummer 2015052610020517 angegeben. Gruß --Ju Ta 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Danke. HG Karl --Bauer Karl (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Karl-Heinrich Brenner

Hello,

I received a message about the picture I added on Wiki Commons, "Karl-Heinrich Brenner". The file wasn't protected by any licence tag. It is not the case anymore : I added the tag "PD-old" (the picture was been created around 1944). Can I be sure that the file will not be removed, now ?

Here is the picture.

Regards, VaultIndustries (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, VaultIndustries I converted this now in a regular deletion request. Assuming that Mr. Sweeney is in fact the photogapher of this image we would need his live dates because in most countries (including Germany) images only become 70 after the death of their authors, and not 70 years after creation of the photo. regards. --Ju Ta 18:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jim Sweeney is not the photographer, this is an error on my part ; he is the precedent Wikipedia user who had uploaded the picture on Commons. According to a french book that talk about the Waffen-SS (named "Les Secrets du Troisième Reich"), the photographer of this picture was a sergent under the command of the Gruppenführer Karl-Heinrich Brenner, named Kazynski. He took the photo during the month of december 1944, when Brenner received the Knight Cross, on the Eastern Front. Kazynski, the photographer, died in march 1945, in the Battle of Bautzen. I don't know if it will be enough, but I hope you will consider my request. Regards VaultIndustries (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I copied your comment to the deletion request. I will not decide this request because I raised it. --Ju Ta 06:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)