User talk:JuTa/Archive 32

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.

Category:Collection of osteology of the Muséum de Lille

Bonjour Vous avez supprimé cette catégorie (Category:Collection of osteology of the Muséum de Lille) alors que j'avais mentionné que c'était dans le cadre d'un GLAM, en cours avec le Muséum de Lille. Merci de rétablir la catégorie, des photos y seront catégorisées dans les semaines à venir, il a juste fallu que je crée l'ensemble des catégories au préalable. Cordialement Hello (if it's not enough in French) You've deleted this category (Category:Collection of osteology of the Muséum de Lille) though I mentioned it was for a GLAM we are working on with the Museum of Lille. Photos will be soon categorized in, I just had to create it to explain the process. Thanks for restablishing it. Regards --Cbyd (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was an empty, uncategorzed category. Feel free to recreate it as soon as there are some images for it. regards. --Ju Ta 18:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Next time, be more careful, there are other empty categories and I don't know exactly when we'll put photos in ! There was no hurry to delete, and I would appreciate you contacting me before deleting. It may be a mistake, but I am not a beginner and not an IP-contributor, so you can check, and I can ask myself for deleting my mistakes (if I make)... Now, another contributor on Commons is blocking the guy who is working for the GLAM in the Museum (User_talk:Jameslwoodward#User:DDemq-Mus.C3.A9umLille), and we are wasting our time ! --Cbyd (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:DDemq-MuséumLille removed Category:Collection of zoology of the Muséum de Lille, which put it onto Special:UncategorizedCategories where I am working on from time to time. Perhaps you ask him why he left the category uncategorized. regards --Ju Ta 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How I should understand it?

[1]--Алый Король (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Those images got marked as no license by another user without informing you, which I did now. The reason is that this flickr tag is not a valid PD tag. There are/were dicussions about that i.e. on Commons:Village pump and Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images as far as I remember. regards. --Ju Ta 06:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WLM photos with PD-mark 1.0 by Manuel Urrutia

Given your notification about:

How do you think should the permission request be phrased when asking the author for permission so it can be tagged with PD-author? -- Platonides (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Those images got marked as no license by another user without informing you, which I did now. The reason is that this flickr tag is not a valid PD tag. There are/were dicussions about that i.e. on Commons:Village pump and Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images as far as I remember. For the permission: He could either relicense his flickr images or send a mail to the commons support team (see COM:OTRS) regards. --Ju Ta 07:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Sancion bohigas.pdf.y File:jubilación bohigass

Hola, las imágenes son del Boletin Oficial del Estado, cuyo contenido es libre: la jubilación es de aquí https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1962/04/16/index.php?s=2 y https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1962-7834 . La de la sanción se publica http://bibliotecavirtualdefensa.es/BVMDefensa/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=16118 Salud!! --Maríajoséblanco (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

THen you should use the corresponding license template on the description pages. Accouding Commons:License tags this could be {{PD-SpanishGov}}. regards. --Ju Ta 07:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Polka category

Hi JuTa. I undid your reversion of my cat:polka edits step-by-step and explained the reason for each change in the edit comments. Basically, cat:polka is a top-level cat that includes everything named "polka". Consequently, it is not an appropriate subcat of dance because it includes music, and it's not an appropriate subcat of music because it includes dance. In fact, the only reason it exists is to provide a landing page for users who seek "polka" when they have neglected to specify whether they are searching for the music genre, the dance, or both. If this explanation isn't clear or doesn't seem reasonable to you, please discuss it before reverting again. Thanks, Lambtron (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But now ou left it uncategorized. Please try to find some suitable parent categories. I marked it as uncategorized meanwhile. --Ju Ta 23:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I left it uncategorized -- again, not due to neglect, but because I cannot think of any suitable categories. If it absolutely must have a parent category in order to be worthy of existence, then perhaps it should be deleted? Or perhaps you are better at thinking up categories than I am? Lambtron (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that categorizing requires more effort than simply tagging it uncategorized, but since you've shown interest in this, I'm hoping you will take the initiative and find a suitable category. If neither of us can find an appropriate category then should it be deleted? Or do you think it might be useful even though it seems to defy categorization? If it cannot be categorized but is to be kept, should it remain permanently marked as uncategorized or is there some other, less obtrusive marker that could be used to declare it "acceptably uncategorized"? Lambtron (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To me the prior categories were completely OK, like for i.e. Category:Tango. You cannot dance polka without polka music or you cannot dance polka to tango music. So for me its abolutly OK to categorize such things to music and dance categories. I dont understand why ou disagree to that but I dont like to start an edit war about it. --Ju Ta 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry JuTa, I'm not trying to be disagreeable. The problem I see here also applies to Tango -- let me explain why. Images of polka dancing are quite different from polka music files (e.g., sheet music images, ogg files), which is why they merit their own cats. Polka_dance is (and obviously should be) a subcat of both polka and dance. However, if polka is also a subcat of dance then dance will be both parent and grandparent of polka_dance, which violates a fundamental tenet of categorization. The same problem applies to music. This is why polka is not a suitable subcat of either dance or music. Having said all this, I still have no clue how to appropriately categorize polka. Lambtron (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Riley Forecar London-Brighton Veteran Car Run 2014 (15694417735).jpg

Hi, here is this image in Flickr: Forecar Its says Public Domain. Why have you deleted it from Wikimedia? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Because of i.e. Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. regards. --Ju Ta 05:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Eddaido (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Zardonic_Mask_2015.jpg

You said owning a "copy" of the mask doesn't mean I can have a picture of it.

What part of "I AM ZARDONIC" you don't understand? I AM Federico Agreda. I AM Zardonic. I AM the designer, creator, owner, absolute master behind the Zardonic project, the Zardonic mask.

What the hell is wrong with you and why are you doing this? Just stop! It's MY CREATION.

I. OWN. IT. I DID IT. I'VE BEEN USING THE NAME FOR THE PAST 11 YEARS, THE LOGO FOR THE PAST 7 AND THE MASK FOR THE PAST 4. NO ONE ELSE HAS THIS MASK.

frameless|left|Maybe this will help you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorepriestwikimedia (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, anybody could login on commons and claim he is Zardonic. We have no chance to prove that on commons. To prevent the copyright iof the author we need a formal release by email to the so called commons support team as documented on Commons:OTRS. Please email to them from a mail account out of "your" domain. If it will bee confirmed they will und undelete the image for you. regards. --Ju Ta 04:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You deleted a confirmed PUBLIC domain image!

Hi. You deleted File:Hisham_al-Huwaish.jpg with reason as "No license since 5 December 2015". The license was confirmed by a reviewer as PUBLIC domain. If an item becomes PUBLIC, how can it ever stop being PUBLIC? It has already been common and available to anyone in the world to use! It is also still shown as PUBLIC in Flickr. Please explain or bring it back. Regards. --beTTaHarmony (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There are problems with that flickr PD mark - see i.e. Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. By that reason the image got marked as no license by another user and I deleted it a week after. regards. --Ju Ta 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. But why isn't the template substituted to the appropriate license instead of deleting it? It would be a huge loss of contributions if all the flickr PD images are gone. --beTTaHarmony (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not a valid license. --Ju Ta 22:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Commons:Flickr files guide says the license is "Possibly OK here". So how can you decide whether it is valid or not? --beTTaHarmony (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The official [Commons:Flickr files/Guide] states "Public Domain Mark ( it is accepted in wikipedia or Commons too)". --beTTaHarmony (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please raise an Commons:Undeletion request for it. --Ju Ta 11:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done so. But if it gets undeleted, this problem can happen again can't it? How can we ensure that it remains forever even if it gets removed from the source or the license changes in the source? --beTTaHarmony (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@1beTTaHarmony: For the image to be undeleted, you must contact the photographer to license their work under CC0 (and explain the differences between CC0 and PDM 1.0). To explain, Public Domain Mark 1.0 is not a license, it is only used to mark images that are already know to be out of copyright. Commons experiences this PDM problem always. CC0 is a license and waiver that can let the author/copyright holder of the image release their work to the public domain. PDM doesn't let the author release their work to the public domain, as PDM has no effect on copyright. In a nutshell, CC0 is a legal tool, while PDM is not. See [2] and [3] to see their differences. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: But this contradicts my previous quotation: The official [Commons:Flickr files/Guide] states "Public Domain Mark ( it is accepted in wikipedia or Commons too)". --beTTaHarmony (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the flickr guide needs to get modified to reflect the new situation. --Ju Ta 14:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been done by one of those who agreed about it? --beTTaHarmony (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont know, ask them. --Ju Ta 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

De Nerville JPG deleted

JuTa, you deleted DE Nerville jpg on the Ferdinand de Nerville notice. Please note that Stefan2 asked me for the proof of the permission and I sent it on Dec 5 to permission-commons. So you must have to reinstate it. Thanks --Anglo-norman (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. I now placed {{OTRS pending}} to the decription page, which indicates that such an email has been sent. Next time please to that yourself. regards. --Ju Ta 17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

		Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 !
		Remember: Look sweet... Eat everything... Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr... Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments... -- Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Fireworks from the Philippines for celebration
	Happy New Year JuTa! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen

Hallo, kannst du mir das erklären? Gibt es einen bestimmten Grund, dass du die Vorlage offenbar genau dort gesubstet hast, aber nirgends sonst? darkweasel94 10:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, das Bild war und ist fälschlicherweise in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Ich hab mehrere nulledits auf Datei und Vorlage versucht; leider ohne Erfolg. Dann erhoffte ich mir "Besserung" wenn ich die Vorlage subste. Da das auch nichts half, hab ich das jetzt zurückgenommen. Danke für den Hinweis. Hast Du vielleicht 'ne Idee wie man das Bild aus der Kategorie bekommt? Gruß --Ju Ta 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, verstehe, danke für die Erklärung. Nein, leider habe ich auch keine Ahnung, nach welchen Kriterien diese Kategorie erstellt wird. lg darkweasel94 10:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallo. Ich vermute, das liegt an dem Extra-Text "Dieses Bild zeigt ein Mitglied der Österreichischen Grünen. ..." {{GNU-Layout}} scheint nicht das erforderliche licensetpl zu übermitteln, und so wird das automatische Einlesen gleich zu Anfang blockiert. De728631 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Gereon Kalkuhl-6895.jpg

Hallo JuTa. Das Foto von mir wurde während der Wikimania 2012 in Washington für Victor Grigas' die Kampagne "The Impact of Wikipedia" gemacht. Du hast es gelöscht. Was soll denn da an der Lizenz nicht stimmen? Das war im Auftrag der WMF. --Gereon K. (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, eine Lizenz war vorhanden, was fehlte war die Genemigung det Fotografin Karen Sayre - kann aber über Commons:OTRS noch nachgholt werden. Markiert als no permission wurde es übrigens von User:Jean11. Gruß --Ju Ta 10:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Arbol wikinavideño 2015.png

A esta imagen no le falta licencia. Como puedes ver, aquí dice de dónde fueron extraídas las imágenes que la componen:

GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0 (MediaWiki logo) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki-logo.png
cc-by-sa-3.0 (Background Mall photo) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stockholm_-_NK.jpg
cc-by-sa-3.0 (Wikipedia Logo) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christmas_Wikipedia_Logo.png
PD-self (Artículo bueno) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Art%C3%ADculo_bueno.svg
cc-by-sa-3.0 (foto de Jimbo) ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal_edit.jpg )

Por favor, retira el cartel. --RomanLier (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi RomanLier, please include the corresponding license templates to the file description page - see Commons:Copyright tags. regards --Ju Ta 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@JuTa: Ready! Could you please remove the template now? --RomanLier (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that. I did that now for you and removed the problem tag. --Ju Ta 23:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Gelöschtes Bild File:N_Stockburger_-_Wolfgang_Stock_8.1.1978.jpg

Hallo JuTa,
du hast ein Bild gelöscht, was ich hochgeladen habe: (N_Stockburger_-_Wolfgang_Stock_8.1.1978.jpg entfernt, auf Commons von JuTa gelöscht. Grund: No OTRS permission since 22 October 2015). Das Problem ist, dass Nelly Stockburger, die die Einverständniserklerung geben sollte und wollte, sehr schusselig ist. Sie versicherte, dass sie dies erledigt hatte. Wahrscheinlich hat sie da etwas falsch gemacht. Wiederum ein CommonsAdmin, den ich persönlich kenne - Didym -, sagte mit mal, dass das Bearbeiten von den OTRS-Erklärungen sehr lange dauern kann. Ich finde, dass ein besserer Weg - statt das Bild gleich zu löschen - ein Kontakt mit dem Hochlader wäre. Man könnte da sehr schnell feststellen ob es sich um Probleme mit den seriös hochgeladenen Bildern handelt oder um Scherze. Aber natürlich mich persönlich interresiert, wie wir jetzt das entsatnden Problem lösen können. Grüße --Mewa767 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, nach ca. 2 1/2 Monaten kann man eher nicht von "gleich" löschen sprechen. Als Hintergrund: nach 60 Tagen "wandern" solche Bilder automatisch in die entsprechende Tageskategorie von Category:Media missing permission, und nach einer weitere n Woche werden sie gelöscht. Diese hatte ich abgearbeitet. Was kannst Du nun machen: Frag auf Commons:OTRS noticeboard nach was noch fehlt bzw. was nicht passt. Mit der Antwort von dort kannst Du dann nochmals Frau Stockburger kontaktieren und um "Nachbesserung" bitten. Wenn dann alles OK ist wird die Dateoi auch wiederhergestellt. Als Tip für die Zukunt: Behalt Deine OTRS-pending Fälle in Auge un frag z.B. nachem sich 6 Wochen nichts getan hat auf Commons:OTRS noticeboard nach. Dann bleiben immer noch 2-3 Wochen Zeit nachzubessern bevor die Datei gelöscht wird. Gruß --Ju Ta 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploads von Martin Kozielski

Hallo JuTa,

du hast neulich mal Widersprüche bei zwei Uploads von User:Martin Kozielski festgestellt, der offenbar zahlreiche Bilder im Auftrag des gesperrten User:Messina hochgeladen hat. Auf de gibt es inzwischen eine Arbeitsseite zu diesen Uploads, die dich vielleicht interessiert: hier. Gruß --Xocolatl (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis, aber das überlass' ich den dort interessierten Benutzern. Gruß --Ju Ta 08:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

About Martin Garrix Jpg

File:Martin Garrix.jpg this is an image I found on google. It has been redistributed and has been used on many websites so I decided to update the artist's page with the most commonly distributed image of Martin Garrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashboard320 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 09 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please read Internet images. regards. --Ju Ta 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Fam-Garcia-Blanco-1952.jpg

HY JuTa

About you tag, I realize you were right, and I made a mistake uploading the photo... I think I change the license properly... If you could chek it would be great. Thanks

jacobogbg/User talk:jacobogbg

Looks fine; I removed the problem tag. regards. --Ju Ta 18:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted again

Trying to figure out why it was deleted again [4]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You asking me what for which file(s)? --Ju Ta 13:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

John Woodley

Hallo, Du hast das Bild John Woodley aus dem Beitrag Ungefiltert eingeatmet gelöscht. Es wurde von der Produktion extra bereitgestellt, die rechte sind mit pemissions geklärt. Da habe es eine ausführliche Korrespondenz. Machst Du bitte wieder rückgängig und füge es dann auch bite wieder da ein wo es war. Danke.

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Screwjack1981, Es geht hier um File:John Woodley.jpg, richtig? Das Bild wurde am 5. Jan von User: Jochen Burghardt als no permission markiert. Wenn sich nichts ändert werden solche Bilde eine Woche später gelöscht - siehe die Unterkategorien von Category:Media missing permission. Dies war hier der Fall. Wie Du hier und auf meiner de-Seite schreibst, wurden bereits mails an das OTRS geschickt. In solchen Fällen bitte immer die Bilder mit det Vorlage {{OTRS pending}} versehen, am besten mit {{subst:OP}}. Dann sieht der abarbeitende Admin dass da "was unterwegs" ist und entfernt den no permission Baustein. {{OTRS pending}} verhindert auch die Löschung für ca. 60 Tage oder bis der Fall als OK oder nicht OK entschieden wird. Das Bild habe ich nun wiederhergestellt un auch die "delinker" edits Rückgängig gemacht. Auf de: schriebst Du dass noch mehr Bilder bestoffen sind. Kannst Du mir hier bitte die exakten Namen nennen. Hier siehst Du eine Liste Deiner uploads. Für welche der roten links wurden wann Freigabemails ans OTRS verschickt? PS: Eine entgültige Freigabe, d.h. eine Bestätigung eines OTRS-Mitabeiters steht noch aus, aber die Ababeitung kann durchaus Wochen dauern. Wenn es Dir zu lang wird, fragst Du am besten unter Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard nach. Gruß --Ju Ta 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Politically and incorrect edits

Can you please explain why you did this incorrect edit? You have incorrectly changed the name of Llywelyn to Llewelyn. You have also added un-needed and politically unwanted information about our last prince. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Llywelyn2000 Since you've already fixed it what's the beef? The whole point of a wiki is that we can all edit it until it's perfect. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, a 3 year ol edit. As the edit comments says: I deleted an redirected a duplicate image. The policy means: If there are varying descriptions in the different image description pages, ensure all the relevant information is merged into the copy to be preserved. I did so. regards. --Ju Ta 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernhard Maria Lambert

hallo JuTa, seit gestern ist mein Bild Bernhard Maria Lambert verschwunden, obwohl ich selbst der Künstler bin und alle Rechte und Lizenzen habe. Was ist da bitte schiefgelaufen und was kann ich tun? Dank für einen kurze Hilfestellung!--Kunstfenster (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, wenn Du selbst der Künstler bist, schreib bitte eine sog. Freigabeerklärung an das Commons Support team. Es kommt leider viel zu häuig vor, dass solche modernen Gemälde einfach von irgendwoher aus dem Internet kopiert aber von dritten als "eigenes Werk" erklärt werden. Einzelheiten dazu findest Du unter Commons:OTRS/de und Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen. Wenn alles OK ist wird das Bild wiederhergestellt. Gruß --Ju Ta 08:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

hallo JuTa, ich habe soeben eine E-Mail mit der Erteilung einer freien Lizenz an die Mail-Adresse "permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org" geschickt. Ist damit das Problem behoben? Soll/Muss ich dasselbe auch für die anderen hochgeladenen Bilder von mir tun, obwohl ich mit dem Assistenten eigentlich jedesmal Lizenzen vergeben habe? Kann man evtl. die Seite "Martin Gensbaur" auf commons wie beantragt löschen und nur die Kategorie so stehen lassen, wie sie ist. Ich habe wohl auch diesbezüglich etwas falsch gemacht (s.Diskussion). Dank für die Hilfen und Gruß--Kunstfenster (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, zumindest für File:Gensbaur Kolping LL.jpg und File:U.v.Mangoldt klein.jpg solltest Du dies noch nachholen. Selbstgemachte Fotos sind idR kein Problem, es sei denn sie wurden bereits anderweitig veröffentlicht. Bei selbst erstellen Gemälden und ähnlichem würde ich immer den Gang über OTRS empfehlen, es gibt nun mal (leider) sehr wenige (professionelle) Maler die hier Ihre Werke unter freier Lizenz hochladen. Da ist ein Löschantrag o.ä. wegen Msisstrauen der Angaben immer recht wahrscheinlich. Und hab' etwas Geduld, die Bearbeitung der OTRS-Sachen kann durchaus Wochen dauern. Dort herrscht immer Personalmangel. Gruß --Ju Ta 15:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, man lernt ja bekanntlich nie aus: für alle drei Bilder auch das von dir bereits gelöschte sind E-Mails mit meiner Lizenz (ich bin der Maler der Bilder) abgeschickt. Könntest du nicht bitte die von dir selbst gelöschte Datei wiederherstellen? Es würde die angedrohtte lange Wartezeit verkürzen. Dank und Gruß--Kunstfenster (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Das Bild ist wieder da. Gruß --Ju Ta 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alles klar! Vielen Dank und Gruß!--Kunstfenster (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pictures from Sulitjelma

Hello JuTa! Regarding the pictures with motives from Sulitjelma mines, take a look at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Pictures from Sulitjelma mines deleted with OTRS-ticket pending where I have written a comment. Hope you can solve this! Best regards --Frankemann (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as soon as a OTRS volounteer confirms that the releases are valid the files will be restored. regards. --Ju Ta 20:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

and if you know under which license the copyright holder likes to publish them please add the corresponding template to the still existing images, otherwise they will get deleted soon too. --Ju Ta 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. But this information was clearly stated in the emails that were sent. The template that Wikimedia Commons want us to use was filled out.--Frankemann (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

But a valid license template has to be within every file description page, otherwise those files will get deleted after one week. regards. --Ju Ta 21:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

But I have followed the instructions given at Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder, where it says nothing about a valid license template that have to be given by the uploader (me). It says that the symbol giving this notification: {{OTRS pending}} shall be set.--Frankemann (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

But the instuction says too: Before you upload the file to Commons, contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the work under a free license. linked to Commons:Licensing, and When you receive a reply, please check that the license authorized by the copyright holder is appropriate to Commons. I think thats clear that you use the same license during the upload and not "none". If I look to the allready confirmed images it should be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Please add this to the still existing description pages, otherwise they will get deleted soon - believe me. regards. --Ju Ta 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: Only a very little group of people is able to read those OTRS mails. I am not a member of that group. --Ju Ta 21:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

google images - free-to-use-images

Hallo JuTa, ich schreibe Dir wegen eines "google image", eines "slide quote" (File:Citation apocryphe attribuée à Voltaire.JPG), das ich im Artikel w:de:Écrasez l’infâme gerne verwenden möchte (und bereits verwende).

Google: "Find free-to-use images": https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en

http://www.google.com/advanced_image_search man gibt ein: I disapprove of what you say

Nun weiß ich immer noch nicht, wie es um die Lizenz steht. What to do?

Gruß --Diego de Tenerife (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in the advanced search menu, you have to choose free to use, share or modify, even commercially. The most of those found images will be from commons. You dont need to upload them. They are allready here. For other images look for the exact used license on the source page (mostly any kind of CC-licenses) and upload the image to commons using the corresponding license template - see Commons:Copyright tags - linking to the souce page. Best you add a {{Licensereview}} as well.

And for File:Citation apocryphe attribuée à Voltaire.JPG: There are several problems

The source link shows a completly different image
The author is not google, but the original photographer and/or atist
There is just no license template used.

regards. --Ju Ta 04:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the photo is File:Buste de Voltaire.jpg by User:Moez, and the artist is Jean-Antoine Houdon. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Diego, to avoid catching images already in commons when using Google, add this to the search queary: -site:wikimedia.org (you may also need to exclude -site:wikipedia.org, -site:wikinews.org, -site:wiktionary.org, etc.). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

--- Thank you very much, but the text of the quote - put on the photo - is missing on this file File:Buste de Voltaire.jpg

--Diego de Tenerife (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Charlotte LOGO NEW COLOR smaller.jpg

Guten abend. You have deleted this file citing "no permission." I would request the image be restored as content produced by or for the State of Florida governments are released into the Public Domain. The appropriate {{PD-FLGov}} may be placed onto the page for the file if it is restored. --dsprc (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It as decleared as "own" work of the uploader, so the source was also missing. Feel free to reupload it with a proper source and license. regards. --Ju Ta 08:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what version the image was since you erroneously deleted it so I can not upload a duplicate. The sourcing and permission information has just been explained to you so it is trivial to add the proper tags and info. Please restore the file so your and the uploader's errors can be corrected. --dsprc (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If it appears on an "official" Florida goverment website, you can copy it from there and use {{PD-FLGov}}. If not: this license seems not to be valid. Its not important that the image is really binary equal to the deleted one, but its more important that it will use proper sources and licenses. regards. --Ju Ta 16:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not have to be taken from an "official" source; that is not how public domain or government documents here work (Florida is not Deutschland); the license is valid. I do not care about bit-for-bit copy either but there are numerous variants of this seal and I want the one used here. --dsprc (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case you should raise an Commons:Undeletion request because you will not convince me that the license is valid, but perhaps other admins. --Ju Ta 16:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bilder/Fotos der WikiSeite "Hans E. Deutsch"

Hallo JuTa

Ich frage mich seit längerem, weshalb zwei meiner hochgeladenen Fotos noch immer nicht wieder freigeschaltet worden sind. Wie ich verstanden habe, hast du diese entfernt bzw. blockiert. Ich verstehe jedoch nicht weshalb, da ich alleiniger und umfassender Rechtsinhaber bin und dies nun schon diverse Male so deklariert haben. Vielen Dank für dein Feedback! Harrydeutsch (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, die meisten "Deiner" anderen Bilder sind ja zwischenzeitlich durch das sog. OTRS bestätigt - z.B. File:Alpstein, 1999.JPG. Die beiden eizignsten gelöschten Bilder von Dir sind File:Abstrakte Komposition 1998.JPG und File:Hans E. Deutsch 1(2).jpg. Falls auch für diese beiden eine sog. Freigabemail verschickt wurde, frag am besten User:Wdwd auf User talk:Wdwd oder auch Commons:OTRS noticeboard nach dem Stand der Dinge. Wenn alles OK ist werden die Dateien wiederhergestellt. Fall noch keine Freigabemail verschickt wurde, sollte dies nachgeholt werden. Gruß --Ju Ta 16:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops?

File:Francesco_Zaganelli_Madonna_col_bambino.jpg just survived a deletion request, admittedly Jim didn't fix anything, but ... :) I'm going to poke at this file and hope it isn't deleted! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was in the middle of fixing it when you hit save!! I'll go thru it again with more info! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well it got marked by visual file exchange ... If you remove the problem tag, you should apply the correct license, which I did now. PS: I could only find a source with a slightly lower resolution, if you can find a source with "our" resolution it would be nice if ou fix that. regards. --Ju Ta 20:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hon, I didn't have the chance to remove the problem tag or fix the license between when I started and when it got changed. I was literally typing when you did the eidt... I left you a message that I was going to fix it, and left immediately after that note to fix it. I hope it is fixed now ? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm not a nativ english speaker, and didn't got the meaning of poke in this case. :) --Ju Ta 20:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing Category:Енеїда (1798)

It was VERY insolently removing this category and files from here without notification and any commentary. Please revert your changes back, this category was using to maintenance files related with the book. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the category name should be Category:Aeneis (1798) (according google translate). I restored and renamed the category now and reapplied the 2 files to it. Please try to add some usefull parent categories to it. regards. --Ju Ta 20:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not Aeneis. It's Ukrainian book Енеїда. It's not translated book but it is parody that very important for Ukrainian culture and it is not directly linked with original (just like Odyssey 2000 is not Ὀδύσσεια). Note, Commons rules allow non-English category names in these cases. English wiki using Eneyida in article about author. Also it say that there is English translation of poem: Aeneid. But this translation 2004 year, it's not too known and stable for 1798 year poem. It looks like there is no stable English name. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, Commons:Naming_categories#Alphabet states: Category names use Latin alphabet. Non-English category names from non-Latin writing systems are transcribed to English spelling of Latin alphabet.. That sounds stongly that latin characters should be used. You can request a rename of it using {{Move}} to a better name. regards. --Ju Ta 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:JuTa, that ruling against non-Latin letters, while part of a guideline, is clueless and dangerously opens the gate for discrimination. I suggest you let it go, as admins often turn a blind eye to contraventions of (sort of lesser) rules. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ajout d'une photo d'un tableau de Paul Schaan

Bonjour,

J'ai bien pris connaissance de vos remarques. Je vais essayer de retrouver la photo qui est une archive familiale, le peintre Paul Schaan étant mon arrière grand-père. Je vais voir ce que je peux faire pour compléter les informations et au besoin je vous recontacterai. Je vous remercie de me laisser un peu de temps avant d'enlever la photo enregistrée sur Wikimedia et rapatriée sur Wikipedia.

Bien cordialement F. Puech

Hi SALVAS2016, in case your greatgrandfather is the artist and creator of the painting/drawing the license is likely {{PD-art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1924}}. If he is just the depicted person and the artist is somebody else you should find out who and when he/she died. If thats before 1946 (70 year ago) then its likely the same license but with a different deathyear used. If it is past 1945 the image is likely still in copyright and things going to be much more complicated. Please contect me again in this case. regards --Ju Ta 17:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ːHi UserːJuTa Thank you for your answer. My greatgrandfather'date of death is 1924, so it was before 1946. I undestand that I have to add the mention "{{PD-art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1924}}" to my description. Is it correct ? Is there anything else ? Best regards

If he is the artist and creator of the painting, yes. --Ju Ta 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Images - Permission and Licensing

Hello JuTa,

Thank you for your messages about adding a license/permission regarding File:Paul Draper at the Egyptian Pyramids.JPG to OTRS and File:Mind bending.jpg

I am a new user and have uploaded these files using a Wikipedia suggested upload wizard and am not exactly sure about how to revise the details.

I have just looked at different licensing options and this license actually looks much better: "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike". I will do more reading about that. What would you suggest to revise the licenses? Also, what would be a valid form of written permission from the owner of these pictures?

Thank you again for your help with this.

Hi, you cannot decide under which license these images will be published, only the copyright holder can, which is normaly the photographer an not the depicted person. What you can do: Try to contact the copyright holder an ask him if he is willing to publish the images under a free license of his choice - {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommandedbut the are a lot of other possibilities. If he agrees he has to send an email to the commons support team as documented on Commons:OTRS. As soon you know that this mail has been sent you better put {{OTRS pending}} onto the file description page best using {{subst:OP}}. This will prevent the deletion for about 2 months or until the case will be decided as valid or invalid. regards. Ju Ta 19:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Permissions for File:Peter_D._Hancock.jpg

Hi JuTa. I saw that you removed the image of Peter Hancock due to permissions issues. Could you help me fix this? I sent an email to the permissions team a week ago (Ticket#2016011210003461) with the appropriate licensing information, but have yet to receive a reply. Please let me know what other steps I can take to restore this image. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you missed to set the {{OTRS pending}} template. I now restored the file and did that for you. It will prevent deletion for about 2 months or until the case will be decided as valid or invalid by OTRS-stuff. regards. --Ju Ta 02:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of category Wiki loves love

Hi JuTA, It seems that you have removed the category Wiki Loves Love from Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia France and the Digital Culture Centre were preparing an online photo competition in honor of the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia. This category was prepared for that reason. In Strasbourg we are setting diffrent projets for Wikipedia Contributors and this was part of the plan. Could you explain what motivated this removal. And of cours could you create it again . Thank's Best regards, Rod

Hi, see the section above. PS: From time to time I am working on Special:UncategorizedCategories. regards --Ju Ta 12:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi , Well if somebody else already told you the rationale of this category maybe you should helps us to make it as you think it could be instead of removing it. Isn't that the purpose of Commons?

I dont remember that somebody told me before - and User:Psychoslave didn't edited on my talk page before - see [5]. And if the category would be properly "formated" they wouldn't get deleted, which means adding some sensefull parent categories and/or using the template {{Empty category}}. --Ju Ta 16:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Loves Love 2016

Please stop removing this category, it is needed for a running photo contest, I already lost time explaining that. Please look at the history of pages before deleting it next time. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do that every time. It was an empty uncategorized category. If you would some sensefull parent categories to it I would never come to my eyes. --Ju Ta 12:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: Do you know the template {{Empty category}}, using it would likely prevent such deletions as well. regards --Ju Ta 17:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know this category, thank you. The page itself contained explanation of its purpose though, both in French and English. Also, I don't know if it appeared in the history, but an other user had already removed and unremoved it following my demand on it's talk page. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

picture removed: Molukse wijk

Hello, I noticed you deleted my picture at the article "Molukse wijk"

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molukse_wijk

I do have permission to use the picture, can you please return the image.

Thnx, Eddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy alifuru (talk • contribs) 07:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the so called OTRS was pending since more than 60 days. There was no reaction by an OTRS volounteer visible. After 60 days those images automaticly fall into Category:Media missing permission and a week after they get deleted. Best you ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for your case, because I don't have access to the mails sent to the commons support team. regards. --Ju Ta 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Nanopooridega vanaadium oksiidist patarei ja mõõtmed.png

Hi, here is a link https://s100.copyright.com/CustomerAdmin/PLF.jsp?ref=b5b6c873-3e4a-4a9f-b37d-a0c18f4a62e9 to the licence. Regards, Pitchandtoss

Thats not enough, thats a wikipedia only license. But its required that everybody in the world can use it for any purpose. --Ju Ta 21:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I seem to have made an honest mistake and do request that the image be deleted. I'll then try to find and upload it to a wikipedia specific place. Thank you. Regards, Pitchandtoss

File:Nanopatarei mälu kõver.png

Hi, here is a link https://s100.copyright.com/CustomerAdmin/PLF.jsp?ref=b5b6c873-3e4a-4a9f-b37d-a0c18f4a62e9 to the licence. Regards, Pitchandtoss

Thats not enough, thats a wikipedia only license. But its required that everybody in the world can use it for any purpose. --Ju Ta 21:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I seem to have made an honest mistake and do request that the image be deleted. I'll then try to find and upload it to a wikipedia specific place. Thank you. Regards, Pitchandtoss

OK, they are deleted. --Ju Ta 22:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Cette photo m'a été donnée par le cinéaste Jean-Jacques Lagrange. Quelle licence ce choisir merci Albins (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Then Mr. Lagrange has to send a mail to the commons support team. Please see Commons:OTRS for details. --Ju Ta 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Message d'autorisation d'utilisation envoyé ce jour Albins 24 january 2016 (UTC)

OK, I removed the problem tag and added {{subst:OP}} now. regards. --Ju Ta 16:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Marmara

Hi there. Should we not better spare the category name Marmara for the "Sea of Marmara" and not spend it generously for a moth or some other tiny animal? What do you think? Best. --E4024 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I only smoved images of the sea across to the sea category and I dont see an moths in the sea category. But now I found i.e. Category:Marmara salictella, then it would be the best to make a Disambiguation out of Category:Marmara and create i.e Category:Marmara (moth). regards. --Ju Ta 09:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

... which I did now. regards. --Ju Ta 19:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Permissions for File:Römisches Kaisermedaillon.jpg

Would you please look at [Ticket#2016012810014848]. The permission is since last Tuesday alreaydy on the way to the ORTS-Team.

snip-------------------------

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild {{{Römisches Kaisermedaillon, Bildarchiv der Landeshauptstadt Mainz}}} {{{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Römisches_Kaisermedaillon.jpg}}}, dass ich a) dessen Fotograf/in bin oder b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).

Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

{{{26.01.2016}}}, {{{Sibylle v. Roesgen, Leiterin Protokoll}}} Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild {{{Römisches Kaisermedaillon, Bildarchiv der Landeshauptstadt Mainz}}} {{{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Römisches_Kaisermedaillon.jpg}}}, dass ich a) dessen Fotograf/in bin oder b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).

Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

{{{26.01.2016}}}, {{{Sibylle v. Roesgen, Leiterin Protokoll}}}

snap----------------------------

Sincerely --Nixnubix (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, jedes Bild auf Commons braucht einen validen Lizenz-Baustein. Dass eine Freigabemail verschickt wurde ändert daran nichts. Und eben der fehlt(e) bei diesem Bild immer noch. Da aus der hier zitietrten Mail hervorgeht welche Lizenz die Urheberrechtsinhaberin gewählt hat, nämlich {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, verbesse ich die Bildbeschreibungsseite jetzt - siehe hier, und möchte Dich bitten das in ähnlichen Fällen zukünftig selbst zu tun. Gruß --Ju Ta 09:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:AANR Logo 2016.jpg

You have deleted the logo for my organization. It is very hard to understand how to properly tag our copyrighted logo. I have read a LOT of the information here, and it still doesn't make sense. I did not create this logo; one of our staff memembers (employees) did. I don't think our staff members would understand what kind of tag to use. I am a corporate officer of this organization, so I have the authority to post it on the Wikipedia page that describes our organization (American Association for Nude Recreation). But how do I do it?

Hi, if you are the copyright holder, you can choose any suitable free license you like out of Commons:Copyright tags - {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded, but you have to choose one, which you didn't yet. For such logos I allways recommand to confirm your copyright by sending an email to the commons support. For details pls. see Commons:OTRS. You should indicate that such a mail has been sent by using the template {{OTRS pending}} on the file description page, best by typing {{subst:OP}} to the permission line of the description. regards. --Ju Ta 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mariana Ochoa H

لماذا رشحتها للحذف السريع، هي مرخصة بترخيص مناسب JonesTX (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I started a regular deletion request because I suspect Commons:flickr washing because the image was allready deleted twice here and its spread around the internet before it was uploaded to flickr. --Ju Ta 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the image is from a 2009 photoshoot for a Mexican men's magazine. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az87RIv52Uw at about 1:56, where she's wearing underwear, but in front of the exact same background. I'd link the actual source for the image (actually, a higher quality image of the same photo with a watermark) but it's behind a 'you must be 18 or above' firewall, and the page includes a substantial amount of porn. It can be found in TinEye, however. The copyright claim on Flickr is obviously bogus.... based on comparing the images, it looks it was modified to remove the watermark, and in the process the colors were messed up. Revent (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous deletions

The uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Nepalmtb were previously deleted by you. They have now been cleaned of any data that previously showed the author and copyright holder. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx, I marked them as copyright violations again. --Ju Ta 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I am new to this. The first photo was uploaded with permission from the photgrapher. The second one that was deleted is my own photo that I took using my own camera with permission from the subject. I removed the copyright information as I assumed any photo with copyright information would be deleted like my first one was. Should I upload the image again with full photo data? The only other place this image has been used on the internet or anywhere is on the subject's facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152448623041194&set=a.423064896193.197954.502011193&type=3&theater. -- User:Nepalmtb User talk:Nepalmtb 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have re-uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully all requirements are now met. Let me know if there's any issues and I'll try to solve it. Sorry again, I'm very new here --User:Nepalmtb User talk:Nepalmtb 11:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nepalmtb, if you like to upload photos not shot by yourself or even shot by yourself but previously published elsewhere (i.e. on facebook) you should allways go through the so called OTRS process, which means that the copyright holder sends an email to the commons support team, releasing the image(s) under a free license of his choice. Once the mail has been sent you better put the template [[tl|OTRS pending}} onto the file description page, which will prevent deletion for about 2 months or until the case will be decided as vali or invalid. regards. --Ju Ta 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Siegel der Loge Zur edlen Aussicht.jpg

Hi JuTA, deine Löschanzeige ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Das Bild wurde von mir erstellt. Der Bildinhalt unterliegt PD-old-70-1923, da das Siegel aus dem Jahr 1784 stammt. Für einen kurzen Hinweis wäre ich dankbar.--Hiram Abiff (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, meist sind solche Logos, Siegel und ähnliches vom Hochlader von irgendwoher aus dem Internet kopiert, darum erschien mir "eigenes Werk" unglaubwürdich. Dieses Siegel finde ich beispielsweise auch hier. Falls Du es wirklich selbst erstellt/gezeichnet hast, solltest Du angeben nach welcher Vorlage/Quelle. Und wenn es "einfach" nur nachgezeichnet ist, wäre es dann wohl {{PD-old-70-1923}} und nicht {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Gruß --Ju Ta 09:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Omanreagan

Hi - why did you delete all of the images I uploaded? These are my photographs of my own work. What do you mean by no permission? Whose permission is needed to upload content that I created entirely myself? Omanreagan (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

For images of modern art work we generaly uploaded by the artist himself we generally need a confirmation through the so called OTRS process, which means that ou have to send an email to the commons support team, releasing those images under a free license of your choice. The reason behind is that the vast majority of those images get uploaded whithout the atist permission, which would be a copyright violation. Its otherwise not possible to prove if you are realy the artist himself or just anybody else only claiming to be him. Anybody could i.e. create a commons User:Michael Oman-Reagan and we have ho chance to prove who is realy behind it. regards. If you send those mails to the support team, the images will likely get undeleted if everything checks out OK. --Ju Ta 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dave Willis

Hi! In January you deleted Dave Willis 1.jpg, and also … 2.jpg, … 3.jpg, … 4.jpg; I think Denniss got … 5.jpg. Apparently acceptable permission for these five has now come through from Mr. Willis, who asserts creation/sole ownership. Ticket number is 2015121110020406, licence is dual (CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL). Is that now all in order? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as soon as OTRS-stuff has processed the case the files will get undeleted. Please be patient as this process can take weeks or even months. PS: I am not a member of the OTRS-group. Perhaps you like to ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for this case. regards. --Ju Ta 22:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)