User talk:JuTa/Archive 52

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:DIARIO-FINANCIERO.gif

Hi there. The deletion for this file was a mistake, right? If not, an explanation would be nice. 1989_talk 22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it was uploaded as own work and CC-License, marked as no permission by User:Martin Urbanec. --Ju Ta 22:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This file is not eligible for deletion for that reason, it's in the public domain. The tagging was wrong, as was the deletion you performed. Please restore. 1989_talk 22:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself, but only if a have a valod source and author for it (its not the work of the uploader). Please fix the description page after. --Ju Ta 22:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems you have a flawed vision on how 'no permission' works. {{PD-textlogo}} images are not eligible for no permission deletions. I'm givng you a chance to correct your mistake. I shouldn't have to restore anything. By the way, here's another one that should have not been deleted. 1989_talk 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Its seems we have a different view of it, yes. I will not keep those images with incorrect authors and sources. regards --Ju Ta 22:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well your decision based on that has been reversed. 1989_talk 05:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, we now have 2 more images will false authorship claimes. --Ju Ta 05:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't make it eligible for a 'no permission' tag. With public domain images, you don't need permission. 1989_talk 05:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This doesnt change that these image have and now keep a problem. --Ju Ta 05:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A problem unrelated to the 'no permission' tag. 1989_talk 05:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Claiming own authorship to public doamin images keeps to be a copyfraud. --Ju Ta 06:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

Hi Juta, I am Gorana from Wikimedia Serbia. We sent permissions for these two categories: Wikipedian in residence at National Museum of Toplice and Wikipedian in residence - Society for Culture, Art and International Cooperation Adligat. For the Wikipedian in residence at the National Museum of Toplice more than 200 photos were deleted and were not restored after we sent the permissions. For the Wikipedian in residence - Society for Culture, Art, and International Cooperation Adligat we sent permissions last week, and some of the pictures were deleted. Can you please explain to me what can do to solve this problem? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorana Gomirac (VMRS) (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me which images excactly you talking about, or better telk to the OTRS stuff directly on Commons:OTRS noticeboard as I cannot access the tickets. --Ju Ta 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:St.-Louis-MO-F4-Tornado-–-February-10-1959-map-768x504.png

This photo you got rid of was one that I've been trying to register in for A MONTH! I had the permission, but continually was not informed on the status of the photo in question and now its gone. I find this unacceptable and am very upset by this and would appreciate is someone got back with me about the matter.ChessEric (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the permission did not confirmed by any OTRS stuff for more than a month. Those images automaticly fall into some "please dlete me" categories. Please talk to the OTRS volounteers directly about what went from at Commons:OTRS noticeboard, as I have no access to the tickets. Thx. --Ju Ta 23:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Keisha Lance Bottoms (cropped).jpg

I'm trying to understand why this image was deleted. The log entry lists you as the deleting authority, and cites COM:SPEEDY#G8; alas, I don't follow the technical description of that criterion, nor how it would apply to this case. Could you elaborate, a bit? --Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats because the source page for it File:Keisha Lance Bottoms.jpg got deleted by "no permission". regards --Ju Ta 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you not check where the image is being used globally and give a heads up before deleting? William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why I should? I normaly perform several hundred deletions a day. I would be very busy to notify hundrets of projects for hundrets of images and then wait a minute, an hour, a day or a week? It would be infact impossible to keep track of all this. --Ju Ta 06:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot: Removing Commons: File:LIYANN SEET.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by JuTa (No OTRS permission since 24 June 2020).

Dear Juta,

You have deleted my file on commons. Please undo the actions. OTRS permission has been granted. Original and edited files as well as permission to use media files on Wikimedia Commons has been emailed to <photosubmission@wikimedia.org>.

Please undelete my file. Thank you!

Hi, the release has not been confirmed by OTRS stuff for more than 4 weeks, which is required. Please talk to Commons:OTRS noticeboard directly, normaly there is/was something missing. --Ju Ta 10:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File deleted : Why ?

Hello JuTa, On May 18, 2020 you have deleted a photo in the French article entitled Une enquête des sœurs Parker ([1]). That was a picture of my own books. The explanation you posted as to the reason for the delation (i.e. "No permission since 9 May 2020") is not clear to me. Obvioulsy this cannot be a copyright issue since the French Books have absolutely nothing in common with the American editions : different titles, different illustrator, different names, etc. Could you please give me a detailed explanation ? Thank you. Regards.--Caravage10 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you are talking about File:Les sœurs Parker (Bibliothèque Verte).jpg. Its was marked as {{No permission since}} and was depicting likely copyrighted book spines without the permission of their copyright holders. The "faces" were lilely copyrighted. regards --Ju Ta 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You flagged an image of a United States Federal government document from 1910

What other information do you need? ElTejanito (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

regarding possible deletion Dalyan Krabbenbosch 2.jpg and other pictures in that batch

I publishes almost 8000 pictures of my own, but publishing some by a friend of mine caused a procedure I'm not familiar with. The instructions are so condensed that I think I may have disturbed a pipe-line by first placing a code "{{OTRS pending}}" on the pages of the pictures, then realizing I should have done so only after I received a mail from this friend, indicating he allowed me to publish, let alone sending you that mail. Sorry for that, if you can wait a day or two (it's late in the evening now), I'll try and finish the procedure. Dosseman (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dosseman, you should add the license template of the copytighters choice like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. This would solve the (current) problem with the files. --Ju Ta 19:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

File:TurretLatheBarWork.jpg

Hi JuTa, I notice that you deleted the subject file from WM Commons for want of a source. The source is stated in the source file in WP (English) as: Hartness, James (1910) Hartness Turret Lathe Manual, Springfield: Jones and Lamson Machine Tool Company . I was the original uploader of the file there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was declared as own work by original uploader. --Ju Ta 21:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm unsure what you mean by the "original uploader"—I assume you mean the uploader to Commons. You can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TurretLatheBarWork.jpg, that I did not claim it to be "own work", when I uploaded it. Thanks for taking a second look at this. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the original uploader is likely the uploader on en: But I now restored the file and renewed the problem tag. Please fix the desfription page within a week before the file will get deleted again. --Ju Ta 21:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

North Carolina

North Carolina statute holds that "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." The State Library of North Carolina considers state documents within its collection to be in the public domain. ElTejanito (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_subnational_governments_of_the_United_States#North_Carolina

Hi Juta. You deleted all of my image files. Want to know the reason. Thanks.

that was because you copied the images from facebook. --Ju Ta 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2020

Hallo JuTa,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2020 findet zum zehnten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Dabei können Bau-, Boden- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich gern wieder ein, dieses Jahr mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Obwohl es den Wettbewerb seit zehn Jahren gibt, sind immer noch viele Motive überall in Deutschland zu fotografieren. Neben beeindruckenden märchenhaften Schlössern, Burgen und Kirchen können auch andere Kulturdenkmale wie Brücken, Industrieruinen, Bauernhöfe oder Parks fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden, die sich über Fotos freuen. Es haben sich auch Kulturdenkmale verändert, sie wurden saniert oder umgestaltet. Diese Entwicklung kann auch gezeigt werden. Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Du bist interessiert, am Wettbewerb mitzuwirken, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab 5. September 2020 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg beim größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams Z thomas 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Patronyms are not given names

I strongly disagree with the names of the categories you created. Patronyms are not given names, you cannot just go and call your child “Alekseevich Jones”. I think a new category for patronyms is required, but all of these categories should be renamed in all cases. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Patronmys like ~vich, ~son/~dottir and the like are not given names. Instead they are on the same level as family names. Confer also Spanish names like "Pedro Alvarez Gonzalez" which are composed of the family names of both parents. In the latter case, Alvarez is not a given name either. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, thats years ago, but what about to categorize patronyms as Category:Patronyms? --Ju Ta 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but with a separation between male and female ones. That in my eyes is not a big problem, it can be easily re-cat-a-lot'ed; the problem are the names of the categories, in all of which “(given name)” should be changed to “(patronym)”. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, with help of a simple query and Quickcategories I was able to get the patronymics I was talking about (the Slavic ones) to Category:Patronymics reasonably fast. There is still the problem with the category names, and Perhelion's massrename only works for files, so a bot is probably needed. Infovarius moved Category:Pavlovna (patronym) to the current name, but it seems "patronymic" is actually the prevalent term for this name in English (as opposed to "synonym" etc.), so we should probably use that. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please dont mass rename those cats, they or their child-cats are partly filled up automatcly via {{Wikidata Infobox}}. That needs to be fixed first within the template and/or on wikidata. Feel free to open a request on Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. Thx. --Ju Ta 13:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please show me just one case where this is done through Wikidata, so that I understand what you mean. For example, Vladimir Putin (Q7747), which is connected to Category:Vladimir Putin, does have patronym or matronym for this person (P5056) filled, but the category isn't contained in Category:Vladimirovich (given name)‎ in any way. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

One example is Category:Sergey Aleksandrovich Alimov. --Ju Ta 15:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where the infobox adds any patronymic categories. It adds a category for a combination of given name and patronymic, but those are outside of the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Any comments? I have no problem with having given name–patronymic pair categories named like given name categories, but your argument against the immediate renaming of patronymic categories does not seem to be founded by any examples yet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. It looks like you are correct. If you like, go ahead... --Ju Ta 04:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate redirects

Thank you for setting up the duplicate redirects for the Women Deliver 2016 photos. I was surprised that Flickr2Commmons did not detect them as duplicates and tagging so many files seemed like a daunting task. // sikander { talk } 🦖 12:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Delited photo

Hello, JuTa You deleted the photo "File:Фібула із серії "Квіти в жезлах Меркурія".jpg" for my article "Хоменко Віталій Федорович" The reason was "No OTRS permission for 30 days" The photo was made by Дмитро Клочко, it was published in the catalogue of our museum and photograph sent e-mail to Wiki to confirm that this photo was made by him. The catalogue was published. This photo is on the page of 41 the catalogue. https://www.academia.edu/35757578 I am new in making articles in Wiki and maybe did something wrong. I am research in the museum and going to write a lot of articles about Ukrainian jewellers. Hope you can explaine me my mistake. Iryna.

Hi, there was no confirmation from an OTRS volounteer for more than a month. The ticket number was:2020060910005948. Please ask Commons:OTRS noticeboard what was missing. --Ju Ta 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Regiongrowing figure Original.jpg

Hi! You deleted this photo because it had no source. I think that File:Lightningg 1.jpg, File:Lightningg 2.jpg, File:Lightningg 3.jpg and File:Lightningg 4.jpg are derivative works of the file you deleted (based on en:Region growing). In File:Lightningg 4.jpg there is a broken licensereview that links to https://www.mauritius-images.com/en/asset/ME-PI-48562_mauritius_images_bildnummer_00105735_lightning so my guess it that it is the original image. Unless you see something that I don't I think the 4 files have to go to. --MGA73 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I see, I agree. --Ju Ta 13:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not indicated

Dear JuTa, on picture File:Ադիբեկ Գրիգորյան.jpg you indicated that the Source of derivative work is not indicated. Could you please help me understand what needs to be done. The picture is a scan from our family photo album. What needs to be done to preserve the picture in the Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for your help.

Hi, It looks OK now. I removed the problem tag. --Ju Ta 13:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Pedro Marquez picture

This is a family photograph taken in 1905 and distributed among many heirs. It is currently posted on Facebook under "Pedro Marquez". I am not aware that there ever was a copyright on this heirloom. I scanned my mother's copy some years ago. (She passed away last year, 2019, at age 100 the last of her family, so I cannot interrogate her or anyone else as to the provenance of the photograph that was obviously posed at a photographer's studio of that time.) I would suspect that scanning this image gives me the only possible copyright. I specifically offer this to common property.

We are talking about File:Pedro Marquez.jpg, correct? Well the copyright still belongs to the photographer heirs (and not the owners of some copies of it) if he/she lived past 1950 (70 years ago) in most countries. regards --Ju Ta 21:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Odabaşı (surname)

Hi. Can you please revive Category:Odabaşı (surname)? IMHO these cats should never be deleted, as there always are people to add into. Best. --E4024 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

restored, but as a category redirect it was not realy sensefull... --Ju Ta 21:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Glyphwiki

You've recently brought up licensing issues with svg files I got from glyphwiki. I apologise for the inconvenience as I am new to the process. I did go through the Common process for files not created by the uploader, for all three of my svg files. I have a link to the site's licence page, which says 'The glyphs registered at the GlyphWiki, as well as the articles, can be freely used by anyone. Regardless of all modification, or even in commercial use, free use, reproduction, and redistribution is allowed. '(http://en.glyphwiki.org/wiki/GlyphWiki:License). Where should I put it to stop them from being deleted? Thanks. Fluoromethyl (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you can likely use {{PD-text}} as license template. --Ju Ta 22:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

About "Copyright status: File:Lisbon-Bible-Vol2-f001v-&-Vol3-f141r, muestra del Kubutz.jpg"

The thing is I wanted to find a licensing template, which I could confirm both files as Public Domain files, and the composition was made by me. Don't worry, I was confused. I don't knew putting that template would send me back a delete message. The rest, I think it's okay. I put the Web source, the books where it came from, the original author... In conclusion, you might sent me that message, because of that template. Now it's all fixed. Thanks for the advise. Yours sincerely, --De un millón (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Signing of MOU between NIPOST and NASRDA.jpg

The file owner has contacted OTRS for the release of this image, kindly see the OTRS permission ticket- [Ticket#2020070710005762]

Kindly assist to restore the image Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the permission was nor confirmed by OTRS stuff for more than a month. Please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard about this case and what might have been still missing. --Ju Ta 07:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted photos

Hello. I'm trying to add photos of the mayors of my city to the commons, but the photos are always deleted, even with the authorization of the city hall, even the photos I took at the city's memorial. I would like you to tell me how I can add these photos here without being deleted.

Sorry for any mistake in writing, this message was translated by Google. -Aquila Leite^Ms 11:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That bvecause you either declared old historical photos as your own work or you copied flickr images under the so called public domain mark, which is not accepted on commons - see Commons:Flickr files. --Ju Ta 16:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you. -Aquila Leite^Ms 21:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo Dov Alfon

Hi, You suppressed a photo on this page because of "No OTRS permission since 22 June 2020", but the photographer, Aurelie Lamachere,sent the permission to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org on June 29. Do you want a copy of the email? Is there any other way to clarify this misunderstanding? Another email address for Wikipedia Commons perhaps? Thanks in advance.

Sorry, but which file exactly you are talking about? I cannot find any files you upladed - see Special:Log/Israeli_historian. --Ju Ta 16:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, This one: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Alfon&diff=173509322&oldid=173118512

History reads: 3 août 2020 à 05:29‎ CommonsDelinker discuter contributions‎ 65 910 octets -143‎ Retrait du lien DovAlfon_2019_serie-series_credit_AurelieLamachere.jpg, supprimé sur Commons par JuTa ; motif : No OTRS permission since 22 June 2020 Thanks, --Israeli historian (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about File:DovAlfon 2019 serie-series credit AurelieLamachere.jpg. There was an OTRS-release running for more than a month which got not confirmed by OTRS-stuff. Please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for this case what was missing or went wrong as I cannot access the tickets. --Ju Ta 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion withdrawal request

You deleted my video File:Beach seiners in Benin.webm from Wikimedia Commons. As I understand, the video was uploaded with all Wikimedia Commons directions and proper open license. Please return it, thanks.--Kulttuurinavigaattori (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you uploaded it completly without a license template, please see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags and try again with a valid license template. --Ju Ta 11:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mehmed Ali (given name)

Hi. Can you please delete Category:Mehmed Ali (given name), Category:Mehmet Ali (given name) and Category:Memet Ali (given name)? These people receive their names through Wikidata (all these individual names have their corresponding WD item and Commons cat) and as a resut of adding also these cats the people appear to have as a name, for example, Mehmet, Ali, and Mehmet Ali, all together. Of course they do not have three names and this "compound name" practice instead of solving anything only complicates. (At the beginning, when people were not duly identified by WD your initiative helped, but all Turks are well attended now at WD and I will, shortly leave nobody w/o a perfect WD coverage.) Danke schoen. --E4024 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Done --Ju Ta 05:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. JuTa, you are wrong about Pasha. Pasha may be a surname for some people, like Juliana Pasha, who is possibly the only person in that surname cat with the correct categorization. (Naguib Mahfouz may have been vandalized, I do not know.) The Ottoman "pashas" there do not have it as a surname but as a title for their civil or military rank, sort of "general" for the soldiers today. The Ottomans did not have surnames BTW. Therefore you reverted a correct edit of mine. Regards. E4024 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

File:2007-07-paris-141.jpg

File:2007-07-paris-141.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Xenia Aitakova.xcf

The letter with permission from copyright holder was sent to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org.

This should be documented on the by adding {{subst:OP}} on the file description page. I did this for you now, but next time please try to do it yourself. --Ju Ta 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Borrado de diseño Bandera

Hola por qué razón fueron retiraras unos diseños de una bandera historica de Bolivia? En el mensaje que dejaste en mi página de discusión habla de derecho de autor.. pero es el diseño de una bandera de 1831 Fernando6718 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, then you are not the author, the source is not {{Own}} and the license is not {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Please try again with a proper source, where you got the image from and likely the license {{PD-old-100}} or similar. --Ju Ta 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

how do I speed delete

i created it myself using art software eyes were taken from anime_eyes.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_eyes_%26_red_happy_mouth_with_teeth.jpg

Please see and discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anime eyes & red happy mouth with teeth.jpg. --Ju Ta 06:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Gebrüder Metz

Hallo JuTa,
ich war optimistisch, dass ein Monat für die Bestätigung reichen soll, doch es hat sich nicht bewahrheitet. Der zuständige Abteilungsleiter aus dem Haus der Geschichte Baden-Württemberg, Dr. Stefan Kirchberger, der bereits früher OTRS-Einverständniserklärungen für zahlreiche Bilder des Verlags Gebrüder Metz erteilt hat, war erst diese Woche nach dem Urlaub wieder da. Er hat mir telefonisch erklärt, dass er so eine allgemeine Einverständniserklärung nicht ohne Rücksprache mit der Leitung des Hauses des Geschichte erteilen möchte oder sollte. Grundsätzlich ist er davon überzeugt, dass er die Einverständniserklärung nach der Rücksprache geben kann. Aus diesem Grund ist es erforderlich die Vorlage weiter ohne Bestätigung stehen zu lassen. Ich denke, dass du nichts dagegen hast. – Wie soll die Vorlage vor dem zu frühen Löschen bewahrt werden? Sollen wir wieder das Datum darin ändern? Grüße --Mewa767 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ist wohl das beste, ja. --Ju Ta 20:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

2020-08-30

I see that they have already deleted the photograph I shared of Siqueiros and Rivera in 1951 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Alfaro_Siqueiros_y_Diego_Rivera_(1951).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1). I don't understand all your litany about rights and how they are put into photography. I was hoping that some expert would help me but I see that they only know how to erase. What I wanted was to share with you a photo found among the photographic archives of my uncle Guillermo Macías, who has passed away and left us all his files. I considered it to be of public interest and that's why I put it here but if you don't want it then no way. To share it seems we have to be experts first.

Hi, if you need help, you can ask on i.e. Commons:Help desk for it. --Ju Ta 01:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Three images actually very old

You marked for deletion File:Rallus antarticus K.jpg, File:Buteo albigula Ph male.jpg and File:Buteo albigula Ph male.jpg. All of them are properly sourced, and come from a book clearly on the Public Domain (published in 1902 and author died in 1904). I've changed the licenses tags and I ask if you can stop the deletion process. Regards, --Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Ju Ta 01:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2020 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Ukraine

Привіт!

З 1 по 30 вересня вже традиційно пройде українська частина міжнародного фотоконкурсу «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! На конкурс можна подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи. Більше можна прочитати за посиланням.

Радимо ознайомитися із детальними правилами, а також із відповідями на часті питання. З найважливіших змін цього року:

у номінації «За найбільшу кількість сфотографованих пам’яток» — збільшився додатковий бал за фотографії пам'яток (якщо світлин пам'ятки раніше не було завантажено, то можна отримати 21 бал.

Нагадаємо, що всі фотографії автоматично беруть участь у номінації «За найбільшу кількість сфотографованих пам’яток»; однак для того, щоб фото позмагалося у номінації «Найкраще фото», потрібно підтвердити це при завантаженні.

Цього року теж є спецномінації «Єврейська спадщина», «Млини» та «Відео». Також є спеціальна номінація від проєкту «Via Regia Ukraine» — у ній автоматично беруть участь світлини всіх пам’яток міст України, через які пролягає Via Regia — Дубно, Рівне, Острог, Львів, Броди, Городок (Львівська область), Луцьк, Володимир-Волинський, Радомишль, Житомир та Київ. Цього року у Завантажувачі не передбачено окремих параметрів для спецномінацій — світлини зараховуватимуться автоматично з відповідних списків.

Усі номінації та спецномінації конкурсу описані тут.

Приєднуйтеся!

Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться за посиланням. Щоб отримувати інформацію про новинки у конкурсі — підпишіться на наші блог та сторінку у фейсбук.

Якщо у Вас є запитання, можете звертатися wlmwikimedia.org.ua чи у фейсбук – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 06:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ви отримали це повідомлення, оскільки Ви брали участь в одному із фотоконкурсів «Вікімедіа Україна» чи допомагали (наприклад, редагували файли з цих конкурсів).

If you do not speak Ukrainian, but you are interested in a contest, you can check out our page in English here.

File:CIÉ 301 withdrawn at Amiens Street 1962 - H. C. Casserley 20238 crop.jpg

Morgen,

Es ist verrückt, die Ernte zu löschen

File:CIÉ 301 withdrawn at Amiens Street 1962 - H. C. Casserley 20238 crop.jpg

wenn das Original gut ist

File:GS&WR Class 301 Amiens Street H. C. Casserley 6-5-1962 20238.jpg

Wie löse ich?

Danke

Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I restored and fixed it now. Thx for notifying me. --Ju Ta 08:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Carleton SPPA logo

Hello,

You deleted the School of Public Policy and Administration logo that I uploaded for that article. I don't believe it was justified.

I specifically provided reasoning for this re-upload under the terms of the Fair Use policy, and stated clearly that it would be used as the primary identifying logo for the School of Public Policy and Administration. While the rights to the SPPA logo itself are the property of Carleton University, my reasoning was patterned after that used for the following images for other institutes within Carleton University that also rely on Fair Use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Norman_Paterson_School_Logo.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprott_School_of_Business#/media/File:Sprott_logosub.gif

I feel that you are being heavy-handed with your approach and would like some clarification.

Respectfully yours,

Bronwood315

Hi, Commons does not accept fair use - compare Commons:Fair use with en:Wikipedia:Fair use. Please upload it to en: wikipedia. --Ju Ta 06:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Tinau powerhouse view from inside.jpg

Hello, you recently deleted my file File:Tinau powerhouse view from inside.jpg. It was shot by me. Could you please restore it or provide proof that it was not mine?Nirmaljoshi (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I restored it now, but raised a regular deleteion request. Its hard to believe that this is your own work. --Ju Ta 06:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)answer

Why is it hard to believe? You can see many photos of mine in Wikipedia that were uploaded to wiki from my Panoramio account without my knowledge (though they were cc licensed). Nirmaljoshi (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Rani jamaria intake during construction.jpg

This file was also deleted without providing reason. Could you please start discussion for deletion. File:Rani jamaria intake during construction.jpg. This photo was also taken during the technical tour. As you have noted, the same user had tagged it for deletion.Nirmaljoshi (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Done again... --Ju Ta 06:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Wellendorff - Ringe.jpg

Hi User talk:JuTa, you deleted the "File:Wellendorff_-_Ringe.jpg" with the comment "No OTRS permission since 20 July 2020", but the persission should have been given together with the permissions for the other uploads like "File:Wellendorff - Flechten Guertel.jpg" and the Ticket [2]. I just had a look at the e-mail and saw that this file was not listed in that e-mail. I'll send an AddOn to that ticket and hope you could recover the file. Regards --Wedo1893 (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there was no confimation by OTRS stuff for more than a month. I cannot see the tickets as I am no OTRS volounteer. I just work as admin on some backlogs. Perhaps you ask User:Krd, who confirmed the other file. Or you ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard of whats missing or went wrong. --Ju Ta 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, I'll send the e-mail with the confirmation and get back to User:Krd if it's not recovered afterwards. --Wedo1893 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo Robert Kruzdlo

Dear JuTa, Thank you for your message on the copyright status of the photo of Robert Kruzdlo. As far as I know publication rights for the photo was granted in December 2019. See below email:

>>> begin email

Van: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Datum: 25 december 2019 om 20:57:25 CET Aan: Robert Kruzdlo <robert.kruzdlo@hotmail.com> Onderwerp: Antw.:⁨ [Ticket#2019122510003311] Permissie foto Robert Kruzdlo Wikipedia⁩

Dear Robert Kruzdlo,

Thank you for your permission to use media files on Wikimedia Commons.

For us to process your contribution, we need to know the specific name or URL of the page on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded it, or the user name used to upload.

If you have not yet uploaded, please continue to upload the file(s) and let us know when done.

Yours sincerely, Hannah Kooijman

-- Wikimedia Commons - https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C60ece68793f643118b3108d78974ab87%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637129006504919024&sdata=tQja2IZ8gFJEMd8RY6X1d3t3SbBqE%2BLqwIq6hv%2FRtPc%3D&reserved=0 --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikimediafoundation.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C60ece68793f643118b3108d78974ab87%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637129006504919024&sdata=WXs0TFK8N8H17g%2FWkwxkQM7iBokEe%2FtQRadZUKw%2FMsk%3D&reserved=0

>>> end email

Can you tell me what else I should do to confirm that the picture is used in accordance with the creator of it (which is also the person depicted)?

Thanks in advance. --HansTunnissen (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, you should answer treir question:

we need to know the specific name or URL of the page on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded it, or the user name used to upload.

regards --Ju Ta 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Löschung von File:Mozart Quintett Bassettklarinette Menuetto.ogg und 3 weiteren am 30.8.2020

Bereits am Anfang der 30-Tagesfrist hatte ich die Zusendung eines Freigabe-Mails seitens des Rechteinhabers Vlad Weverbergh veranlasst. Nur scheint dessen Mail nicht angekommen zu sein. Daher habe ich ein neues initiiert, das bei permissions am 3.9. eingegangen ist. Daher bitte ich dich, die Löschungen wieder zurück zu nehmen. --Gisel (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, die Mail ist laut Dateibeschreibung am 27.7. angekommen. Die Freigabe wurde dann aber nicht bestätigt. Die Ticket-Nummer ist 2020072510000858. Bitte frag auch Commons:OTRS Noticeboard nach was falsch war oder noch fehlte. Gruß --Ju Ta 21:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Tiefenthaler Konrad

Hallo JuTa, Es wäre schön, wenn Du vor einer Löschung zuerst nachfragen würdest. Du machst mir doppelte Arbeit , und das ist nicht gerade das, was ich unter Zusammenarbeit verstehe. Es geht um: File:1925 Tiefenthaler Konrad-Gächter Anna.jpg . Verärgerte Grüsse, Asurnipal (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nunja, es hatte über 30 Tage keine OTRS-Bestätigung. Dann falles solche Bilder automatisch in "bitte lösch mich" Kategporien, die ich als Admin abarbeite. Frag bitte auf Commons:OTRS noticeboard nach was falsch war bzw. gefehlt hat. --Ju Ta 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, das Bild 1925 Tiefenthaler Konrad-Gächter Anna.jpg wurde am am 11. Mai 1925, anlässlich der Hochzeit von Konrad Tiefenthaler mit Anna Regina Gächter aufgenommen. Der Urheber des Bildes hat also dieses Bild vor 95 Jahre angefertigt. Ich selbst habe das Bild am 25. Juli 2020 hochgeladen, also 95 Jahre, 2 Monate und 14 Tage nach der Anfertigung. Meines Wissens braucht es da keine Freigabe durch den Urheber, der übrigens lt. Auskunft des Erben, der mir das Bild zur Verfügung gestellt hat, auch schon lange verstorben ist. Wer also hier eine Freigabe weswegen will, ist für mich nicht verständlich. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Keine Genehmigung bräuchte man, wenn der Urheber vor mehr als 70 Jahren (also vor dem 1.1.1950) verstporben wäre. Bei einem 1925 erstelltem Bild ist es durchaus wahrscheinlich dass dieser länger gelebt hat. --Ju Ta 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, wieder ein Bild weniger auf WP. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Was hat das mit dem Schiedsgericht zu tun? --Ju Ta 20:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, SG bedeutet "Schöne Grüße", Übrigens, wenn mir die Erben erklären, der Fotograf ist schon lange tot (ich habe es oben schon geschrieben), dann vertraue ich ihnen. Warum sollten sie mich anschwindeln? SG, Asurnipal (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wenn Sie das per mail (mit Todesjahr - schon lange kann auch z.B. 1990 bedeuten) gegeüber COM:OTRS bestätigen, hast Du eine Chance dass die Datei wieder hergestellt wird. Wie gesagt frag am besten auf Commons:OTRS noticeboard nach. --Ju Ta 20:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, entschuldige, aber ich habe das Gefühl, Du hast noch nie versucht Bilder von älteren Menschen zu bekommen. Das läuft nicht so ab, da einfach hinzugehen und ihnen ein Formular unter die Nase zu halten und zu sagen, das müssten sie unterschreibe, weil das Urheberrecht der USA dies so vorschreibt und der Server in Forida steht und das ganze zusätzlich von ihnen noch persönlich per Post an das OTRS Team zu schicken sei, weil im OTRS Team ja ein solcher Spezialist sitzt, der mir vor ein paar Monaten ganz klar unterstellt hat, wenn ich die Sachen schicken würde, dann sei nicht sicher, ob das ganze nicht gefälscht sei. Also, ganz kurz, das Bild bleibt gelöscht, den Schaden hat WP. Mit dem oben beschriebenen Spezialisten im OTRS Team muss ich mich wirklich nicht mehr unterhalten. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Na denn, Deine Entscheidung. --Ju Ta 21:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nein JuTa, nicht meine Entscheidung. Den Rucksack lasse ich mir nicht aufpacken. Die Entscheidung liegt in der Organisation des OTRS Teams und der Vorgansgweise beim Löschen von Bildern. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Du kannst Dich nicht mit der Vorgensweise anfreunden, deshalb ist es die "Schuld" der anderen - logisch. --Ju Ta 21:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nein JuTa, das ist nicht richtig. Das System von Wikipedia funktioniert auf dem gegenseitigen Vertrauen. Mir wurde von den Erben erklärt, der Fotograf ist schon längst verstorben und sie seien berechtigt dieses Bild weiterzugeben. Das Bild ist zudem mindestens 95 Jahre alt. Damit wäre eigentlich schon alles gesagt und passt. Dann kommt aber noch hinzu: was meinst Du, wie groß ist die "Gefahr", dass jemand irgendein Recht an einem solchen Hochzeitsbild geltend macht? In % wohl 0. Solche Bilder wurden in der Zwischenkriegszeit zu hunderttausenden in Österreich angefertigt, als noch kein Mensch von einem Urheberrecht daran gesprochen hat. Und selbst wenn dies so wäre und jemand würde tatsächlich ein Recht daran versuchen geltend zu machen, wäre ich als Hochladender und die Familie vor allem der Ansprechpartner für Ansprüche gegenüber einer solchen Person, die Rechte geltend macht - denn wir wären die "Urhebererechtsverletzer". Sowohl die Erben als auch ich sind identifizierbar mit Name und Adresse und können von WP jederzeit als Verantwortliche für die mögliche "Urheberrechtsverletzung" genannt werden. Ganz unbekannt ist mein Real-Name bei WP ja doch nicht, dafür bin ich schon zu lange dabei und habe zu viele WPianer Kontakt gehabt, bin Mitglied im Verein und habe Veranstaltungen organisiert etc. etc.

Stell Dir mal die andere Vorgangsweise vor: Die Erben hätten das Hochzeitsbild unter einem Nickname selbst hochgeladen, einfach mit einem Wegwerfaccount und hingeschrieben, sie seien Nutzungsinhaber der Rechte oder Urheber. Es hätte keine einzige Diskussion dazu gegeben, sondern es wäre hier von allen einfach akzeptiert worden (Vertrauen eben). Du siehst also, das Ganze ist nicht so, dass ich irgendeine Schuldzuweisung mache. Das ganze WP-Prüfsystem ist in einem solchen Fall falsch aufgestellt und das was das OTRS Team machen kann ist in einem solchen Fall nicht gerade hilfreich - weder für Rechteansprüche gg WP (hilft nämlich in dem Fall nicht) als auch zur Unterstützung von WP (es ist kein Bild mehr vorhanden) und schon gar nicht um das gegenseitige Vertrauen zu stärken und auch nicht, um auf meiner Seite Frustration abzubauen. Im Gegenteil. Also, wie ich schon oben geschrieben habe: Die Entscheidung liegt in der Organisation des OTRS Teams und der Vorgansgweise beim Löschen von Bildern. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Das Problem hier ist zusätzlich, dass das Bild wahrschienlich nicht von Vorfahren dieser Familie erstellt wurde. Du hattes ja selbst "unbekannt" angegeben. Die Familie also gar kein Recht hat, das Bild freizugeben. Ich vermute das ist auch der Grund warum die Freigabe nicht akzeptiert wurde. --Ju Ta 09:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nein JuTa, dies ist jetzt eine Spekulation von Dir. Da es jederzeit möglich ist, das Nutzungsrecht an einer Fotografie weiterzugeben und auch zu verereben, kann auch die Familie dieses Recht vom Urheber (dem Studiofotografen) durchaus erworben haben (so was hat man auch in den 1920er-Jahren nicht so genau genommen). Wie es genau war, kann ich nicht sagen, da ich mich danach nicht erkundigt habe, sondern es für mich ausreichend war und ist, wenn mir die Erben sagen, sie sind dazu berechtigt. Ich gehe ja auch nicht in einem Museum nachforschen, ob der Museumsdirektor tatsächlich berechtigt ist, mir die Genehmigung für Fotografien im Haus zu erteilen. Es reicht, dass er es tut. Alles andere wäre etwas zu viel verlangt, dann hätten wir bald keine Fotos mehr hier. Stell Dir vor was los wäre, wir müssten jedes mal bei der Trägerstiftung, Aufsichtsrat etc. nachfragen, ob der Museumsdirektor berechtigt ist, einem von uns die Genehmigung zur Fotografieren im Museum zu geben. Es ist schon aufwendig genug, wenn ich in jedem zweiten Fall in einem Museum die Bilder der Museumsleitung zur Freigabe vorlegen muss. Das kostet mich schon sehr viel Zeit und Aufwand. Ebenso ist es hier, es reicht, wenn mir die Personen, die WP das Bild zur Verfügung stellen sagen, sie dürfen über das Bild verfügen. Da muss ich wirklich nicht nachforschen, ob sie Erbe sind, ob die Erbschaft ordnungsgemäß angetreten wurde oder wann sie dieses Nutzungsrecht erhalten haben. Ganz abgesehen davon, wie ich oben geschrieben habe, ist das bei älteren Menschen - die eben sehr oft solche Bilder noch haben - kaum machbar. Es ist eben das Prinzip des Vertrauens, nur mit diesem können wir hier arbeiten. Alles andere wäre unpraktikabel und mW würde es auch kein Gericht fordern (wobei man bei Richtern nie sagen kann, was denen morgen einfällt und alles übermorgen wieder verworfen wird, wie ich aus meiner Praxis bestätigen kann). SG, Asurnipal (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wir schweifen ab. Wenn Du in einem Museum z.B. ein Gemälde von einem Maler, der 1960 verstorben ist, fotografierst, wird das hier gelöscht, egal ob Du eine Berechtigung hattest im Musuem zu fotografieren, denn Du benötigt die Freigabe der Erben des Malers, außer der Maler hat die Urheberrechte an das Musuem vererbt und dieses kann es bei Commons:OTRS nachweisen. --Ju Ta 10:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nein JuTa, ich dachte nicht an moderne Kunst sondern zB was ich vor einigen Wochen fotografiert habe, prähistorische Münzen (sind noch nicht online) oder Plakate der Nazi-Diktatur aus dem 2. Weltkrieg und anderes. Und es war dies nur ein Beispiel dafür, dass es nicht darum geht, als WP-ianer alles an Eventualitäten bei einer Freigabe zu berücksichtigen, sondern, dass es reicht, wenn jemand die Genehmigung gibt. Und genau dies ist hier der Fall bei einem Foto, bei dem die Erben dieses Nutzungsrecht weitergeben und das Bild selbst nachweislich mehr als 95 Jahre alt ist. Die Erben sagen, wir haben das Recht und wir geben dieses an WP weiter. Und damit ist kein WP-ianer verpflichtet, nachzuprüfen, ob sie tatsächlich dieses Recht haben, oder es nur glauben zu haben oder ob sie tatsächlich schwindeln und es nicht haben. Das Vertrauen darauf reicht. Selbst mit einer Freigabe auf dem allseits bekannten Formular an das OTRS-Team wäre nicht mehr dokumentiert. Auch dann wüssten niemand von uns, ob die Freigabe tatsächlich korrekt ist. Im Zivilrecht findest Du diesen immens wichtige Vertrauen unter dem Begriff Treu und Glauben. Ohne dieses Grundprinzip würde unser Rechtssystem nicht funktionieren und das wird auch von den Gerichten seit Jahrhunderten anerkannt (gabe es schon im Römischen Recht). Doch es ist ja egal, das Bild ist gelöscht und wird es auch bleiben, den Verlust hat WP. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ich glaub da liegst Du falsch, das würde auch auf de: nicht so durchgehen. Dann könnte man fast jede URV durchwinken, denn der Hochlader hat ja behauptet er hätte die Rechte... Mit den Nazi-Plakaten ist das übrigens auch nicht so klar. Der Plaket-Urheber kann durchaus ge- oder benannt sein und bis nach 1949 gelebt haben. Dann sind diese eben doch noch geschützt, wie in meinem Beidpiel mit dem Gemalde oben. Gruß --Ju Ta 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Ауховцы (тайп аккой).jpg

The photo was left. Source on file page!--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

hmm, "family archive" is a very weak source, but I restored it oow. --Ju Ta 09:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Julia Lockheart, Goldsmiths and Swansea College of Art, taken by Paul Duerinckxn.jpg

Hi, do you know what happened to this photo, please?

Julia Lockheart uploaded it and mistakenly claimed it as her own work (since the author had given her full permission to use it). It was actually taken by Paul Duerinckxn, and was deleted, then temporarily undeleted, and finally deleted for lack of permission since April 2020. I was led to believe that the author, Paul Duerinckxn, had sent permission to OTRS (?).

Many thanks, Esowteric (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it was received beginning of May but nor confirmed by Commons:OTRS for more than a month later. By that reason I deleted it and of July. Please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard what might have been missing in this case. The Ticket number was 2020050410007421. --Ju Ta 10:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks a lot. Esowteric (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo Basinia Shulman

Dear JuTa, Thank you for your message on the copyright status of the photo of Shulman. As far as I know accoring to the Rules the owner of rights for the photo wrote an e-mail on July, 31 but unfortunately at the moment the owner did not get any answer. Let me copy the text of the email here:
>>> begin email
Helllo!

I hereby affirm that I, Basinia Shulman, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Басиния_Шульман.jpg You can also find it on my web-site: https://basia.ru/media/photo/shopen-zhorzh-sand/

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Basinia Shulman 2020-07-31
>>> end email

The owner also got an automatic response to this email. I also copy it here:
>>> begin email
[Ticket#2020073110006671] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Info)
31.07.2020, 18:41, "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>:

Dear basia@basia.ru, Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later. If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2020073110006671].

Yours sincerely, The Volunteer Response Team