User talk:Kameraad Pjotr/Archive2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

As this is a multilingual project, you are free to post questions or comments in any possible language. However, please take this points into account when using a language:

  • Questions in Dutch and English will be answered in Dutch or English.
  • Questions in French may be asked, but if I don't understand it, I will make use of the infamous Google Translate Tool, thus some nuances might get lost. I will reply in English.
  • Questions in any other language (be it German, Klingon or Valarin) will be channelled through the infamous Google Translate Tool, and thus I will only grasp the most obvious remarks and miserably fail to see any of the nuances in your comment. I will reply in English.
  • Important: I read everything you post here, but it can take some time before you get a reply.
  • Archives are here, here, here, here and here.

Sorry to see you go[edit]

Thanks for the work you have done here. Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks and sorry. :( --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go, thanks for all the help you have provided while you were here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of admin bit[edit]

You reverted the request almost immediately after you placed it. Was it a mistake and the bit should not have been removed? -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I placed the request before I checked whether I had any protected pages in my Userspace. This is not the case, so the removal is OK. 94.110.123.131 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, thanks for the quick clarification. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see you back[edit]

Glad to have you back again, keep up the good work! Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) ...and you should get the bit back ASAP Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) it would be convenient :D, but that is not for me to decide. I might reapply though ;) not this couple of days perhaps, as I'm rather busy in real life ;). Kameraad Pjotr 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You gave up the tools by your own request and "in good standing", just drop a note at any 'crats talk and they'll put the bit back :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that truly policy? I know something like it exists at en:, but I'm not aware of it at commons: Kameraad Pjotr 08:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find where (if) it's written down, but that's the way things have been done around here anyway. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes, that has been similarly practiced in the past. And I'm also happy to see you back. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - post on the 'crat board. I only got admin back a week or so ago in the same way. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for having "deceived" you in this - I honestly was sure this would be uncontroversial as per previous self-resignations, but it appears I've been AGF'ing the current Commons-community too much. I'm more disappointed about the behaviour of certain editors right now than I ever was about the whole Jimbo-mess (and that says a bit), but that's my problem I guess... Again, apologies for having talked you into this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's not your fault ;) Kameraad Pjotr 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you should be able to get it back with a request. From reading of the situation, I do not think that you "left under a cloud" with the meaning that would prevent you getting your tools back. There was no serious request for a desysop that was pending that you avoided by ducking out for a while. So, I hope that the community decides to return your tools so that healing can occur. Take care FloNight♥♥♥ 19:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up, by the way. 82.11.39.166 01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr, could you take a look at this question/comment and eventually talk to Jappalang. --Túrelio (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I uploaded it again ... in the first season of Falcon Crest the Logo isn't computer-generated. It's drawn and consists of simple shapes without shades. Please check youtube-videos of the first seasons intro for further reference.

I'm sorry, but what image are you discussing? Kameraad Pjotr 17:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the Logo of the Falcon Crest-TV-series in the Wikipedia-Article about that show. You deleted it, because you wondered if it was just a simple drawing in that show's intro. I drew it with Adobe Illustrator some years ago to match the original logo. It's back in Commons again ...

Hello,
I'm afraid this version of the logo will have to be deleted as well. Although you made the image yourself, it is still a derivative work of the original, and is as such still copyrighted by the original author. More information can be found at the Image casebook.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proficiat[edit]

Proficiat terug als admin; en nu niet meer opnieuw jeugdig oververhit raken... --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Admin[edit]

Thanks for your support.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well--DieBuche (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:07 Censu Tabone.jpg[edit]

Dear Kameraad Pjotr, I think you may have extended too much good faith in regards to this image. The enwiki uploader was indefinitely blocked last year, for repeated and unrepentant copyright violations. The image was supposedly originally taken from http://www.president.gov.mt/default%20pages/official%20photos1.JPG, and while the uploader (Chrisgill) claimed that there was an OTRS release I have searched and been unable to find it (or any of the other 30+ that are similar and now deleted). - Peripitus (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I wasn't aware of the previous history at en:, the image has now been deleted and I apologise for the inconvenience.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 13:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - Peripitus (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request[edit]

Can you undelete this file please? If not, can it be a temporary undeleted so that it can be uploaded to wikipedia? This file was used by WikiProject Star Trek prior to deletion and was useful. Thank You --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let me know when you have finished transferring it to wikipedia. Kameraad Pjotr 14:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Transfer complete [1]. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for answering. :-) Greetings, Carbenium (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:VirtualBox-ja.png[edit]

The logos left are most likely even free (included in Ubuntu), but you should probably delete the older revisions, as they feature non-free logos and de minimis would not apply when the infringing material can easily be removed (as has been done here). –Tryphon☂ 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for saying. Kameraad Pjotr 18:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That was fast! Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request[edit]

Can you undelete this file please? I don't understand why was deleted, because it always has been my work. Thanks.--Uncle Frank (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
You stated on the image description page that the image was "scanned from the original", which lead me to assume that it was a simple scan from an image from another author, which makes it a copyright violation. If it isn't, but it is a scan of a picture you have taken, I will off course undelete the image and change the description accordingly.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, it is a HP scan of an old photo (analog) taken by me, in any case, thank you very much.--Uncle Frank (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, image has been restored. Sorry for the trouble. Kameraad Pjotr 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radswiki[edit]

I see you are closing deletion requests, such as File:Pooh-film.jpg, which have been merged into Commons:Deletion_requests/Radswiki. Sorry I didn't redirect the old ones to the new one. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know that. (The fact that I closed the others ones should not mean they should be excluded from the new DR). Kameraad Pjotr 17:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Василівська церква. Пер. пол. 20 ст..png[edit]

You deleted a file by setting unreasonably stupid question. Reply to him contained in an earlier discussion.

Hello,
The image was deleted because you didn't provide enough information (e.g. page, photo credit) and that it seemed very suspicious that this image was from the "early 1900s" without more information.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for check[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr, I saw you have OTRS access. Could you please check whether the images uploaded by Arjun024 are compliant with the given license/OTRS ticket? The permission note says images have to be checked individually. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have no longer access to OTRS (but that was apparently not updated). Kameraad Pjotr 12:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed you from the list on meta. I had asked you because I see you around here sometimes so I thought you would reply timely, thanks. :) Hekerui (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan's coin[edit]

Coins ond banknotes in the Czech Republic are protected by copyright, PD is not applicable here. I have deleted the image, again. --Zirland (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely PD-ineligible can be applied here? I don't think the image passes the threshold of originality, as it simply a number on a coin, and the photo of the coin is free (as it is Turkmenistan's own work). Kameraad Pjotr 17:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why three?[edit]

Re this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your comment. It has been corrected. Kameraad Pjotr 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But now I noticed that you deleted File:Ausbreitungroemischesreich.png, which had a link to demis.nl for the map. I cannot see the file, and it was hardly used, but I wonder a bit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no source for the blank map that was used as a base for the image. Kameraad Pjotr 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a link to demis.nl for that. Sorry for repeating myself like this, but I do not understand your answer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There was nowhere stated where the map came from, and indeed there was a link to demis.nl, but I interpreted that as being a link to the program he used to make the map. Without some kind of link to the base map used for this image, there is no way to confirm or refute the PD-claim made by the author and thus I deleted the image. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The program of Demis contains coordinates. Commons has lots of maps that depend on Demis - compare also {{Demis-pd}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. Image has been undeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungarian Naval Flags[edit]

Sorry but what about this, this, this, this and this sources?. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
You should discuss that issue at the talk page, and only after reaching consensus reupload another version (or not). The fact I protected the page was to stop the edit war and force both of you to discuss your issues at the talk page, instead of edit-warring.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 07:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Lslovexeogi[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr. You closed the DR as deleted, but the files are still there. BTW: IMHO File:LogoTWIP.svg could be kept using {{PD-shape}}. --Leyo 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, must have missed it. Thanks for saying. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Timoc.jpg file[edit]

According to records it seems that you have deleted the Timic.jpg file. What I am objecting to is the reason: a reproduction of copyrighted material. This is totally untrue and contrary to the copyright laws to all countries. Would you please indicate whose copyright I have violated? Please be so kind and study copyright laws regarding maps before you take such action. This is a total abuse as it has no legal justification at all. Afil (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
You have stated that you made these maps based on other maps. However it has clearly been shown that you have scanned a map from somewhere else and added extra information to it. This means your new work is a derivative work of that map, and unless you can prove that the original map is out of copyright (USSR/Russia: 70y pma), your new work violates the copyright of the original map. The database right is irrelevant here, as you have scanned the map and added new information to this scan, instead of simply using the information provided on the map. More information can be found at the Image casebook.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are rushing to conclusions.
1. The map presents the rivers of the Timoc river basin. The course of the rivers has not changed in the last century. It is presented in the Austro-Hungarian maps printed in 1900. If you want to consider my map a derivative, then it logically is a derivative of the oldest map presenting the same information. Why do you select only the Russian one a source for the derivatives.
2. The Russian map has been produced by the General Staff of the Soviet Army, which, at the time was a government organization. The Russian legislation indicated that official documents are not copyrightable. Why do you consider that I violate a copyright of a map which is copyright free.
3. All copyright legislation indicates that only original works can be the object of copyright. I do not have information about other countries, but both in the USA and Germany, the cases which have discussed the matter of the copyright of maps have reached the conclusion that facts, such as geographic data are not the object of copyright. In principle, a derivative work can only refer to the information which is the object of copyright. For instance, I may use the old Austro-Hungarian map as the base of my new map. If I use a new map to check the names of localities and change the way they are spelled, even if the new map is subject to copyright the names of the localities are not and such a change cannot be considered including elements from copyrighted maps. This actually applies to any geographic information which is not scanned but added visually from another map.
4. Producing maps is considerably more complex than scanning an existing map and modifying it. The information in Image casebook simply outlines principles but does not and cannot cover all the problems related to the production of maps.
What I object to is deleting the map without even considering these points. They could have been discussed, before rushing to delete the file. Unfortunately this is not the only of my files which has been deleted, most of them without any discussion. This seems rather arbitrary, at least because I do not know of what wrongdoing I am accused of, I have not been given the oportunity to answer to these accusations and I am deprived of the possibility of presenting the result of my work. This is extremely unfair.

Regards Afil (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to raise the problem again, but according to Commons:Undeletion requests I am supposed to try to reach an understanding with the administrator who has deleted a file.
You indicate that my map a derivative of a copyrighted map. The map which you refer to has been purchased from Mapstore, whose site specifically indicated that the maps are NOT subject to copyright. I cannot understand where you take your information that the map is copyrighted. What other proof do you want when the supplier indicates that the map is copyright free.

I am really trying to reach an understanding with you. Afil (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your messagge. However, you did not answer my previous question which is simple: Why do you consider that a derivative work of a non-ccpyright protected map is a copyviolation?
In the present case, according to the recommendations, I am attempting to understand you, before posting the undeletion request. Because it leads to another country: Is it right, as administator, to delete files under unproven pretenses? I understand that you have done this taking into account accusations posted by Pieter Kuiper.

However, I consider it to have been your duty to check if they were true or not.Afil (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I'm sorry for the delay in answering your questions, but I have been busy in real life the last couple of days.
I have deleted you maps because there were some serious questions. The most important is whether you have made your map by tracing one or more maps or if you simply used the information and created a new map, with no tracing done whatsoever. During the deletion request it appeared that you had scanned a map and merely added new information to it. This new map is a derivative work of the original and requires permission from the original copyright owner.
It is true that in some countries the information on a map is protected by the database right; but a map itself is a work of art and is copyrighted.
The speedy-deletions were done in accordance with the policy that clearly states that previously deleted images may not be uploaded again, unless there is clear consensus.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I would however make a difference between the Timok river map and the others (Afinetu.png and others). I understand your concerns about the Timok river map and working to try to provide an explanation to all the questions raised. In any case, the map is not simply scanned and all the lines have been traced. I am willing to provide you with a copy of the original map, which fortunately I have so that you can compare the maps. But for the time being, just to be on the safe side, I have requested the providers of the map for the permission. I am still waiting for their reply. I might discuss the matter again later, after I get the answers which seem to take time. Things sometimes are not so fast in Russia.
What I object to is the generalization of the objections. While the Timok river is in Serbia, the other rivers are located in Romania. What I tried to explain to Pieter Kuiper, who is my main critic, is that from 1959 to 1964 I worked as project manager for the General Development Plan of the Siret River Basin and for the General Development Plan of Romania's Water Resources, being consequently in charge of the implementation of the plan at the national level till 1978. As part of this assignment I coordinated the preparation of the detailed maps of all river basins, which we thereafter used and sometimes, if required updated, in our planning exercise. According to the present Copyright Law of Romania, as coordinator of a collective work I am the copyright holder of these maps. I used those maps for the maps which were submitted to Wikicommons. (It could also be argued that according to the Romanian Law, there exists a 15 years long database right, which has expired; this would not change the problem as, in this case I would anyway be allowed to use the maps). While I did modify the maps, by changing the type of representation (rivers were drawn thicker than normal, similarly to the proceduce of drawing thicker roads on road maps) the geographic information is mainly the same. I did however check with other maps and non graphic sources, to verify that there were no major errors in what I was doing, in checking the name of villages (some have disappeared, some have been changed), to check the names of the rivers with the ones in the official data base of the country and also looked at the satellite maps in Wikimapia to see if there were no major structures such as dams or major modifications of the river course. There were none in the maps presented, but if there were I would have added by hand the modifications. I am not a kid, I am nearly 80 years old and am not making up a story. I have difficulties of understanding what other permission I have to provide, when I released myself the maps under GNU license. I have submitted the release to ORTC for these maps and have received a confirmation that they have received my submission. In their answer they asked some questions but indicated that there seemed to be no need to refer the matter to them. Anyway, as they are working on the case I had therefore added the ORTS pending tag to the files before their deletion. I would welcome your help in solving this question. Afil (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide evidence of both, than there is no reason to keep the images deleted. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again. The problem of the Romanian maps has been solved by OTRS. They have undeleted the files. Anyway, thank you for your advice and guidance.
As far as the Timok.png file is concerned, I can present the maps and definitely have retraced the lines. However the issue was the issue of copyright. While the supplier of the maps indicated that they are copyright free, he also limited the allowed use of the maps. In order to solve the dispute, I have contacted the supplier and requested the permission to use it on my map which I e-mailed so that he could know exactly what I had done. The permission has been posted on the undeletion page. I hope that in this way even the last undeletion request has no more problems.Afil (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


logo60anos[edit]

Dear Kameraad; Could You help me to sent the logo of 60s Years of Rotary Club Tijuca, Please?

Hello,
I'm sorry, but I cannot send you that logo, as I have no idea what it is. If your question is related to using Wikimedia Commons, you could ask your question at the Help desk.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr[edit]

I understand that you are active in closing Deletion Requests. Brittsuza has been open since May 2nd, has gathered 3 delete votes and no keep votes. I would like you to close the request as soon as possible. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I'm sorry, but the backlog for deletion requests (both DR and others) is so large I only close those that have been open for the longest time (March for DR's), thus it will have to wait a couple of months if nobody else closes it.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Category:Deletion requests February 2010 and earlier. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
F*ck. Why is it that the majority of people don't add their DR's to the DR-page? It's far worse than I thought... (Thanks for saying btw). Kameraad Pjotr 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request script does not always work. For me right now, some of the pages are generated in new browser windows in edit mode automatically, but I have to save them myself. This started happening a few weeks ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want this image back File:AKG K701.jpg[edit]

Picasa user Sotti may be guilty to publish copyright violations. But im sure this picture is from his private collection, depicting also his family and friends inside the same gallery. Take closer look at gallery "8 Proyect" and you will see, that this image is no copy violation. --Niabot (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
It seems that you are indeed right. It was the black background that made me think it was a copyvio. I have restored the image and I apologise for the problems.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (Someone should tell commonsdelinker to revert himself ;-) --Niabot (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:318259-partick.jpg[edit]

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:318259-partick.jpg, I am well aware that CC licenses are irrevocable. My point is that it isn't clear that this image was ever really released under a free licence. The image page on Wikipedia that the uploader provided can be seen below. They've used the {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} tag whilst linking to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/. I'd suggest it is sensible to adopt the precautionary principle and assume that their intention was to release it under CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 and since there wasn't the exact template to select they just selected the nearest one and linked to the licence they intended. To clarify, the image page below is as it was when the image was uploaded. The link wasn't added at a later date. Adambro (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

== Summary ==
 Citizen's Network (318 259) at Partick station on 16th October 2006. This is an example of a refurbished Class 318 EMU.

 Photo by Doctor Flange.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
 == Licensing ==
 {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}
Hello,
I didn't have access to the original description page, but with your new information, this image clearly has to be deleted, which I have don. I apologise for the problems.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

file name[edit]

You deleted File:Near Daejon, South Korea, 1950.jpg..[2] So I uploaded the same file, but I missed the file name. Could you repair it? [File:File-Bodo League Massacre at Daejon, South Korea, 1950.jpg]

Image has been moved to File:Bodo League Massacre at Daejon, South Korea, 1950.jpg. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker[edit]

Hallo Kameraad Pjotr. Ik zag dat je zojuist m.b.v. CommonsDelinker een afbeelding liet verwijderen op w:nl:USS Darlington (en vast vele andere plaatsen). Mij valt daarbij op dat de caption/onderschrift van de afbeelding wel blijft staan, maar op deze wijze geen zin heeft. Is het niet mogelijk dat CommonsDelinker dit veld ook leeghaalt, indien de afbeelding wordt verwijderd? Al kan ik me voorstellen dat het een probleem geeft, omdat het in een sjabloon zit ingebakken. Groet, Pompidom (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,
Ik denk dat het inderdaad aan het sjabloon ligt, maar veel meer weet ik niet over CommonsDelinker. Siebrand is degene die zich daarmee bezig houdt, dus ik zou het daar eens vragen.
Mvg, Kameraad Pjotr 10:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oke, dan klop ik even daar aan. Groet, Pompidom (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you have a look...[edit]

File:Persatuan Pandu Puteri Malaysia.svg-I don't know how to upload it to the Vietnamese Wiki, but it doesn't belong at Commons.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Upload? I wouldn't know otherwise, but I don't understand the language.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 11:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HenryCabotLodgeJr.jpg[edit]

Your decision must be some kind of a bad joke. Maybe we should erase all pictures on commons, we would have no sorrows anymore. Ridiculous, nothing but ridiculous. --Scooter (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I deleted the image because there was no reliable source that gave an indication of the first publication, thus it could not be verified when that first publication was and whether it had a copyright notice. If you can provide this kind of information, there is no reason why the image should be removed.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyciol[edit]

I posted at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections contest your unblock of Tyciol. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have three complaints in a row here. Hmmm.... — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert[edit]

Please explain why you reverted my edit here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0&action=historysubmit&diff=41047509&oldid=41047324 - I hope that you understand that these two maps are fictional without any background in history or geography. If you think otherwise, please conduct your own personal research about this subject and if you find proof that Serbia had these borders in any part of history you will have every right to include such maps into article. PANONIAN (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
There have been edit wars over that page, and simply removing images without a source is not recomended on controversial subjects. I do not want to get involved in this, but it looks like you and Srbonis were going to start another edit war, and thus I reverted you. If you can provide some reliable source, removal of this map is no problem.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not know how to provide source that would prove that one fictional map is really fictional. I have some published historical and geographical atlases of Serbia in my home, but I am not aware that such atlases are existing on the Internet. However, if somebody dispute accuracy of one map then it is up to uploader to prove that his map is accurate and based on facts (which is not the case with this map). His map is completelly fictional and it is same if we draw a map of United States of America without some eastern states that were part of USA from the beginning of its expansion towards west. In both cases, we would have fictional maps that are not reflecting accurate geographical or historical situations and therefore such maps do not belong into an encyclopaedic project. There is Wiki site for alternate histories where user:Serbonis can post his maps: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Also, if you want to inform yourself more about border of Serbia through the history, you should read articles about history of Serbia, history of Vojvodina and history of Kosovo, where you will see that modern borders of Serbia were established in 1945, when Serbia included 3 regions: Central Serbia, Vojvodina, and Kosovo, while due to the recent recognition of independent Kosovo by some countries, Serbian border presented in maps can also exclude Kosovo, but there is no historical or geographical background that Vojvodina is excluded from maps in that way since Vojvodina is an autonomous province of Serbia from 1945 and such status was not changed until the present day. PANONIAN (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the answers that user:Serbonis provided regarding these fictional maps (his answers are best proof that I am right): http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0&action=historysubmit&diff=41127071&oldid=41106735 ("This maps are representing Kosmet and Central Serbia tagged for some reasons") So, "tagged for some reasons"? Clearly, this user is unable to support his maps with any evidence and even he has no clear idea why he created them. Also see this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ATagged_Central_Serbia_Kosmet.PNG&action=historysubmit&diff=41126813&oldid=41047248 ("I need this to create Serbia with Republika Srpska, Republika Srpska Krajina and Crna Gora also tagged, with and without Kosovo and with and without Vojvodina") He basically said that he want to create more fictional maps where Serbia include some neighbouring countries. Clearly, we do not need further evidence about this user and his intentions to upload fictional maps into encyclopadic project (this would obviously damage Wikimedia project, since instead of useful and accurate files we would have fictional works because of which nobody would trust to this web site). And please also check other contributions of this user: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Srbonis - he already uploaded some other fictional maps that illustrating claims of some pseudo-historians that "ancient Serbs" lived in Iberia, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, etc. "Historians" who claiming such things are rejected by scientific community in Serbia itself and one of them (Jovan Deretić) even admitted that he making forgeries in order to support his nationalistic believes. PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kameraad Pjotr (de-adminship)[edit]

A request for your de-adminship has been made at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kameraad Pjotr (de-adminship), for your threats, incivility, and defiance of WMF policy in order to defend pedophiles' access on commons in addition to your support of a user who has constantly and consistently abused the request for deletion process to intimidate others oppose to both you and he. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Voorpl.jpg[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr, may I ask you to reconsider this case? You state simply that there is no FOP in the U.S. for sculptures. However, you failed to address my point that there exists an exception to this general rule in US law if a sculpture is permanently attached to a building. Please consider the case I've cited. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I will look into it a soon as I have returned from my wikibreak, which could take some time.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Do you have any evidence that the plate was on the building from the moment it was constructed? If you have, the exception can be applied here, if you haven't, it does not qualify for FOP and must remain deleted.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kameraad Pjotr, there is no requirement for the sculpture to be on the building from the moment it was constructed. It suffices that it is permanently attached to it. Please be refered to the cited case. And I also recommend to read this article about architectural copyright in the United States. See in particular the section Landmark Case beginning on p. 12. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
From reading the article you provided, it seems that the sculptural work must be "part of the architectural work". The question remains, whether the plate was indeed 'part of the architectural work', i.e. part of the building since the planning stage. If it was, FOP can be applied, if it wasn't, I'm afraid FOP cannot be used.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Kameraad Pjotr!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kameraad Pjotr/Archive1#Some speedy deletions[edit]

Please restore these images and a open a normal deletion request, if need be... You can´t speedydelete in such cases. Chaddy (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Those files were clear copyright violations, per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request), and can per SPEEDY deleted on sight.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 07:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please at least transfer them to German Wikipedia? Chaddy (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
They have been temporarily restored, so you can transfer them to the German Wikipedia. Let me know when you are ready.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks, Threats, and Incivility[edit]

Personal attacks, threats, and incivility such as that which you displayed in this edit will not be tolerated.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be called a paedophile advocate. Period. No more discussion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, I believe this was dealt with at the time - ie 10 days ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les Neuf de Little Rock.jpg[edit]

Greetings. I'm curious. What did you do to search for a copyright renewal? As far as I know, the only way to find out whether individual photographs have had their copyright renewed is to actually go to the Library of Congress and look at the deposit copy there. Is there now an easier way? If so, I'd like to know about it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I used http://www.copyright.gov/records/, but it seems that it does not contain copyright renewals, only registrations. Unless I find indications of the contrary, the file will have to be deleted.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, movie and book renewals are on line, but not photos, I think. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Ok, the image has been deleted now.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unknown-Socialist-Realism-bo47bw.jpg[edit]

I think that was wrong decision. OTRS ticket shows clearly that painters granted еxclusive rights to user Leningradartist and now it's his decision to publish them under free license. You should consult other OTRS agents or\and Cary Bass, but shouldn't decide yourself without looking through that ticket Rubin16 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Did the OTRS-ticket include some kind of (written) contract where was explicitly stated that the user had the exclusive right to license the picture as he saw fit? I strongly doubt it. And for legal issues, I much prefer the opinion of the legal counsel to that of the volunteer coordinator.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is included in ticket's attachments - agent can see scanned written contract with painter there like "name, passport No, address, etc. grants all exclusive rights for picture NNNN, year, to NNNN; signatures of parties and witness, date". That's why ticket is considered true although it's hard to believe. Rubin16 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that seems O.K (I didn't know that). I will undelete the picture shortly and change the closure of the DR.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cher ayatollah du copyright ![edit]

Vous avez supprimé deux photos d'un objet (Le christ de Zadkhine) bien national, référencés dans la base palissy du ministère des Monuments Historiques, en dépôt à la commune, sous prétexte que l'auteur n'était pas mort depuis assez longtemps. Ce qui soulève tout de même quelques questions :

1° - Pour remarquable qu'il soit, avant que je ne publie ces deux photos, qui connaissait l'existence de ce christ ?
2° - Corollaire : N'est-il pas de l'objet de votre encyclopédie de promouvoir la connaissance en général, et celle de Zadkhine en particulier ?
3° - Pourquoi, diantre, laisse-t-on pareil objet à la vue des fidèles, dans une église, sans autre mention qu'une maigre étiquette signalant le nom de l'auteur ?
4° - Ne devriez-vous pas écrire au Ministre de la Culture pour dénoncer ce méfait ?
5° - Et bien d'autre choses encore ...

Et donc je vous propose de supprimer toutes les photos des œuvres de Zadkhine, et même l'article de wikipédia pour faire bonne mesure ... Si vous le désirez je suis volontaire pour apposer le fameux bandeau violation du copyvio ... Trop rigolo ! ...
Finalement, par respect pour l'artiste, pour lequel j'ai fait un détour pour faire connaître son Christ, je préfère me replonger dans les délices de "L'esprit des lois." (Montesquieu, mort depuis assez longtemps pour que tout le monde puisse en savourer la lecture !) D Villafruela (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
In accordance with the French copyright law, copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. As those 70 years have not yet passed, this image is still protected by copyright and can only be used at Commons when the legal heirs of the artists license it under a free license, per the OTRS guidelines. This has, as far as I know, not happened and thus the image cannot be kept.
In some countries, such as Germany, there exists freedom of panorama, an exception to copyright that allows photographs of an otherwise protected work to be freely used, provided the work is in a public place. Some other restrictions may apply. France does not have such an exception, and therefore the image cannot be uploaded at Commons.
Kind regards,
Kameraad Pjotr 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesarchiv[edit]

File:Fabio_Luisi.jpg[edit]

File:Fabio_Luisi.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 ∙ +/−

Paulae (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you put the text of my deletion request through the infamous google translator: The pic was not put under a free license, but "just" under a somewhat vague license for press coverage. A free license would allow you to work with the file, crop it, change the colour etc. The license given on the webpage (which has been deleted in the meantime, I could only reactivate it with the help of archive.org) only said, that you can use it for free, if you meantion the photographer. It said nothing on the fact of editing, cropping etc. You can't assume, that this is also given. Therefore the nomination for deletion: Press licenses are (almost) never free licenses that can be used here. Greetings, --Paulae (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Please unblock Pieter Kuiper. See my comments here and here. Obelix (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad headquarters[edit]

Hi! I uploaded an image of the Etihad headquarters here because of en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_February_11#File:ETIHADHQ.jpg on the English Wikipedia. Even though the UAE does not have FOP, the discussion determined that the building is not original enough to be protected by the UAE copyright law.

Do you agree with this assessment? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I have not seen the image, so I cannot confirm that the building is not original enough. If it is indeed not original enough, it can be freely uploaded at commons, but it would be best practice to add a notice in the "permissions"-field that states that the building is not original enough to qualify for copyright protection.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - I'll do that with the Etihad building
In regards to File:Islamabad Trip - May 2009 124.jpg - this is another Emirates HQ pic.
If you believe the Emirates pic is original enough to be protected by the UAE copyright, would it be alright if you let me know ahead of time that it is going to be deleted? That way I'll move it to the English Wikipedia. Then it can be deleted.
Thank you,
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Before it is going to be deleted, someone will have to file a DR, but I'll let you know in advance if I see it is going to be deleted.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokedex-Deluxe-German.jpg[edit]

Hello. I wasn't active at Commons for a longer period, now I noticed that you deleted the image titled "Pokedex-Deluxe-German.jpg" (without notification). The image was already deleted along with "Pokedex-German.jpg" by another admin (without notifying me) back in 2008. But after I told about the issue in the village pump, they were restored for a regular deletion request, and both stayed. Can you explain why you deleted one of the two images again, and why not the other one? --Grandy02 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I deleted the image based on a strict understanding of derivative works, but it seems that Germany has a more free interpretation of "applied art", as per the deletion request, which I have missed. I have restored the image.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for restoring it. :-) --Grandy02 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:My Saint Anselm Ring 2010 (1).JPG[edit]

Hi, I made an undeletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1944 july 17 moscow german pow.jpg[edit]

Hi, I will make an undeletion request for this file. The soviet union is not equivalent with russia, so the question if PD-Ukraine is applicable or not was not solved. --Kl833x9 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cavalry_charge_by_the_Ottoman_army_in_the_Sinai.jpg[edit]

I made an undeletion request - definitely PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but in which country? It's PD in the US no doubt. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The country of origin does matter, and we don't know that one. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But any of the possibilities makes this PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2D-3D[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A149 1.jpg You eat a soup from a 2D-dish? Bon appetite! :-) And the logo on the right lower bottom say it is from ebay. The Uploader has some problematic pictures. --Fg68at de:Disk 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Indeed the dish is 3D, but it is my opinion that the drawing itself is a 2D-object, much in the same way that we consider a painting to be 2D, while it is in fact a 3D object.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing could be 2D.
  • a.) But this is a picture of a dish with the drawing. And the dish is 3D. You can make a picture of a plane white dish and it is 3D. Whatever the age of the dish is.
  • b.) The dish was made 1935 or later.
  • c.) User:Sendker did not make the picture. It is not his "own picture". He copied it from ebay. This say the camera-logo on the lower right side.
--Fg68at de:Disk 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail_of_cosmati_pavement,_San_Clemente,_Rome.png[edit]

Now that {{PD-Italy}} has been restored, this can be kept. Please undelete, I will withdraw my DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for mentioning. Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BMW Welt construction VGA.ogg[edit]

Hi There! sorry, maybe that was unclear. The deletion request was still open and I didn't want to close it and open it again. The images are from the uploader and uploader gave permission so that is not the problem. The problem is, that FOP does not include images which have been taken from an other building. Could you please modify the closure comment accordingly? Amada44  talk to me 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Film-poster12.jpg[edit]

Deleted for no good reason, see COM:UNDEL. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. At the bottom of the poster there is some text, and that could be a copyright notice. Unless someone can clarify, it should not be undeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now read that blue line - you were right. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guernsey One Pound.jpg[edit]

Greetings:

I certainly agree with deletion in this case, but I cannot resist pointing out that Guernsey is not in the United Kingdom. It is a Crown Dependency and like Jersey and the Isle of Man, has its own laws.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have clarified the DR. Kameraad Pjotr 17:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karol (piosenkarz turystyczny).JPG[edit]

Why delete? There are tens of thousands of completely uninteresting images on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but this one was requested for deletion, and nor the English, nor the Polish wikipedia had an article on this person, which makes it out of project scope.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, and I'm still not convinced that this file is realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just made it more difficult to write an article about this. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No article on any wikipedia, 6k google links; I'm not convinced this artist would be notable enough to be included in any wikipedia, so i see no reason why a picture of this artist would be within project scope. If you disagree, you are of course free to open a undeletion request, as you already know.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Are you convinced that all your uploads are in scope? Are all those pretty calender pictures that become "Featured pictures" in scope? Or all those CoA's? Or all those trains? Or all those weapon systems? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least most of them are of sufficient quality to be (partially) in scope. This picture is of poor quality, of a unknown artist that has no article on any wiki, nor does it appear it will have one that does not get deleted.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strippenkaart resized.JPG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Strippenkaart resized.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Strippenkaart 2.jpeg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of File:Aksum Flag.jpg[edit]

You deleted File:Aksum Flag.jpg by writing Deleted, fantasy flag, thus out of project scope In fact, there dozens of such fantasy flags which do not have any educational porpose, but in fact spread wrong informations. I requested deletions for some of the most obvious ones (some of them were even in use, mostly in smaller wikipedias), but this action only produced some annoyance, because "we have a lot of such flags", and all of them were kept. Is there a general policy concerning such images?--Antemister (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I believe that any fantasy flag (that has no historical bearing whatsoever) can be deleted in accordance with the project scope, but this is impossible when a file is used at a Wikipedia, per A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose.
In short, they are out of the scope of the project, unless they are used, in which case they are automatically in scope.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks for this Information. It means I have to remove all misleading uses in all languages, haven't I? And what about user pages? Have a look into that strange cat Category:Special or fictional flags--Antemister (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
All uses should be removed yes, but only after a thorough discussion on each project where it's used, as unilaterally removing images will probably get you blocked.
Using fictional flags on user pages is fine, and is no reason for deletion.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to block the use of such flags in articles, while allowing the to use of such private artwork only on user pages?--Antemister (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I'm afraid that would be overkill. Try to reach a consensus on a local wiki for the images to be removed from articles, and only then they can be deleted at commons. Kameraad Pjotr 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloaca Maxima 2.jpg[edit]

Strange decision to keep, and your motivation is too short to understand. Do you mean that OTRS permissions cannot ever be challenged? Even if they never were valid? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Off course OTRS permissions can be challenged, but this OTRS permission was valid when it was received, and in the spirit of assume good faith, it should remain valid. "We cannot keep changing the rules" as someone pointed out.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion that it was valid based on? Do you have access to the OTRS correspondence? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was accepted in 2006 as valid, and I have no access to the OTRS correspondence, but I trust the judgment of the OTRS volunteers. Kameraad Pjotr 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what we know is that uploader found this photo on a web site, asked for permission to use this image, and web site owner said that that was fine. But it seems that web site owner never gave a license, and that he never claimed to be the copyright owner. And in fact, the presence of this photo in higher resolution at other web sites suggests otherwise. The OTRS people goofed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I renominated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to propose that you do, perhaps this time the discussion will have a meaningful result. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdul Baha Abbas.jpg[edit]

Hello Kameraad_Pjotr, I ask you to reconsider your decision to delete the picture. The line of discussion was a keep. The main I think that your decision to delete this picture was not correct.

From the deletion discussion: (Picture) taken 1921 during a stay in Liverpool, UK. So we can assume that UK copyright is relevant since we do not have any other information on the picture.

The relevant rule applying UK law is than:

"If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or if during that period the work is made available to the public 70 years after that"

  • 70 Years after 1921 is 1991, so the copyright under UK law for this picture ended 1991.

The only voice that said that was pro deletion based this on a theorie, that it could have been published more than twenty years after taking the picture. But this is not verified by the user. If he comes back with prove of such, the picture could be deleted. But otherwise the rule stated above has to be used.

Please undelete the photo

Best regards Neozoon (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found in my library a book from 1928 which contains the said picture and all the indications about the rights for the picture you deleted, so I guess this information would be sufficient to examine, if it is possible to undelete the photo: The picture was not taken in 1921 as asserted above by several persons but already in 1912 (probabebly the last two figueres had be turned). The author/photographer was a certain A.C. Killius (who is evidently dead since many years). The picture was published in 1928 by the former National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'í of the United States and Canada (Copyrights 1928) in the USA in "Bahá'í World", Volume II, April 1926-April 1928. I do not know if this was the first publication, but a publication in 1928 is 82 years old ... - I guess that as the first (veryfied) publication happend in US (and not in the United Kingdom) US-law will be applicable. On the other hand I am nearly sure, that the NSA of the United States respectively the Bahá'í Publishing Trust at Wilmette, Illinois (which would be the copyright owner today, if there is still any copyright under US law) would give the permission for publication in the Wikipedia, if someone would ask them - or they will upload even a better version of the picture, as they evidently owns the original negative. I hope I could with this information help do give a solution of this probleme. So my recomandation would be, that one of the persons interested in this discussion would aks the Bahá'í Publishing Trust at Wilmette if they could upload this picture or a better copy to the Wikipedia with the correct license information. As my English is not very good, it would be better, if someone from America could do that. Best wishes DidiWeidmann (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add. If I understand well US copyright says that it expires after 95 years after first publication. That would in this case be 2023. So if I am not totally wrong the your delation unfortunately was correct. The way to go on would be now tho ask the copyright owner for permission as I recomendes above. DidiWeidmann (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I'm afraid undeleting it won't be that easy. From what DidiWeidmann has discovered, it would seem that the first publication was in the U.S., what indeed means that U.S.-copyrights apply. However, its status depends on whether it was published with a copyright notice (©) (see Commons:Copyright#United_States) and whether that copyright was ever renewed (around 1956). If it was published without a notice, or with a notice but not renewed, it is in the public domain. (Renewal status can be found here for books). Otherwise, it will not be in the public domain before 2023.
If it is not in the Public Domain, the only option is indeed to ask for permission.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gub Kharkiv ethnic 1897.jpg[edit]

The base map (of which almost nothing was visible) would have been {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the base map is {{PD-RusEmpire}}? I see nothing on the description page to confirm that.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1897? Nothing in the map suggests Soviet authorship, as far as I remember. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that refer to where the Kharkiv ethnic group was in 1897, not the date of the map. Kameraad Pjotr 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to show graphically the results of an 1897 census, you need a map with the administrative divisions of the period. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but where is the evidence that this is a map from 1897? Without some solid evidence, it cannot be undeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot even see the map, so how could I find evidence? But you, you just deleted this without any reason. What is the evidence for anything? Just delete the whole site - it would certainly be the most efficient way to get rid of all copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere on the map nor on the description page is there any evidence that this map is from 1897. And the rules clearly state that without evidence that a image can be used freely, they must be deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blablabla. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a great argument to make, but unfortunately not good enough to convince me that you are correct. Nevertheless, you know where you can ask to get a file undeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rheine-Beheimatungen-Auszug.png[edit]

File:Rheine-Beheimatungen-Auszug.png 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 ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the deletion of File:Access Shaft at Hill Road, West Island Line 1.jpg[edit]

Why does nobody notify me about the deletion request of this photo? I'm the original uploader.

Also, FYI, these can be deleted as well, according to the reason:

--Minghong (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I'm sorry nobody notified of you of the deletion request, usually that is the duty of the nominator, but it seems that he forgot to do it.
Thank you for providing the images, they have been deleted.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


User:Minghong left a message on my talk page, so here is my answer : on Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road banner Sun Yat-sen Memo Park re-open 06-26-2010.JPG I have nominated only one picture : File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road banner Sun Yat-sen Memo Park re-open 06-26-2010.JPG. What I said in answer to user:Bomsailame's question meant that my view was that File:Access Shaft at Hill Road, West Island Line 1.jpg should undergo a full formal nomination process, including warning the uploader. I expected either user:Bomsailame or anybody else to make the formal nomination including warning the uploader or that the File would remain online. I have not requested anything concerning File:MTR WIL (2).JPG, File:MTR WIL (4).JPG, or File:MTR KET (2).JPG. I am sorry for the ambiguity of my answer to user:Bomsailame. Teofilo (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dunlop_laarzen-1.jpg[edit]

File:Dunlop_laarzen-1.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 ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted?[edit]

On 22 november you decided to delete this image, but it is still there. Did you forget something? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was reuploaded yesterday, and has now been redeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 10:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr/Archive2&oldid=358261696"