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.
Surely publication before 1 January 1923 is only one of several reasons why an image might be in the public domain in the US. The PD-US template states that images are "often" PD because they were published before 1923, which implies that there could also be other reasons. But, as you have realised, I am inexperienced with PD Templates - thanks for tidying my uploads. BartBassist (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I know. But still Template:PD-US applies only for one kind of public domain reasons: Published in the U.S. before 1923. The rest is covered by different templates. --Martin H. (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
File Tagging File:VukasinGlavna.jpg
Hi! I need some help understanding how this permissions work. For one picture I am the author and the owner and I sent an email with permission. But for this second one (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VukasinGlavna.jpg) I am the owner but the author (photographer) is another. Can I send an email of permission or must he do it? Thank you very much! --Annna83 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It depends. The permission must come from the copyright holder. With the creation of the work the author is the copyright holder, copyright transfer (if possible in your country) requires (in most countries) a written form. Permission must come from the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much! I have the copyrights, I will send an email and I hope it will be ok. Thanks again! --Annna83 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I sent an email for both pictures that you tagged, I got the answer for the second mail that I sent after a day, but didn't get the answer for the first one, it has been 4 days. What should I do couse it says that picture may be deleted after 7 days. Should I send an email again or does not answering means that it will be deleted? Thank you very much! --Annna83 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm domicharmed..........sorry but I'm new on wikipedia.....
Can you help me on about these photo????
Yes, I can. This image is not freely licensed by the copyright holder, the copyright holder not gave everyone the permission to reuse the image for money making purposes. You can NOT upload this image here. --Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont understand you...I'am italian....
explain to me exactly what should I do if I want to publish?
hi!
i'm trying to insert the file File:San Rafael x8 Cordoba Spain.jpg.
It's my own work and I don't need any copyright, I prefer to left this pic to the public domain.
I don't know if I'm doing something wrong.
I will be thankful, if you help me with correcting my mistakes with the files I have downloaded. What shall be done? I will be thankful for your advice. Thank you in advance--Zara-arush (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be informed that the images of paintings relate to the painter, who died in 2005. The images of photographs are of a statesman, who died in 1999, and the photograps are of different language Wikipedia articles about the person. Tomorrow is his birthday, so I wanted to improve the article.--Zara-arush (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
regarding the painter: Yes, he died 2005 and his works will fall into the public domain on January 1 2076. Before this date you can NOT upload the images of his paintings here without the copyrigth holder (heirs) written permission on free reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial purposes. See Commons:First steps/License selection.
Is it permitted that I scan an image from a book and write the title of the book and other data? Or shall I find the heirs or the photographer that will take time, if I find them?--Zara-arush (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont find any references related to the death date of the photographer. We must know if his work is ok under Commons:Licensing, if he died >70 years ago. Also add the book name where you scanned it from or the website you copied it from. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Martin, you have questioned also the silk dress. Please see the conditions of use of the official site of the museum[1]: "You are welcome to use the information and the images for personal use and educational purposes in print or on the web. If you wish to use the information, images or our API for commercial purposes you must contact V&A Images".--Zara-arush (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No, not from this terms. Files must be either public domain for a valid and proofen reason from COM:L or they must be published by the copyright holder under a free license allowing everyone (not only private persons) to reuse the image everywhere for any purpose including commercial purposes (not only educational). See COM:PS#required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but why you delete my pics? They have the right license, and is not a copyright violation
You are not the copyright holder and you can not release the images into the public domain (means free of copyright, means the copyright holder waived all economic interests). --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Apology for Evanescence
You perform the work. I ask me to forgive.
Andrew3
mr. Martin H.
i understand that i made a mistake for the picture named RyanMartinie2005, however, the current picture on his wikipedia page and all pictures of warwick basses on Warwick (bass guitar) and Warwick Corvette pages are permitted by the very owner of the Warwick bass company, Mr. Hans-Peter Wilfer. A bot named Polaris (i think) said that they will be deleted in 7 days, but there is a permission. Can you please withdraw deletion of Warwick bass images on those two pages?
Thats not a bot, also Polaris is a user. Now, I wont take the {{No permission since}} tag away, this images missing evidence of permission. Permission must be given in written form by the copyright holder - not only that Wikipedia can reuse something or that it is allowed to upload something to Wikipedia, permission must be given that absolutely everyone can reuse the images freely everywhere, anytime, for every purpose including educational as well as commercial purposes and including modification of the work. Please provie a written permission from the copyright holder granting this free reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Shawn Wright
Sorry Martin, I forgot to realize the pic would go to multiple locations, I am boldly learning on the job, so to speak, it won't happen again, regards. I have uploaded it to en wiki here if you have any advice for me I would appreciate it, I only wanted to crop and insert the version into the Shawn White biography, any advice appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
you should upload it to Commons directly so other projects can use the cropped version too. Use "its a derivative from Commons" at Commons:Upload, thats a handy tool. Ignore that the tool says, you are not logged in, thats buggy. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Martin, next time I will try that, I did try the derivative tool but it was a bit misleading, tomorrow I will move the pic to commons. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. The tool is ok, it is only irritating that it says (at least it says me) that im not logged in. --Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Martin, here's my situation, maybe you can help me do this correctly.
I work for Stacy Keibler, assisting on her social media pages, and one of the things we are trying to do is add more recent and relevant photos to her Wiki page, with the understand that there's a purpose behind that and we aren't just doing whatever we feel like. But the main image of her is seven years old, and I have one from a red carpet last month that I want to replace it with, as well as a shot from 2005 of her just walking that I'd like to replace with a shot from Dancing With the Stars (there are no images from her on that show) ... and Stacy and her management team personally approved the images, and sent them to me to use and said they have rights to them.
So I tossed them on her Flickr page -- but I noticed you marked an image I posted last week through the same process that is on her page now as "missing info" because I obviously didn't do something correctly on her Flickr page with marking its licensing or something.
Anyway, I want to do this through proper channels and am willing to learn, but I don't know how to categorize images that were provided to me by Ms. Keibler's management team and authorized for her Flickr page so they are listed as common use.
I know they were provided to Stacy to use in her career promotion, so she has rights to them. But that's all I know, so any help in how I could mark these correctly would be appreciated. Thanks!
Carefull, there is an very important difference between "to use in her career promotion" and having copyrights on the images. It is quite commons that photographers give examples or some images to the model, but that does not give the model any right to reuse the image outside her own promotion. With uploading images here you not do only self-promotion, you must license the images under a free license so that everyone can reuse the image. And thats the difference, the photographer, the copyright holder maybe gave permission to the model to reuse the image, but they not agreed that everyone can reuse the image everywher, for every purpose under an perpetual free license allowing this, see the Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Every purpose includes everything, educational reuse by everyone as well as commercial reuse. Only the copyright holder can provide such a licensing, noone else. Copyright requires a written form.
So please provide a proper author name and please sent a written permission to COM:OTRS in which you 1) confirm that free reuse is granted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic, the license you selected, and that everyone can reuse the image for everything with attribution 2) describe the scenario of copyright transfer if you or your company not photographed it yourself. See also the information on your talk which is generated from the page Template:Image permission. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martin! I am checking back with Stacy's brand manager, who sent me the images, to see what rights they actually have and/or whether they have something from the photog/source saying the photos can be used by anyone at anytime. If she can't, I may have Stacy's people just take their own fresh images and send them to me, with the caveat that whatever they send me they will authorize to be free-use images. Thanks again for the explainer. If you could give me a couple more days on the photo I posted on the 27th while I wait to hear back, I'd appreciate it. ----- Sal
Can we keep the photo without cropping the logo? In this case, we should undo the crop and we the original photo --Edwod2001 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the photographic work is licensed under a free license and any non-free third party content is de-minimis. Upload it under a different, descriptive filename, the name File:Logo Medellin.jpg for the photo would be inappropriate. --Martin H. (talk)
yes, i totally agree with u, but i don't want to put the too good quality of my work on the internet; only a lawer quality version; that's why i asked you; and i don't know how do to do :(--Herzog123 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I do this with pain, its a quality loss for Commons. I hope your contributions in future will fill the gap ;) Maybe you can contribute the high quality in future if you think your economic interests (I think thats why you withhold the full size) have disappeared. --Martin H. (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Las fotos de tarata son fotos de mi propiedad cuando yo trabaje en tarata, no entiendo como ustede se basa en que son copiadas o de otra propiedad, esto simpre pasa en wikipedia pero yo le pido verificar bien, porque estas fotos son tomasdas con mi camara canon
Saludos
David Rendon
Leito3000
Strange posting
now you missuse even our antarctic krill macrophotography. That was one of the first on WIKIPEDIA. We allowed 591 pixel. If you block user:uwe kils any longer without any reason we will contact jimbo and suggest that you are banned, There is no reason to think the account is compromised, we even showed you his greencard == Euphausia (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Guten Abend, liebe Wikifreund. Ich habe dieses "oops" gemacht, aber darum bin Ichauch entschuldigt, ne? Ich bin Anfaenger und habe erst Mal Photo-editation gemacht.Dass ist mein original authorised Photo,Ich bin Author, bitte gib es mal nach Allgemeine Commons, nicht "mirnichts-dirnichts" alle raus aus Platz,ne? Ich danke dir, Ich erwarte Hilfe, nicht deine "zum Teufel" sprache, byebye--Zajac Vanka (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
?????? Was hat denn 1) dein Upload mit meinen "zum T..." in der Diskussion mit Uwe zu tun? Zweitens hast du File:MediaWiki-Upload-link-Commons-customized.png überschrieben welches in über 20 Hilfsseiten auf Commons in Verwendung ist! Das wurde selbstverständlich rückgängig gemacht. Wie genau kann ich dir helfen? How can I help you? --Martin H. (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Additional:from you understanding and correct interpretion of "zum T.." in the above, unrelated posting, I think you understand german, anyhow I dont really understand your writing. --Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Foto de Giuntapenal1989
haber... que lo que tengo que poner para que en esta nefasta wikipedia no me borren una foto??? me podes explicar porque la verdad no entiendo... espero una respuesta --Axel1995 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
For the old image you must provide correct magazine name and date of magazin (source) and if know photographer name (author). More recent scans can not be uploaded here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Orden und Co
Hallo! Die Uploads von KolesnikovEO sind doch alle irgendwo geklaut: Hintergrund entfernt -> „own work“. --Polarlys (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Gebe ich dir volkommen recht was die Orden betrifft. Dazu kommt noch, dass er Bilder von Irgendwo mit irgendwelchen willkürlichen Lizenzbausteinen hochlädt die ihm gerade so über den Weg laufen. --Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and a question
Hi Martin and thanks for improving the resolution on the HAER photo I uploaded of the United Iron Works Machine Shop in Alameda, CA. How did you go about changing the resolution of the photo? The resolution I used is as I got it when I downloaded it from the HABS/HAER website and I did some cropping and enhancing of the photo on Photoshop.com. But I don't know how to change the resolution. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Download the original .tiff file, make your edits (cropping, maybe collor or light corrections) to the .tiff and then save it as a .jpg. Editing the .tiff file is looseless, but once you saved the file as .jpg any more editing is, in most graphic programs, lossy editing because the jpg is again compressed when saved. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This picture has not gotten permission OTRS urgent need to give me permission I have permission from the author of the photo material information is in the photo I need permission before they erase me please.--Josedm (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you want to do with them? You can download them, watch them, categorize them, edit or improve them. --Martin H. (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks & answer about "Edgar Hoover" & "Shibumi"
Hello Martin H.
Thanks you for your 2OIO-02-19 messages (which I just discovered today) about
a small photo of Edgar Hoover shot when he was about 25 years old. I clipped it out of a french TV-newspaper ("TV Grandes Chaînes'" , N°152) which was advertising a documentary about Hoover to be delivered on "'TV Arte". I thought it might be interesting, since we have many photos of that historic character dead many years ago, but very few shot in his youth, when he was beginning his ascension.
a scanner view of the 1980 issued Ballantines papercover book “Shibumi”. As it is 29 years old, represented no special artwork (drawing or photo), and moreover is quite hard to find nowadays, I thought it could be shown in Wikipedia without problems. If you think we absolutely need their authorization, I can e-mail to Ballantines editions.
BTW : since you seem to handle very well Wikipedia tools (which I don’t at all) , could you tell me how I can answer to an IP who (on the 21st of february) erased half of my introduction on “Shibumi (book)”on WP:en, under the motives “subjective opinion. And not true”.
Hm, you should add the source information directly to the files, not to my talkpage.
You can use the IPs talkpage, depending on the ISP (provide) the IP changes from time to time, so maybe he will not read it. So use the articles talkpage, explain your changes and restore them. --Martin H. (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The photographs are derivative of non-free product packaging as I explained on your talkpage, the photograph was directly of the packaging and not de minimis. There wasnt any doubt about your photographs, or did I said anything like that? --Martin H. (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but thats the opposite of what Commons is looking for. Wikimedia projects are free content projects, every content on Wikimedia projects is free to reuse by everyone, everywhere, anytime, perpetually, for every purpose including commercial reuse and modification under a free license allowing this. See Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms as well as nearly all pages listed in Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
JuanCarlosChirinos.jpg: image of myself I uploaded
Hola,
la foto JuanCarlosChirinos.jpg de la que me piden permisos me pertenece a mí, porque es una foto de mí mismo tomada con mi cámara. No sé qué permisos he de darme a mí mismo para usar una foto de mñi mismo que además la tomé yo y es mía. Les agradeceré me lo digan a la brevdad posible,
The name of the photographer and copyright holder of File:Jared - Into the Wild.jpg is publicly available, so you may consider to upload the image writing this author information (Photography...) in the author field and indicating for the previous publications in the other versions field as requested in the upload form. Then we can look if everything is ok or not. I dont really believe you, sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The image was published elsewhere with a different licensing, one that not allows for reuse especially not for free reuse including commercial reuse by everyone. Also it was published with a different author name. And it was published in larger size. Also the image in exactly that low resolution and small size was distributed via the depicted persons twitter. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Agradeço pela preocupação em manter a boa qualidade das imagens na Wikimedia. Como solicitado, fiz a correção das fontes das imagens do Sport Club do Recife, que antes estavam definidas com o nome do clube. Observei realmente que se tratava de um erro a ser corrigido, e urgentemente, o fiz.
Espero ter sanado o problema.
Abraço!
-
Hello friend!
I appreciate the concern for preserving the quality of images on the media. As requested, I made the correction of the sources of images of Sport Club of Recife, which were previously defined with the name of the club. Really noticed it was a mistake to be corrected, and urgently, I did.
I have remedied the problem.
Abraço!
Userwiki (talk) 00h52min de 10 de março de 2010 (UTC)
I have a doubt
Hi Martin,
Giorgio writing. You are a very expert Commons user and, about myself, I'm just trying to help the project categorizing pictures here in Commons. As you do. But I have still to learn a lot. That's the reason I'm asking you. This morning I was working on the last uploaded pictures without category and I have found this one reviewed by you [3]. My lack of knowledge in licenses and permissions needs a strong learning process so better to ask you. My doubt is: the uploader seems to be the author of the picture and, as source, he has put "own work". So, how it is that the picture is missing "essential source information"? Is something related to license? Or it is in the picture itself? I'm really puzzled. Thank you for your time and your attention. Happy to work and to learn with you --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You are missing that the file is widely available on the Internet; tineye finds several versions. The image show base jumper de:Felix Baumgartner shortly before his jump off the statue on December 7, 1999. Since the image has been published previously elsewhere, we would need proof that the uploader is indeed the copyright owner, sent by e-mail to our OTRS team. But that uploader is very unlikely to be in a position to produce such proof because he himself just grabbed the image somewhere off the internet. It's just one of the usual copyvio uploads.I would have tagged it as "missing permission", if I thought there was a chance that the uploader might produce proof of ownership of the copyrights, or in this case, as a copyright violation eligible for speedy deletion right away. Lupo12:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Compare the other uploads by Billy joy, its clear. The images are all not own work, so a correct source is missing. The other option would be to search for the images, but thats takes time and I think its a waste of time. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Tomo Milicevic
Sorry, but I don't understand why you delete my photo. I took the photos of Jared and Tomo during the concert at Wembley Arena in the UK. Can you explain me where do you see a copyright violation?--Unwish (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really don't understand you. Unwish
Hey, I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not Italian so explain me the reason (Unwish)--95.247.183.6222:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
1) You are a sockpuppet, you are blocked for that reason on it.wp. 2) I not said you here and on this project that you are a sock, so whats your question? 3) You are from Italy, but also thats nothing I asked you or "accused" you. The only thing I detect, see above, that the band 30 seconds to mars was target of some criminal behaviour in the past here on Commons, you pointed me to that problems, but now I cleaned all the stolen images out. --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Damn, what are you talking about. Your account is a single user login for all projects, your account is blocked on it.wp for socking and you are close to receiving the same block here on Commons. Stop trolling. I have no problems with mistakes, but I really hate people lying. Although I not bothered you with this problem you have on it.wp, its not my problem. You started talking about it, unasked and unwanted. --Martin H. (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks ok - but the "own work" is again a blatant lie! So no, it is not ok. You can not steal other peoples photographs and claim them your "own work". Thats completely inacceptable. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ayuda, por favor!
No entiendo y me equivoco. Disculpas. Y perdón si mi pregunta es de una total ignorancia. Subí una nueva versión del archivo Ushuaia SPOT 1264.jpg, pero no era mi intención anular la versión original, sino agregar una versión nueva. Quiero revertir lo que hice, y necesito que me expliques cómo hacer para subir una versión diferente de un archivo y que queden las dos imágenes. Muchas gracias! Saludos. --Cari TDF (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Go to the file and klick on revert (es: revertier)
2) Upload the file under a different filename, go to Commons:Upload and select the 3rd option 'a derivative work of a file from Commons' (es: un trabajo derivado de otro ya existente en Commons).
note: The tool has an error, if you are logged in you are logged in, ignore that the tool shows your IP.
Hi Martin, if I restored was not because of the troll request but because I did a careful reading of your words in the noticeboard. Therefore, and according to your message, I'll delete again. Best regards --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo10:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Much work of course, thank you. Ill do the block in smaller steps, to much at one time. Also I always find new (old) accounts. He was active since 2007, so there is an immense number of copyvio accounts. Virtually every media in es:Category:Localidades de Andalucía is copyright violation. :( --Martin H. (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if the source images are correctly attributed and the author is indicated we can keep the maps, the rest will be deleted, maybe one week is short, I will not spent my whole time on this one abuser. I already had some examples where he did it correctly, its questionable why he not always indicate source and author. Same with the coats of arms, own work is always incorrect. Photos get deleted on sight, they are obviously wrong. Its sad, but he completely failed to understand what this project is about. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No quiero inmiscuirme en vuestros asuntos, pero os confieso que debe haber cerca de 100 cuentas distintas. Me da vergüenza decirlo, pero cada vez que subía una imagen creaba una cuenta diferente, usando cualquier nombre que se me venía a la cabeza; ni siquiera yo mismo me acuerdo de los nombres de la mitad de los usuarios que creé. En fin, borradlo todo, excepto los mapas de localización. Ya se acabaron los Gabri, Vegg, Patricia (que es el nombre de mi mujer, por cierto), Iliberri (antiguo nombre de Granada), Satesclop (apodo de un amigo mío), Carlos, Luises, Franciscos, Joses, Germanes, etc, etc, etc. 79.153.125.8613:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Still the maps must be fixed. It might be simple to fix them with tools like AWB if the base map is always the same. However, from that information I not learned more than I already know, to resolve the problem and if you not yourself know the account names more information is required. I suspect your edits in es:Categoría:Localidades de Andalucía, mainly in es:Categoría:Localidades de la provincia de Granada, with this information it should be possible to identify the accounts by checking images used in this category. --Martin H. (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
At the time of creation of the derivative the original file was licensed only GFDL. Regulary the GFDL reuqires the version history, but with a link... forget this version histories here I think, too much work.
The obvious sockpuppet of PANONIAN was created exactly at a time when sockpupeteer PANONIAN was blocked for 1 day on march 10. A few hours after PANONIAN's block, the sockpuppet is created and reverts exactly the same edits as PANONIAN was blocked for. Including on the Atlas of World War II [5]. Reverting to the same version PANONIAN did. Please block the sockpuppet indefinitely and the sockpuppet master as well, PANONIAN. Thank you for your assistance regarding this CheckUser request. The sockpuppet even mentions PANONIAN in this edit "page edited by panonian is more balanced"VízPart (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I already noted that from the user creation log and was about to post at the COM:AN/U section. However, you may have noted that this turned a private conflict and it seems that noone is interested to resolve, mediate or even comment the conflict. Regretably me too, I dont have the insight (nor the interest) to help here. But of course, I see the abuse as I saw it already yesterday, I will complete the checkuser request and report if he is related or not. Others may care about the rest. --Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No technical evidences, so from a technical viewpoint I say: No. Besides Im worried about PANONIANs edit behaviour, he is much using ips for editing. On 1 account edit he is doing >2 IP edits, thats not forbidden I think, but it is not very reliable. --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
To me it is crystal clear that it is him, his intent is apparant in the same reverts, during when he was blocked he did it either through sock or meat puppet based on the behavioural evidence. But one more thing could be found out with the CheckUser. What he is trying to do here he tries to act with his sockpuppet as if it is from Slovakia. He named it SlovenskoSlovakom, he writes on user page "I'm ethnic slovak" etc etc, to try to put the sockpuppet investigators on a false path. Is the sockpuppet really from Slovakia or is the "Slovak" Sockpuppet also editing from Serbia possibly from the same city as PANONIAN. Thank you for at least looking at this case. That's more anybody has done as of yet. VízPart (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is very interesting that an user whose nickname was created only 5 days ago is accusing me for sockpuppetry (not to mention that User:VízPart has too good knowledge of Wiki rules, and other things related to this web site - I mean how one new user like him can know for sockpuppetry checking?). It is obvious that User:VízPart himself is a sockpuppet of some kind, although I cannot figure who his sockpuppet master is. As for user:SlovenskoSlovákom, that is not me, but I would lie if I say that I do not know who he is. I notified this person about nationalistic anti-Slovak actions of User:VízPart in this web site, so he decided to be involved in this question. Of course, I only notified that user about the problem, but his actions are his own choice and I cannot be held responsible for them. As for the question that I edit articles while not logged in, I do that exactly because of the same problems I had in the past with sockpuppets that track my edits and disrupt my work like User:VízPart is doing. I already appealed to the admins about this problem, but there was no any responce: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:V.C3.ADzPart Although, I cannot figure out for sure is this account named User:VízPart created with goal to disrupt my own work or he only conducting personal revenge against me because I reverted his nationalistic edits in 2 atlases. His edits are indeed nationalistic and tendentious and it is not surprise that my Slovak friend is concerned about these edits as well. PANONIAN (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Answering VizPart: Both edit from the same country, I can not say they are from the same region but I can also not say they are not. As I said before: Im not interested in this, I cant resolve it or mediate it and so I will not give further answer here nor respond at COM:AN/U. The only advice is to please keep IP edits at a minimum, and please dont make controversial edits via IP. --Martin H. (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, user:SlovenskoSlovákom does not claim on his page that he is from Slovakia, he only claim that he is ethnic Slovak, but he is from Serbia, of course (as I said, I know this person from one other place). As for my IP edits, I hope that you also saw that they are mostly categorizations of images and that sort of stuff - I am using my user name when I am dealing with more controversial subjects, thought. PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, most of the edits are categorization work. Would be better to do this logged in, then you can use the hotcat gadget ;) --Martin H. (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not see why there would be a problem that somebody is a Slovak from Serbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks_in_Serbia - I do not see that User:SlovenskoSlovákom claimed on his page that he is from Slovakia. Also, why the hell he would wrotte on his page "I'm from Serbia and PANONIAN told me to edit war"? All users are free to reveal info they choose on their pages (I choosed not to reveal anything on my own). However, the question what an user revealed about himself is not an excuse for somebody to vandalize his page. PANONIAN (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The sockpuppet is very clear from the timing. Appears exactly when PANONIAN is blocked, edits exactly the same things as PANONIAN what more do you want, lol? Martin saw this already in his first response he wrote "I already noted that from the user creation log and was about to post at the COM:AN/U section. ... But of course, I see the abuse as I saw it already yesterday,...". So he and I saw the same thing. A new sockpuppet appear during the block of PANONIAN continuing the SAME edit war of PANONIAN. Blocks are not allowed to be evaded or sockpuppets used in this manner. VízPart (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see user:SlovenskoSlovákom edits exactly same pages as you, VízPart. As for time in which this user appeared, I already explained that and there is no need to repeat myself. If there is a proof that user:SlovenskoSlovákom is my sockpuppet then admins should block both of us and if there is no such proof you should not vandalize pages of other users, it is simple as that. PANONIAN (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You think it is allowed to evade your block using another account? Even if it were true and it is a meatpuppet you should still be blocked. Do you think that this is allowed? Don't you think blocks become meaningless if you are allowed to evade them immidiately through a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? But this case is clear the sockpuppet acted as if he is from Slovakia, but he is from SERBIA, where YOU are, where YOU operate this sockpuppet. If it were from Slovakia it would be a meatpuppet, a friend of yours it would be still forbidden, as you can't use other people to edit on your behalf telling them what to revert, where to revert, when to create an accout etc etc. So you both need to be blocked, but the sockpuppeting is clear. When you were blocked the sockpuppet appeared and started reverting the same articles as you reverted before. What you got blocked for reverting. After this sockpuppet you didn't revert, you let the sockpuppet revert. This is all very weak and transparent. And everyone will know that you use sockpuppets for harassment of others and intimidation. VízPart (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Another proof is that PANONIAN says his block is not a problem. OF COURSE it is not when there is a sockpuppet immidiately appearing to do the reverts, and dirty work. OF COURSE the block is not a problem for him as he can create an unlimited supply of sockpuppets. VízPart (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
VizPart, the account creation on Commons and the direct way to this talkpages is strange, but my initial idea of sockpuppetry was based on nothing but this. There is no proofe. So stop talking here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- :OK, I will continue the investigation trying to find someone with lot of free time to waste :) to deal with it. In any case this most recent thread was opened by him I just responded to his posts. I will try refrain from posting here if he and his "friends" do the same. Thanks anyway for your help so far, I appreciate it. It was very important info to me that both are from Serbia and not from Slovakia. VízPart (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And stop forumshoping! I deleted your copy&pasted Checkuser request. The case is answered here, so no need to open a new platform. --Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect before you said "As I said before: Im not interested in this, I cant resolve it or mediate it and so I will not give further answer here nor respond at COM:AN/U. " Im not interested in this I cant resolve it or mediate it did you reconsider this or I should have posted a different venue, not the checkuser. I unterstand that you can't resolve it but I need this resolved. Where can I turn? VízPart (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And first I couldn't find where CheckUser requests go I could only find a list of CheckUsers, so I picked you from the list to ask for help, and later I found where the requests should be filed. You are right that I don't need a new CU request so soon I just wanted an admin to look at it to continue the sockpuppet case as I collect more and more evidence every hour there is new evidence. Is there a sockpuppet investigation that is not checkuser but where evidence based on edits and others can be presented? VízPart (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I answered your checkuser question, so no need to open a second topic at RFCU and especially not to simply copy&paste half of my posting and filling a checkuser request in a form that suggest it was originally asked at COM:RFCU and that I posted something at a result there. The reuslt was written here, the result is: Not related. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes you are absolutely right I'm not an expert on how to do it, I just pasted because I didn't want to hide your findings, and to note that I dont need a new check just some admin to continue helping/mediating with the case. VízPart (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but thats already opened at COM:AN/U. And the longer the postings get the less users are interested to jump in. Also: There was no finding here. You use a "behavioural filter" (you think someone who joins a discussion assisting PANONIAN is a sockpuppet) and I use my filter to check new users contributions. Both our filters might be wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
File TheBaseballs.jpg
Hallo Martin H., ich weiss jetzt nicht genau was ich machen soll :-( Ich hab' eine Email vom Marketing Manager der Warner Music Group (der hat mir das Bild der Baseballs zugesendet), dass ich dieses Bild für den Artikel verwenden kann. Was soll ich denn jetzt mit der Mail machen? Grüße --Ewald (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Closed the deletion request and deleted the tagged page. Good to see that we share the same opinion, not fruitful to talk about such bad uploaders. --Martin H. (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Chace Watson et al
Hi Martin, I noticed that you had dealt with Chace Watson (talk·contribs) and his socks here at commons; at least 2 of his socks have now appeared at en:wp uploading copyvio images etc. for en:Corbin Bleu and related articles. Any insight you have regarding these socks would, I'm sure, be appreciated at the sock investigation there. Thanks. Wine Guy (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I do 95 % of Polish Wikipedia strongman sport data. I uploade my new pictures almost every day, so I chek out if there are any new in there, to use them. That's all.
Artur
You are invited to comment at that page. The evidences are not only base on the inclusion but also some other similarities. So much attention to such a small topic by so many users is extremly uncommon, thats not a coincidence. --Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I had a third look on it and extended my evidences in the checkuser page. In case you did anything wrong I would much appreciate if you simply say so, let us remove everything wrong and continue with good work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have copied a disclaimer from the source which reads "Перепечатка материалов приветствуется. При перепечатке гиперссылка на «Завтра» обязательна.", meaning that readers are free to reproduce the material therein, provided that «Завтра» (i.e. Zavtra) is mentioned as the source. Does that qualify? Missionary (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
No, thats fair use permission, something you can read on many newspaper homepages. Commercial reuse might be restricted, giving the image to others is restricted to and modification is restricted. --Martin H. (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I sourced my photo
I have properly sourced my photo of LTC R.L. Wolverton as my own. Why am I being told that it is not? --SWolverton
I didn't know my own meant you had to have photographed it. The photo belongs to me. What am I to do now? Wait a second, though. If you're assuming the original photographer is dead, then why is the copyright status a problem??? SWolverton -March 16, 2010
Re:Artur Andrzej
Hello Martin, thank you for your message. I've had a closer look at Artur Andrzej's contributions at the Commons and at the Polish Wikipedia and all that I can say about him is 1) he is not very able to communicate, neither in English nor in Polish (link), 2) he is indeed a huge fan of the Strongman series (he has stated this by himself in Polish) and the video-like-screenshots may have been created by himself, 3) he is not very knowledgeable in copyright (hence the problems with him believing Strongman tickets & leaflets are not subject of copyright), 3) he seems not to be easy to reach (no userpage either in English or Polish). I'll try to contact him at the Polish wiki, as he seems to be editing it actively today. I'll inform you if I know anything or I'll post it at the CU page. Best, odder (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
could you give me a link to upload pictures to Wikipedia so i can upload DVD covers to use it one English Wikipedia because i tried so much in http://commons.wikimedia.org and it's all copyrighted i want to simply upload it locally but The action is limited to Auto-confirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users. any tips would be great ...thanks for an advance ?
--Josephero (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You can not upload them to Commons. If you want to upload something to your local wikipedia (ar.wp?) You have to read their local rules. --Martin H. (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Archive box and Files
Hello Matrtin, i want to ask how can i make a archive box and I don't know what is wrong with my files to be deleted. If you can help me, would be fine. Thanks in advance, Abasin (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the images: They where deleted for the reasons stated in the deletion log. I ask you NOT to copy any images from other websites and claim them your own work as you did with this. Commons can not accept those images. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The first is a work and not pd-ineligible, it requires a correct copyright tag. The second and third require written permission from the copyright holder. Permission must be granted not only for Wikipedia but for everyone to reuse the image(s) everywhere, any time, for any purpose including money making purposes under the terms of a free license or (released into the public domain) without any restrictions or requriement. Also this photographs are NOT {{PD-ineligible}}, they are not too simple for copyright, see Commons:Licensing#Simple_design. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment about comment on commons Admin noticeboard.
This is to clarify my complaint. Tiptoety's comment on the OTRS Noticeboard was missleading when he said that I wanted OTRS to comit copyright vios. Not true the e-mail that was sent like I said was from Stanley J. Anderson and I would stop any such things from happening.
Hello Martin,
How can I add a source information for my .jpg file ?
I am not used to the Wikipedia syntax ;)
Best regards, --Lhistorien (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Good morning Martin,
I updated the source of Le Général Louis Kreitmann en 1879.jpg, can you check if it's ok ?
Best regards.--Lhistorien (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I missed this question. No, the author was clearly not correct, the person is inside the image and is not the photographer, if an author is unknown then write that he is unknown, dont switch to fiction. Did you created this reproduction yourself? Or is it taken from any website? Do you have any archival refference from that museum? --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of NPP pictures
Thanks for the notice on my talk page of the deletion of some Nuclear Power Plants. In addition to those you posted about, there are a large number of other pictures, see User talk:Theanphibian#List of NPP pictures deleted. It is my belief that these were probably deleted due to a miss-communication and they are in fact public domain.
It was stated on all of the pictures that they came from the Nuclear Regulator Commission (US agency) reading room. This piece of information may or may not be enough to justify PD, but the pictures themselves also noted Courtesy of "some company name", which the admins took to mean that the pictures were property of a company and thus not PD. I sent a communication to the webmaster to ask what they think, but it's beyond me how a picture that the US government is hosting can be taken to be a company's property. Theanphibian (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I not deleted this images but opened deletion requests on every single image - after I searched for the correct source information you not provided, you only wrote "author NRC", which was clearly not the correct source information. see Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/02/03#File:San_Onofre_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg downwards. The images are clearly not fulfill the {{PD-USGov}} they had, the are not created by an employee of the U.S. government during this persons official duties. Besides that the images are not free by law the reuse is also 1) not covered by the websites terms, see http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/disclaimer.html (Permission to reproduce any copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained from the original source.) 2) likely it is not possible for the nrc to grant any permission as they are not the creator and likely not the right holder. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I mixed this up. Most images I requestd for deletion where uploaded by someone else with this insufficient information. I have nothing or not much to do with the list on your talkpage, I opened individual requests for all images after I carefully seareched and researched on them. Your list is related to much older requests - but well, if the reason for deletion is correct the case is the same as my requests. This imags are clearly not PD-USGov and not free by any evidence. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
John H. Rothermel photograph
The picture was purchased on eBay. We estimate that the picture was taken about 1890.
Then please update the source information on author (who is the photographer) and source - or what you researched on source and author. --Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned this out, also the author information on the other images where incomplete or nonsense, so the otrs pending, if added, was added wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Why you Will delete my uploads?
Dear Martin H. Greetings!
Recently i have received an email from you stating that you are going to delete some of the pictures that i have uploaded in the wikimedia commons. I want to know what exactly you want me to do in order not to have these pictures deleted. If you want to know about the source of the files. i have stated. I am the owner of some old magazines and newspapers from Afghanistan .some of them are over 50 years old and i use the pictures from these newspapers and magazines as a source to provide extra information and information about some personalities which belong to my country. I use their pictures to make the biography of these personalities much more informative and colourful. I thought if i upload it in wikimedia commons then the pictures would be easily accessable in other wikis. but since you are constantly warning to delete my pictures. This is really annoying. I would like you to delete alle the pictures that i have uploaded. and then i will not ever upload any files in wikicommons. So now its all in your hands what you guys want to do. You know that in my homeland Afghanistan we dont have a proper copyright law. There are still new laws being made and the parliment is discussing to accept or deny the proposed laws. So you should consider this as well in wikimedia commons. unless somebody doesnt claim the ownership of a file or media, so i think you should not delete those media files.
See your talkpage for all information. You wrote a statement " wikimedia commons for wikipedia and other scholarly use", thats not ok on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The posters and the actor's photo were removed by your user. I am the owner of those images. How could I get them back on their Wikipedia entries?
Thank you for your attention.
Owner of the photographs or owner of all copyrights and eligible to provide free licensensing so that everyone can reuse the images for every purpose including commercial reuse by your permission? --Martin H. (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats not a release under a free license nor a permission for modification of the images, so not free enough. Also: We already had this discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
User Rafawl
Hello Martin H. can you please check files uploaded by this user? He has already uploaded files, that were deleted due to copyright violation. And he has recently uploaded some more, writing they're his own work, although one of them is dated from 1938 (which is not impossible, but very suspect, IMO). I tried to find the source for some of recent photos, but i couldn't. Thanks, Ednei amaral (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser-Unterseiten
Tag Martin, könntest du als Checkuser mal hier vorbeigucken? Da es dabei ja hauptsächlich um Checkuser-Angelegenheiten geht, wäre es gut, die Meinung von mehreren zu hören. Danke, --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Da geht es mehr um Seitenverschiebungsangelegenheiten als um Checkuser. Damit habe ich keine Erfahrung, würde ich nicht alle Verlinkungen zerstören? --Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Por favor ruego una nueva oportunidad.
Estimado señor Martin:
Soy el User talk:Pimpoyar. Le ruego por favor, antes de actuar, me deje explicarme para poder evaluar objetivamente la oportunidad que le pido.
1.- En primer lugar YA ADMITÍ, y sigo admitiendo que me equivoqué en Commons, al interpretar que las fotos que están en internet, concretamente en Flickr, son públicas. Ya reconocí mi error y ello me supuso el bloqueo inmediato en Commons y también en Wikipedia, así como los sucesivos por títere durante un año.
2.- Desde aquel incidente no he vuelto a subir fotos que no sean mías, ya que la lección fue CONTUNDENTE. Sin estando sigo enganchado a la Wikipedia, y por ello sigo subiendo MIS FOTOS Y MAPAS para poder ilustrar los artículos, POR FAVOR no vea en ello UNA OFENSA O RETO hacia su persona, sino la simple necesidad de ilustrar los artículos que edito. En mi intento, he investigado todas las fotos correctamente licenciadas, para canalizar de forma regular las distintas subidas; pero todo ha sido en vano ya que lo que se veta es mi participación. Debo aclarar que en el proceso, a veces, se ha bloqueado a terceras personas que nada tenían que ver conmigo, o incluso a personas, que sí que tienen relación conmigo, y tan solo pretendían ayudarme subiendo sus fotos.
3.- Su confidente, tiene un interés claro desde que empecé a editar en Wikipedia (2007), de eliminarme ya que, entre mis aportaciones, hay algunos artículos relacionados con el descubrimiento, que difieren, a veces, de su punto de vista “palos-teista”, y por ello cada vez que edito uno de estos artículo me denuncia cobardemente, en vez de intentar dialogar y consensuar, para ejemplo un botón (Discusión M Alonso Pinzón). Esa forma de actuar es generalizada con todos los wikipedistas, lo que explica por qué ha tenido que solicitar la protección de su página de discusión. En su momento utilizó mi gran error para eliminarme, y ahora aprovecha de aquella circunstancia para continuar haciéndolo, a pesar de saber que las fotos/mapas subidos son míos. Él trabaja en Moguer , y puede contrastar que coincide con el estado actual de los elementos que fotografio, pero obviamente lo que le interesa es eliminar las voces discordantes y para ello utiliza su mayor experiencia y los medios que Wikipedia le brinda.
Estos son los precedentes en mi contra, pero le ruego por favor que valore mi enganche a la Wikipedia desde el punto de vista positivo. Desde 2007 he creado o participado en un total de 67 artículos consiguiendo que algunos sean reconocidos como artículos buenos y destacados. POR FAVOR VALORE MI TRABAJO Y DEDICACIÓN y deme una oportunidad, al fin y al cabo usted tiene la sartén por el mango, si en el futuro observa cualquier irregularidad siempre podrá bloquearme. Por la cuenta que me tiene, aprovecharé la última oportunidad y no le defraudaré. Al fin y al cabo, en democracia, hasta los condenados tienen la posibilidad de rehabilitarse.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.239.114.231 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont understand spanish, so I only understand half of your text and maybe I understand it wrong. However, I just blocked nine sockpuppets of you! If you not call this abuse I dont know. This is abuse, you tried flickrwashing, you created tons of sockpuppet accounts in the past... So no. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I only speak a little English. Please request a new opportunity. See my contribution to Wikipedia from a positive point of view. Since 2007, I have created or participated in a total of 67 articles, and that some are recognized as good and featured articles. Please see my work and DEDICATION and me an opportunity, in the end, after you have the pan for the handle, looking in the future any irregularity always allows you to block me.
I saw your good work, the more bad that you ignored copyright with the images you used in this article. And not one year ago but just a few days ago. So no. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sir, the photos are mine. When them went up directly were deleted, so I looked for example photos uploaded legally and found the alternative Flickr. Create Lk5555 to check if this path were were not deleted, but eventually you the delete also as titere.
We call this flickr washing. You tried to launder (blanqueo, lavado de imagens) your images through flickr. Jmfd, you are blocked here and you will not be unblocked. Creating 9(!) new sockpuppet accounts within a short time of 2-3 months is not an improvement. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I am User:Pimpoyar. I plead with you, before you take any action, to let me explain myself so you can objectively evaluate the chance I'm asking for.
1. Firstly I ALREADY ADMITTED, and am still admitting I messed up on Commons, by interpeting all photos on the Internet, and specifically Flickr, are public. I already recognized my error and for that I received an immediate block on Commons and also on Wikipedia, and my successive (accounts) for sockpuppetry for more than a year.
2. Since that incident I have not returned to uploading photos that are not mine, the lesson was so forceful (resounding). Since I'm still hooked on Wikipedia, for that reason I keep uploading MY PHOTOS AND MAPS to be able to illustrate articles, please don't see this as a an offense or a challenge to your person, just the simple necessity of illustrating the articles I edit. In my attempt (or intent), I have investigated all correctly licensed photos, to channelize in a normal manner different uploads, but everything has been in vain since what you are vetoing is my participation. I should make clear that the process, sometimes has blocked third parties that had nothing to do with me, or people who, if they did have a relationship with me, were only pretending to help me upload their photos.
3. Your informant, since I started editing Wikipedia (2007), has a vested (clear) interest in eliminating me since, among my contributions, there are some articles related to the discovery, that are different, from his "palos-teista" (palo means board or timber, teista means theist, unsure how to translate this) viewpoint, and for this every time I edit one of these articles he cowardly denounces me, instead of engaging in dialog and consensus, for example a button Discusión M Alonso Pinzón). That form of acting is generalized among with (towards) all Wikipedians, which explains why he's had to ask for protection for his talk page. In his moment he utilized my great error to eliminate me, and is even now taking advantage of that circumstance to keep doing it, despite knowing that the photos/maps uploaded are mine. He works in Moguer, and can contrast what coincides with the current state of the elements I photograph, but obviously what interests him is eliminating opposing voices and towards that end he's using his greater experience and the means that Wikipedia provides him.
These are the precedents against me, but I plead with you please value my hook on Wikipedia from a positive viewpoint. Since 2007 I have created or participated in a total of 67 articles bringing about that some are recognized as good or featured articles. PLEASE VALUE MY WORK AND DEDICATION and give me a chance (opportunity), in the end you have the frying pan by the handle, if in the future you observe and irregularity you can always block me. For the faith (account) you have in me, I will take advantage of this last chance and I will not betray (defraud) you. In the end, en a democracy, even the condemned have a possibility of rehabilitation.
De nada. Dice Martin que hace apenas tienes 9 titeres, y que sigues con la violacion de copyright hace apenas algunos dias, y que lo que subiste de Flickr fue de tu propia cuenta y que no da ninguna oportunidad porque nada mas sigues violando copyright. -Nard the Bard20:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation. With point 3 you are mistaken, I found this myself, not from any informant. The removal of User:Jmfd images tooke me a hell of time, see User:Martin H./Jmfd (ok, you cant see it, but anyone admin can), I observerd the same bad things again with your recent uploads by, again, NINE sockpuppets, recent sockpuppets. I dont do the same work again, images by you will be deleted, you are blocked on Commons and given the recent abuse you will stay blocked. Im not interested in what you do on es.wikipedia.org, this is commons.wikimedia.org, your behaviour here counts. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Gracias por traducir. Con lo del punto 3 eres equivocado, de eso me entere yo solo, no desde cualquier confidente. Eliminar todas las imagenes de User:Jmfd duro un monton de tiempo, vease User:Martin H./Jmfd (bueno, no lo puedes ver, pero un sysop si lo puede), observe las mismas malas cosas con lo tus subidas recientes con, de nuevo, NUEVE titeres, titeres recients. No hago trabajo doble, las imagenes suyas seran eliminadas, esta ud. bloqueado en Commons y dado el abuso reciente se mantendra bloqueado. No me interesa lo que pasa en es.wikipedia.org, esto es commons.wikimedia.org, su comportamiento aqui es lo que cuenta. -Nard the Bard20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Justo eso es lo que no entiendo, si las fotos son mias ¿como violo el copyright?. El bloqueo inicial estaba justificado en las 12 fotos que subí de Flickr, pero desde entonces las fotos subidas son mias. Incluso las he vuelto a hacer con fecha reciente pero nada se me borraban. Yo pensaba que las eliminaban porque los usuarios con las que las subian eran titeres de jmfd. Por favor traduzca Sr Nard.
Just this I do not understand, if the photos are mine how am I violating copyright? The initial block was justified in the 12 photos I uploaded from Flickr, but since then the uploaded photos are mine. Including the ones I have uploaded again with a recent date but they were all erased on me. I thought they were eliminated because the users that uploaded them were sockpuppets of jmfd. Please translate Mr Nard. -Nard the Bard20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone who do (or wants to do) correct things here would not create so many sockpuppet accounts. Also on your flickr account there are still stolen images [6][7]. You not do correct things and you not want to do correct thinks. eod. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Pues tiene usted razón, esa pertenece a las fotos que originaron este problema, pero yo pensaba que era una mas de las que hice en Montemayor. Como tiene la razón le pido disculpas por hacerle perder el tiempo y me callo de una vez. LO SIENTO y entiendo que me bloquee. Olvide mi solicitud.
(Because you are right, that belongs to photos that originated this problem but I thought that it was one over which I did in Montemayor. As it is the reason I apologise for wasting the time and I callus once. I'm sorry and I understand that I block. Forget my request, but if you have something else you detected please tell me. You should be spoken before with you and we avoided work both.) Gracias por la traducción Sr. Nard the Bard
Album art
Hey Martin, I noticed that you deleted my Album Art due to copyright violation, I created this from scratch in Adobe Photoshop, and I believe that I should be using a {{FAL}} for the copyright, but I am not so experienced in understanding these processes, I even read about the licenses, I have not cared enough to get licensing for it as it's not that important to me if people use and abuse my art. :D What should I do do allow the upload?
Hi Martin. I want ask you something about that OTRS permission: that permission says: "This image is taken from the Presidency of the Nation of Argentina web site, in accordance with the copyright licensing internally logged as OTRS ticket 2007042610015988." that site is http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ but all pictures are hosted in casarosada.gov.ar. Not in presidencia.gov.ar. Are both domains permitted? Alakasam (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, im not an OTRS volunteer. Please ask at COM:OTRS. Note however, that at some points this websites are chained together (based on two tests, not more). Everything you can reach from casarosada.gov.ar you can also reach from presidencia.gov:
Hi, Mi name is Pablo Espinoza, and I manage all the Las Capitalinas official sites on the web, the File:7622 142968919641 621724641 2436968 2919567 n.jpg is taken by the official photograph of the band, Miguel Angel Viera Soto, who told me I can upload that or any image taken by him, and the File:10845 209822413766 12721378766 4056736 3510378 n.jpg is the official logotype of the band, and is owned by the band.
Now, I know there's a reason to delete those files, but I want to know how can I upload them again without "violating the copyright", wich is kind of strange because I can upload the official photos and images of the band, and I'm in fact a member of the band, and part of my job is to manage the official sites of the band, but I am stil violating the rights wich of that band I am part of.
Finally, I ask your guideance to upload those and other files right, because I don't know how to get a license of something I own, and don't know how can I violate the rights I'm part of. Thanks.
The images are not originals but copy&pasted from facebook. Forward the copyright holders written permission to COM:OTRS - see information there or at Commons:Permission and, if permission is sufficient and allows everyone to reuse the photographs everywhere, for any purpose, they will be restored. Please provide originals and not facebook copies. --Martin H. (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I followed the request for speedy deletion by other, in this case User:East718 (who was also named as the author). I also deleted File:ChrisArreola.jpg and File:ArreolaVsMcCline.jpg, also both on East718's requests and having him as an author and saying, that the OTRS permission is invalid. However, the later two also have an statement Photo by Bret Newton and a link, see the log, so given your insight maybe the deletion was wrong? Im confused now. From readin the template I see, that this is strongly related to User_talk:Eusebius#argh. Ask Eusebius and East718. --Martin H. (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I just chimed in because I replied to a question regarding this image on the OTRS volunteer board. If you deem the deletion okay, I won't ask further - I have no own interest in this case. I just thought you would want to know about the content of the OTRS ticket. Seeing the talk at Eusebius', the deletion might even be correct... hard to tell after deletion ;) Let's say it was and close this case. Thanks for your reply. --Guandalug (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt East718s requests, he was the original uploader of all three files at en.wp 123. Anyway, if permission for the flickr images come through we will have better images soon. This where relatively small from the website. --Martin H. (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks again, this time for the cleanup on the Anne Spencer house entry and the Danville warehouse one as well. Hope all is well on your end. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding {{subst:npd}} to it is appropriate, it requires written permission frm the organziation that everyone can use the logo. --Martin H. (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
File:VNIIGAZ Shebelinka.jpg
Hello, Martin!
We`re PR department of the VNIIGAZ, we got a lot of images to improve contribution to wikipedia of VNIIGAZ. Please, give us an explanation or advice on how to treat this notification.
Do we need separate license for each image? Tell me, what sort of licensing is the most suitable for us? We r researching institute
Vniigaz smi (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I attempted one change based one some new URLs that works for some images but doesn't work for your example and I reverted until a better solution can be found. I personally think we should complain, those URLs were advertised as being archival URLs, there's got to be lots of off site users who were also assuming those URLs would last. -Nard the Bard23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate that new design, everything is extremly small and hard to read, the most unimportant things on the site are the largests (the items for photographs, data pages, photo captions), the most important information - reference numbers - are the smallest. Thats stupid, 1/3 of the page is vasted for nothing. However, it looks like for HABS/HEAR/HALS the old digital id e.g. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.al0666 (with the "hhh.al0666" as id) have been vanished and is not longer listed at the source as a digital id. All the links still work, and redirect to http://loc.gov/pictures/item/al0666/. "hhh" was the HABS/HEAR/HALS, dont know what with other LoC collections. We should ask what to do at the Template talk:LOC-image or another centralized discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Mbs1 (talk·contribs) uploaded three pictures here and then added them to article Bogotá on the English Wikipedia. Just like Jumamuba, David1588, and Mark2220. The "source" of his uploads is skyscrapercity.com, a forum that Jumamuba has copied his pictures from. And, according to SUL he has visited the Spanish Wikipedia while logged in, just like Jumamuba (although has not made any edits there yet). PleaseStand(talk)02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, thats a new Colombian copyviouploader. From all I know ssc is popular among latin american users, dont know why. --Martin H. (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hello, could you revise the contributions of the user Rosol17 (talk·contribs)? I think that all his uploads are copied from other websites, such as this, copied from here. It's obvious that they weren't taken by him. Regards, AgustínAny question?es-wiki03:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)PD: If you want to answer me, please do it on my talk page, thank you.
The two files of Wilma Goich and Lauretta Masiero are not copyrighted. I have done both photos when I was young in the sixties and seventies. I was then a semi-professional photographer. Regards.--Spalatino (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Odd chat with someone who is not saying the truth. I overreact somewhat.
I don't understand why you don't even allow me to explain something and ...zap...you erase everything. This is unbelievable. I can show you my "credentials" of semi-professional photographer and even send you the negatives of those two photos. Yes, the originals you are showing are mine. Regards. --Spalatino (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I cropped from images of companies with whom I worked. But their images are taken from my original photos. I have the original negatives!--Spalatino (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've heard a lot here on Commons, but that lies realy beat it. Look at "your" other three stolen images... Note to myself: 1, 2, 3 on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What has to do a problem created by en.wiki administrators (and I can write a lot about their "justice"...) with Commons and these negatives? Do you want the negatives? I can fax you a copy or send a letter.--Spalatino (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It has something to do with abuse, and with a ban. This files are evidently copyright violations, you grabbed the firstbest images from the web and uploaded them with some stupid claims. Thats already negative enough, Im not interested in more negatives.. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but what has happened with those en. wiki admins has to do with their abuse and with the biggest problem of Wikipedia, according to the same Jimbo: some admins behave like dictators and nobody can control some of them.... Wikipedia should have a kind of "Supreme Court of Justice" to control those few admins. I have never done any vandalisms in wikipedia, on the contrary I have always contributed thousands of posts and articles (someone even appeared on DYK). But, allow me to repeat, what has to do all this with Commons? You are writing that I post "lies", even if I am ready to send you the negatives. This is strange. I have a proof and you refuse it? Strange, really strange... You accuse me of "stupid claims": why? If you are a serious admin, and I hope so, please tell me which steps I have to do in order to have a review of those two deletions. Regards.--Spalatino (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Additional provide a legal permission that you are in the legal position to remove all text from the album cover and release the photo so that everyone can reuse it for every purpose including commmercial reuse. As an agent of RCA Records Label it would be no problem for you. --Martin H. (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. I will request asap the Goich & Masiero files not to be deleted to COM:OTRS. It will take me a while to find the negative of the photo of the italo-english Lord, but I am sure I'll find it. Regards.--Spalatino (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Now you want the moon. I am not an agent of RCA....What else? The personally written authorization of Wilma and Lauretta? Lauretta has just passed away, my friend...Anyway, I'll do my best.--Spalatino (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I want a written permission from the copyright holder. Nothing else. Thats you, so your name is Anna Cloppet. Is it? --Martin H. (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Bah, besides the jokes I make about you now I just noticed, that you not steal random images, you steal images of recently deceased persons! Thats realy shameful, I change my opinion from "funny, persistant abuser" to "someone who has nothing, absolutely nothing to do on an educational project". Go away, stop stealing and remember what you just did! --Martin H. (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
As said, for the last time, you want the moon...and I am not Anna Cloppet: please, be informed that she can be the actual copyright owner but not the one who has created the photo. And finally, BE POLITE!--Spalatino (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No, "beeing polite" ended here, its enough. The copyright holder for at least this images is 101% clear, your claim is a blatant lie, your upload is a blatant infringement of intelectual property rights, your whole behaviour is a shame for this project. I wouldnt have said one word if you simply accepted "ok, I tried it, they trapped me, Ill stop it", but your chatter hereis not acceptable. --Martin H. (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
...no comment...."they trapped me", "blatant lie", "persistant abuser", wow...what else? Sincerely: you need to calm down. Anyway, good luck....(think if someone talks to you in this way what would you do...)--Spalatino (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe finaly admit that Im not the photographer as claimed and sorry for mistake of uploading images I simply copied from other websites? That would be a start.. --Martin H. (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And of course that I will not to it in future, that I not create other acounts but use only one account, here on Commons as well as on all other projects - thats step two. --Martin H. (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
As said before, I will request asap the Goich & Masiero files not to be deleted to COM:OTRS. And, sorry, but I will complain about all your accusations and offenses when I'll go to Tampa wikimedia headquarters in next weeks (I live in Florida, as you know).--Spalatino (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll do, of course,.....in a POLITE way....(and I'll try to talk with Jimbo personally, even if I 've been told it is difficult)....good night!--Spalatino (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
My final statement on this: Of course I overreact a bit, thats always happen if im 100% sure, and if I can even profe, that someone is lying to me. Im sorry for the overreaction. You said you are not abusing Commons. I disagree, you are a long time abuser on Commons too. Whats File:LORD CHARLES FORTE.jpg?? Thats the same photo as the photograph by Anna CloppetFile:CHARLES FORTE.jpg mentioned above, that time with a strange lie digital photo of an old Charles Forte photo done by an uncle.... Im realy not intested what you do on Wikipedia, I know that on Wikipedia sometimes disputes in simple facts can lead to blocks. Here we are not talking about a "dispute" or "simple facts", we talk about blatant lies. Thats inacceptable, stop it. Also stop the abuse of multiple accounts, thats also completely inacceptable. --Martin H. (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
My final statement on this: Do you "overreact a bit"? Well, in this case I am going to call you "RAT" because you don't allow a person to defend himself but quickly erase everything....and then I am going to write: "sorry, I overreacted a bit". And then close my account with Wikicommons, because of your INDECENT behaviour!! And last but not least, allow me to ask you: Who the hell are you, the Messiah? You never surmise that REALLY another person can have done those photos? Your brain cannot accept that a person can be labeled "banned" without reason, and that is not a reason to accuse him to be a "false", a "lier" , an "abuser" and so on? As a consequence I am going to show those two negatives directly in Tampa's office of Wikimedia (hopefully to the same Jimbo), and not to COM:OTRS! Shame on you.--Spalatino (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The image I uploaded don't illustrate Shark Bay Phytoplankton and I think it isn't free, so it need to be removed. --Aushulz (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Ryanair_ATR-42_EI-BXS.jpg
Hello Martin H. Please, can you tell me why do you want to eliminate this picture again? I put that the author is Maarten-sr, that he told me by an email that I can publicate it in Wikipedia. I need something more? Thanks, and sorry. --JonyTF (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, no problem. I am going to eliminate the picture, because I sended the OTRS model to Maarten-sr (the pinture's author) but he has not replayed me. Sorry if I have made a lot of mistakes with this pictures. And thank you for everything. Bye. --JonyTF (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Martin H, but I have been thinking, and there are some reasons why I can't do it. Mainly, I am Spaniard, and my English is not the better. So, can you delete the picture, please? I will not upload it again. And sorry if I have had any mistakes in my messages. Good bye, and thanks for all. --JonyTF (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi... I tried to upload a file from flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sidhardhramesh/3795187090/). But I got message that "A file identical to this file (File:Mohanlal PN.jpg) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it.". (13:14, 27 July 2009 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Mohanlal PN.jpg" (Copyright violation)). Could you plz tell me whether it is safe to upload the file or not? Shannon1488 (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I can only advive you to select the same license tag as on Wikipedia, thats not FAL.
However, some more more problems:
File:Sandeep U Nair.jpg, flickr use is not the creator, the image is not copyright free, flickr user is not allowed to license this cc-by. The license is invalid, Kumar2008 in Flickr is a bad flickr user.
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!
I would like to have some advice regarding File:NillaNielsen.jpg, which you deleted. You also informed the uploader by mail, as answer to the OTRS mail, if I have understood correctly. The user has been asking for help and complaining about difficulties using the system, and maintains that the copyright holder has given or wants to give permission for the upload. The conversation is somewhat confused, and keeping the image may be impossible for the moment, but I think this might be because of formalities and the picture might be free (or possible to be made free).
Did you answer the mail and was there a clear indication that the copyright holder did not intend to make the image free, or was there only information lacking?
The mail as cited at sv:Wikipedia:Bildfrågor#Uppladdning is not clear about the reason for the deletion, given that the uploader believes he has the right to upload the picture under a free license. (The OTRS mail was not in English, at least not all of it, and I do not know whether the uploader understands English.)
Im not with OTRS. The image was uploaded the second time with the information "Source: Internet medgivande" - I found it at http://www.ubetoo.com/profile/1470 and there is of course nothing that indicate any agreement to a free license. If you want instruct the copyright holder to forward a written permission fromt the copyright holder and ask for undeletion refering to "Commons File:NillaNielsen.jpg". --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I did not want to add the OTRS template because I have not seen any permission. Do you how how the OTRS system works? Would they restore the picture if they get e-mail about the permission? I think there is no hurry about restoring (or reuploading) the picture until we get a formally correct permission from the copyright holder. --LPfi (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If the permission is sufficient, yes. The permission is sufficient if it comes from the copyright holder or explains the way of copyright transfer, specifies a free license and the license requirements (author to attribute) and not restricts the use of the image in any of the Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Free images
Hi. I vaguely remember you were insterested in images of Africa and Asia? I was wondering if you could use the Magnusbot to upload the images by Grete Howard. Wow see all the free Africa collections!. I have OTRS ticketing but don't know how to mass upload. I did try but it didn't work for me. Click places in her collectopns and you'll see just how many valuable images she has. Can you or somebody else interested please upload the rest of them? We are free to upload all but personal/family photos. The ones uploaded to date are in Category:Images by Grete Howard. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Dont understand you. However, the image is not OK here without a correct source and author. We can fix or assist the user, but we can not fix such bad uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I was going to upload a panoramic photo that is in a TIFF version. As I recall, though, that format doesn't translate to Commons. Am I largely correct on that? Thanks again for all your help. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Perhaps you might suggest the best way to handle an image like this, so that it translates into Commons in the best possible fashion? I love the image and would very much like to upload it. [9] Thanks again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
My downloads
Hi Martin!
Thanks for the info. I have written back to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with permission on one of my pictures. Do I have to notify you too since I have not heard from them?
Thank you. There might be a problem with publication rights (but 1983+25 seems ok), so maybe it needs to be deleted anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
a family newspaper, is a lot of newspapers you keep in your family for years. They are binded together by the year : 1902,1903,1904 etc. They are not all in good shape. Just for further information : Le 22 avril 1883, Jules Brisson (1828-1902) créa, à l’instigation de son fils Adolphe Brisson (1860-1925) qui allait en devenir le principal animateur, un recueil hebdomadaire (weekly), Les Annales politiques et littéraires. La revue, constituée de textes signés de noms prestigieux du milieu littéraire, de commentaires et de chroniques rédigés par Yvonne Sarcey (un des pseudonymes de Madeleine Brisson, 1869-1950, fille du critique Francisque Sarcey et épouse d'Adolphe Brisson), trouva très vite son public : la petite et moyenne bourgeoisie de province.. Is that all right for you?--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
If this is already corrected as it shall be, please delete the info awarening that that photography might be deleted soon. Thank you.
--Lantuszka (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The photographer is unKnown, not mentionned in the weekly magazine. Since it was published in 1902, at the time, nobody mentionned who the photographer was. They often used photographers on the pay roll of the magazine, which means the magazine had the copyright all for itself. Now if you insist to delete at any cost, ther is nothing I can do.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That still not gives you the right to write your own name as the sole owner and creator. You uploaded this with the option "It is entirely my own work" - thats entirely incorrect, its not your own work. Add the correct author and source and write down, why you think this is public domain according to Commons:Licensing and dont select random license tags like GFDL or so, this file is not licensed under that licenses by the copyright holder, so dont claim that. --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct the information accordingly. Also for your other uploads. Thats not my duty, remove your false œuvre personnelle saying. You may add something like "scanned by ..", but thats all. --Martin H. (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Martin H. Sorry for my mistakes at my new uploaded pictures. Im new here, and try to lean how this works. But i can't find any sources that say when the author of the files died, i think it's unknown. Maybe you can help me? But i also have a question, why is File:Christian Michael Rottboell.jpg accepted? There are no sources that tells, when the author died. --Mathiaskh (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
wilcollogo.jpg
Hi
We sent permission (from Stephan Jungnitz - Principal of Wilberforce Sixth Form College who own the copyright of this logo) for this file to uploaded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org a few weeks ago but yet the status of the file has not changed. The threat of deletion is still there. Can this be looked at please?
![41 [...] en la Vega de Granada.png](#[...]_en_la_Vega_de_Granada.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_redeemer_rio.jpg){kind=link}
Agustín Any question? es-wiki 03:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC) PD: If you want to answer me, please do it on my talk page, thank you.
