Thank you for your wishes for 2013. I wish you too the best for 2013.
I remain for sure intended to further provide wikimedia with as accurate as possible info, including pictures of correctly identified plants.
--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the image of the CD and I also took the original image used n the Mefkure CD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio419 (talk • contribs)
Response to clarification of recent uploads.[edit]
Hello there Túrelio,
This is written in response to your requested clarification on my recent uploads; [Cannabis Flower] and [image of Hibiscus taken in dark]. The author of the image in the description, and the author information embedded in the image EXIF data happens to be the same person. The author (myself) uses the username 'scrinterlocked' for all wikimedia uploads. If you however find this to be confusing, let me know so I could rectify it for consistency.
Hi Scrinterlocked, with File:Infrared image of Hibiscus taken in dark.jpg you did actually not use "scrinterlocked" as author name. My problem is with that inconsistency. To be sure, nothing of this is against any policy. However, the difference between author name and uploader name always asks for permission. So, you can change the author name in the above mentioned image to your username, if you prefer that solution. If you prefer not to disclose the real-/username identity to the general public, you may sent a separate confirmation/permission statement (of author name and user name identity) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS), so that an OTRS volunteer can issue a so-called OTRS ticket, which will add authority to the authorship without disclosing anything else. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio,
nein das Bild habe ich nicht selber aufgenommen.
Aber sämtliche Copyrights liegen bei meiner Familie. Wen Sie da sehen, ist mein Großvater. Warum die Frage?
Hallo Andreas Kleist,
um mit deiner Frage anzufangen: weil ich mich als Admin für einen einwandfreien urheberrechtlichen Status der Medien auf Commons verantwortlich fühle, um Schaden von Commons und Nachnutzern anzuwenden. Wenn jemand ein so alt wirkendes Foto als "eigenes Werk" deklariert, drängt sich Klärungsbedarf geradezu auf.
Auch wenn die Rechte bei deiner Familie liegen, bist du nicht der Autor; d.h. "own work" und dein Name in Author_entry sind falsch. Denn die Urheberschaft ist nicht übertragbar.(Digitalisieren/Scannen eines fremden 2D-Werkes usw. verleiht keine Urheberschaft.) Als erstes solltest du also versuchen, den Urheber zu ermitteln. Vielleicht steht etwas auf der Rückseite des Abzugs. Wenn das nicht ergiebig ist, mal ein paar ältere Verwandte fragen. Vielleicht erinnert sich jemand wer das Foto aufgenommen hat. Falls es Hinweise auf eine frühere Veröffentlichung gibt, z.B. in einem Bericht über deinen Großvater, könnte sich dort eine Autorenangabe finden. Eine direkte Google-Images-Suche nach dem digitalen Bild war meinerseits allerdings erfolgslos. Wenn sich auch bei ernsthafter Suche kein Autor ausfindig machen lässt, du aber sicher bist, dass die vollen Nutzungsrechte bei der Familie liegen, ist zu klären, wer der höchstrangige Erbe ist. Du selbst bist das ja erst, wenn alle in der Linie zu deinem Großvater verstorben sind. Wenn das intern geklärt ist, solltest du eine Email ans Supportteam (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org) schicken, in der du 1) das Innehaben der Nutzungsrechte an diesem Foto feststellst und 2) das Unterstellen des hochgeladenen Fotos unter der angegebenen (oder ggf. einer anderen Lizenz) bestätigst. Deine Email sollte entweder von einem mit dem Realnamen der Familie erkennbar verbundenen Emailkonto kommen (aber nicht .hotmail u.ä.) oder in der Email deine Realdaten enthalten. Emails ans Supportteam werden nicht veröffentlicht und sind auch nur Supportteammitgliedern (ich nicht) zugänglich. Die nächste (auch enzyklopädisch) wichtige Information wäre das Aufnahmedatum (Jahr). Vielleicht klebt dasselbe Foto ja in einem Familienalbum und ist dort datiert. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, ich danke Dir sehr für Deinen liebenswürdigen Gruß und möchte Dir ebenso alles Gute zum neuen Jahr wünschen! Deine Unterstützung und kollegiale Zusammenarbeit schätze ich ebenfalls sehr. AFBorchert (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other of my photoes you have nominated for deletion (Alice Cooper etc) are based on photoes that where already here on commons. You should try to do better work checking this out.--Ezzex (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, darf ich mal folgende Formulierung wagen: Ich bin seit meiner Aktivität in Wikipedia das erstemal richtig genervt. Gibt es eine Möglichkeit den Danke-Balken zu entfernen? Den Spendenbalken konnte man wenigstens mit viel Feingefühl der Maus noch entfernen. Vielleicht kannst Du in höheren Ebenen mal weitergeben, dass treuste Wikipedia Aktive diese Zwangsgestalgung des Desktops als billig und unangemessen empfinden. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ähem, da du sicher nicht mein Neujahrs-Danke-Blümchen auf deiner Disku meinst und ich — zumindest bewußt — noch keinen offiziellen Danke-Balken gesehen habe, musst du mir etwas auf die Sprünge helfen; z.B. auf welcher Seite siehst du den? Mit Programmiertricks könnte ich allerdings eh nicht helfen, da sind z.B. Rd232 und Rillke kompetente Ansprechpartner. Das Commons:Forum#Spendeneinblendung_deaktivieren hattest du sicher schon gesehen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...um Gottes willen! Über Deine Blumengrüße habe ich mich natürlich sehr gefreut!!!
Bei mir erscheint in commons, wikispecies, der englischen, spanischen, usw. Wikipedia (außer der deutschen WP) ein ca. 3 cm großer Balken am oberen Bildrand mit dem Bild und Text von Pavel Richter:
"233.813 mal Danke!
Liebe Wikipedia-Leser:
Ein Dankeschön von Pavel Richter, Vorstand von Wikimedia Deutschland
P.S. Ich melde mich gleich noch mit ein Paar Löschwünschen bei Dir, wenn ich die die Umbenennung fertig habe.
Beim zufälligen Besuch meiner Benutzerseite auf der slowenischen und chin. WP habe ich das Banner soeben erstmals gesehen. In der Tat nervend, weil nicht wegklickbar. Spontan habe ich aber keine Idee, wem von den Großkopferten man deswegen an den Hals gehen könnte. Ich werde mal den Programmierspezialisten de:Benutzer:Hoo man fragen, vielleicht kennt er einen patch. --Túrelio (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Könntest Du sie bitte löschen. Dalton Holland Baptista wird die Dateinamen sicherlich nochmals für die richtig bestimmten Bilder brauchen.
Dank und viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I dont speak very well english but I hope you understand me.
I edit this image File:SEGA40.png taking an image that already existed.
The other pictures are photographs made by me, when I visit a museum. I tried not to shoot the same material, but to shoot to be different to the original material.
Hi Anonimo122, thanks for replying. However, I am sorry, you cannot go into a museum, take photos of existing photos made by somebody else and then upload them to Commons and say they are your photos. This might only be o.k., if the original photographer is dead for more than 70 years already.
Almost all of the images that you tagged on 27DEC on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_-_Romania_National_Guard_Partnership) as having inadequate sourcing information were fixed a week ago but still show as missing the information. Is there anything still wrong with the images? The images state that someone else has edit the photos, but nothign looks different to me.
Thanks for the reminder. However, don't forget that all admins here are unpaid volunteers, who work here only in their spare time. After checking the source information I've removed the problem tag from 1 image and will go on with the others. If possible and appropriate, please add the names of he 2 persons shown in File:Alabama-Romania-03.jpg to the description. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das Porträtphoto "Helmut Jürgens" wurde tatsächlich von mir von einem Schwarzweissbild aus dem Jahr 1948 abphotographiert. Das ursprüngliche Bild wurde von meiner 2009 verstorbenen Mutter aufgenommen und an mich weitervererbt. Es stellt meinen 1963 verstorbenen Vater dar.
Danke für die Rückmeldung. Dann setze bitte den Namen deiner werten Mutter (sofern du nichts anderes vereinbart hast und das für dich o.k. ist) in das Feld Autor ein. (Durch das Digitalisieren erwirbst du keine Autorenschaft daran.) --Túrelio (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Die Bastei in der Datei „File:Leander Russ - Sturm der Türken auf die Löwenbastei 1683.jpeg“ sollte eigentlich Löwelbastei heissen. Könntest Du das ändern?
Besten Dank adler 77
these 2 uploads are suspected to be copyvios, after they have been found to be published at www.innovar.gob.ar earlier than your upload to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, I fully understand. If you originally and completely created these images by yourself, then you are the copyright holder, even when you published them elsewhere. However, you then should have declared so when uploading to Commons. But, if you did not originally create these images, then you need the permission of the photographer. Especially with File:Pilas.jpg there is an additional problem, that this is a montage of many different images. What are the sources/authors of all these sub-images? --Túrelio (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it's very late in my time-zone, I'm going offline now. In case you really created riachuelo.jpg and all images in pilas.jpg by yourself, you may send a confirmation/permission statement (see Commons:OTRS/es) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ein frohes, gesundes neues Jahr wünsch ich Dir...[edit]
Hello Túrelio
Sorry if I am doing this incorrectly (I am a new user and still learning).
This is a reply to your question: Hi Vacantwall, are you David Tonström by yourself? If not, you need to forward his permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer:
I am not David Tonstrom but I do have an email with his approval. I can forward that to the email provided unless you need him to write something specific giving authority for use?
Hi Vacantwall, thanks. Please forward the existing email to the above shown address (OTRS). The OTRS colleagues will then check wheter it's sufficient or otherwise contact you directly. Emails to OTRS are not published and can only be accessed by OTRS volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio. I appreciate your promptitude at correcting / adding bot-transferred files information, like you did on this one, but please leave me ~2 minutes after there are uploaded so I can clean up the info by myself and not to get in an edit conflict. You can trust me, I never had left a single bot-transferred image uncorrected. Thank you for understanding. Yours, --Gikü (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, wirst Du aus der Antwort schlau, die TinistaMartina auf meiner Disk hinterlassen hat? Oder habe ich die Frage falsch formuliert (ich wollte wissen, ob TinistaMartina das Foto aufgenommen hat)?
Oder fehlt nach dem „Si“ einfach ein Komma und es heißt „Ja“ statt „Wenn“. Danke. -- Rillke(q?)16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Derselbe Gedanke kam mir auch, als ich in Google eingab. Ggf. nochmals nachhaken. Vertrauenserweckend ist das natürlich nicht gerade. --Túrelio (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neue Bildausschnitte des Gershwin Piano Quartets[edit]
Hi Túrelio :) . Yes, I can explain. I took the photo and uploaded it to my Flickr account, as well as in Wikicommons. This is my photostream. Is there something wrong with it?.--Goose friend (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing wrong per se. But that fact that this image was first published on Flickr and that you didn't mention this first publication and didn't source it to your Flickr-account, did create the suspicion of a copyvio. By the way, why did you put it under CC-BY on Flickr and under CC-0 on Commons? Again, nothing wrong with that, but somewhat strange. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - can you help me to understand why File:Greg LeMond 1988 Vuelta a Andalucia.jpg was deleted, restored but then re-deleted? I'm finding this very perplexing. :( I don't think this is a fair decision but don't know what recourse there is available? joepaT06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder. Seems myself overlooked an important aspect. The image you uploaded to Commons has formally a Commons-compatible license[1]. However, as it is actually a photo of a photo (on a fan/postcard), it is legally a derivative. The original photo on the postcard has to be considered as copyrighted (usually til 70 years after the death of the photographer), as there is no evidence that it has been released under a free license or is in the public domain for other reasons. As it is very unlikely that the Flickr-user did also shoot the original photo, he actually violates the copyright of the original photographer by releasing this reproduction under a free license. So, the license on Flickr is invalid (whether the Flickr-user knows or doesn't). I overlooked this aspect when I first restored your file, after the license had changed on Flickr. If you are in contact with the Flickr-user, you might tell him, that he better removes the image from Flickr or puts it again under "All rights reserved". --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhh. Gosh, what a shame. Thanks for explaining the situation. I haven't been in contact with the Flickr-user but had no reason to think he hadn't taken the image, as all of the other photos I obtained for the article were from the original creators, and they seemed to be a rather...I dunno how to describe it. They all seemed to have not had any problem gaining access to LeMond for excellent photography, and I just assumed this was another case of that. Anyway, thanks. joepaT20:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. Now, the question is whether this is a private/personal shot or was done during your professional/military work there. In the latter case, the PD-USGov-license label would be appropriate, assuming that you are from the US military side. Whether such a (harmless) photo also needs to be officially "released" (as regular military photos are often), is a question you have to check by yourself. If Mr. Isaacson is shown on the photo, he can't be the author. If you have shot it, you are the author and only you should appear in the author-entry. The date-entry should contain the photo date (year, at least), not the upload date. Please correct the items. I will then removed the no-source-tag. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich bin mir unsicher, welche Vorgehensweise für diese beiden Bilder korrekt ist. Beide sind mit falscher Hausnr. angegeben, außerdem hat die eine Datei die korrekte Hausnr. von der anderen Datei. Hierdurch werden bei der Liste Liste der Baudenkmäler in Bamberg/Inselstadt die Häuser nicht richtig zugeordnet.
Lange Straße 16 (falsch) --> Lange Straße 18 (korrekt)
Lange Straße 18 (falsch) --> Lange Straße 20 (korrekt)
Für die Überprüfung bzgl. Nr. 18 (korrekt) siehe: [[2]] (letztes Bild).
Außerdem: googelt man (Lange Straße spielcenter bamberg) wird Lange Str. 18 angegeben.
Für die Überprüfung bzgl. Nr. 20 (korrekt): googeln von (Lange Straße euroshop bamberg) ergibt Lange Str. 20.
Bevor ich noch länger die Hilfeseiten durchkämme, ob nun rename oder anderes korrekt ist...
Nachtrag: Gerade mal rumgegoogelt wegen: File:Bamberg - Lange Straße 20.jpg. Korrekt ist Lange Straße 22.
Hatte ich schon selbst recherchiert. Nun konsekutiv alle 3 umbenannt. Nicht wundern dass teils die alten Thumbs erscheinen, altbekanntes Problem, sollte sich im Lauf der Zeit korrigieren. --Túrelio (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio, can you not remove my image until it is definitely confirmed the license cannot be changed? You should have contacted me before deleting it from Wiki, as I could have had the license changed straight away. Bibzy (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of demands from you. 1) you should not have uploaded an image File:Adelaide-CBD-from-Railway.jpg that violates Commons copyright policy. 2) what do you think is this message on your talkpage? 3) what do you mean by "I could have had the license changed straight away"? 4) "can you not remove" - no, as "your" CC-BY-SA license was plain invalid[3]. 5) Now, when the license on Flickr has been legitimately been changed to a Commons-compatible one (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or CC-Zero), notify me or any other admin to restore the image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I thank you for having reported it to me. We have reached the conclusion that in Italy there is no freedom of panorama and you must obtain an authorization to each author to be able to publish a picture of his work everywhere. So it is a crime publishing images depicting buildings located in a public Italian place without permission of author. The penalty is from 2.582 € to 15.493 €. We also wondered how Google Maps can publish images depicting buildings in Italy with these laws without paying anyone. In a few days I'll put in deleting all the files to which I added also your recommendation. Now we are deciding which forms of protest can be applied to all files reported. Raoli ✉ (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I assume that at least one photographer will copy his owns images locally to :de, as Germany, Austria and Switzerland have full FOP und as this is accepted on :de Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes locally but not on it.wikipedia. Graffiti are not an artwork for italian copyright because graffiti are not seen as a form of art. So I removed the tag from the images. The information board is not a work of art so it is not copyrighted. In general Túrelio for the Italian copyright everything that is seen as a work of art by its creator is protected by copyright. Raoli ✉ (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn du die Edits der beiden IPs gesehen hättest, hätte dich meine Reaktion weniger gewundert. Aber technisch hast du natürlich recht; auf 3 Tage reduziert. --Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
danke für Deinen Hinweis zu meinem Profil und der Bild Little Planet Oberschleissheim.
Die Bildinformationen dort habe ich mit folgendem Passus ergänzt (Tool ist Photoshop):
Little Planet oder Panorama Planet
Panorama Planet, was ist das denn?
Als erstes benötigt man ein 360° Panorama einer interessanten Umgebung.
Die Einzelbilder fügt man nun erst mal zusammen (Stichen). Dazu kann man spezielle Panoramasoftware nutzen, oder auch einfach Photoshop.
1. Panorama zusammensetzen
2. Bild skalieren auf quadratisch
3. Bild um 180 Grad drehen
4. Filter -> Verzerrungsfilter -> Polarkoordinaten
Hinweis: Man sollte so weit wie möglich unten mit der Kamera fotografieren, also mit möglichst großem Weitwinkel. So hat man am Ende weniger Verzerrungen in der Kugelmitte.
Meanwhile he uploaded the portrait and the cyclist images with slightly differing filenames (.jpeg), not a smart move. I fear that it will turn out to be outcome #2. -- Tuválkin✉11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for responding to my issue with the photos representing a biographical article on my work as an artist/ musician and teacher.
As a violinist, much of my practice involves the medium of wood and horsehair, so Although I am trying to resolve an issue Of someone overwriting the image which originally accompanied my article in wiki, I am not so adept at all the rules and procedures of Wikipedia, but try as I might, making mistakes and all... I do need and appreciate your help and assistance.
First, I asked that an unprofessional, "poor camera moment" amateur photo of me in someone's kitchen, hardly a "performance" that someone OVERWROTE the ORIGINAL SUBMITTED PHOTO to be deleted. I considered it vandalism of the article, and detrimental to the integrity of the Subject. I requested DELETION by the rules given. It was denied by a Korean admin.
I uploaded 5 suitable photos hoping that one of them would bump the one in question off of the article. It did not happen.Then I tried to overwrite the vandal's photo, and was warned I could not do it.
Now you have questioned the "Eye of the Storm" photo permission. I own the copyright to the photo. It was commissioned from photographer Melissa Springer in 1991 for the CD release of same title and copyrighted by TransMuseq Records, the company that I own. I have sent that info to permissions at wiki. The photo is freely released. It is on the Internet everywhere.
ThanK you for your attention.
Please help me technically to remove/ delete the horribly embarrassing Lad smith.jpg forever from wiki, and to place an alternative professional photo in its place. There are 5 uploaded to commons. I, my colleagues, and my students. Preserve professional integrity. Thank you for your help.
Hi Turelio :
I'm sorting pictures recently uploaded in the Category:Maastricht and this afternoon I've got twice a picture with insulting content (anti islamic) on certain pages. I've taken a screen snapshot of these pictures, and I don't understand how the are generated, in the page "modify" there is nothing. Thank you for attention. --Jean Housen 16:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jean, only this moment I returned from a Wikipedia meeting in Aachen. After scanning through 1000+ images in cat:Maastricht, I didn't see any image meeting your description. Could you please specify the image(s) you are refering too. --Túrelio (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These pictures appeared and then disappeared ; the first time I was surprised ; the second times I took screenshot I can send you. --Jean Housen 08:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the discussion on Pedia is finished and we have concluded with complete assurance that in Italy there is no concept of freedom of panorama; so all the files User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy that will be considered protected by copyright will be deleted in different PDC. If you have any tips I thank you for them. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A block of two weeks [4]???? I hope you have sent that message by mistake. I had not placed the sources, because one of the images is not available yet, and I had to redo the upload several times, and when it worked, I was left the image with half of information... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file you have deleted is permitted to be used publicly and I hold to permission to publish it. The permission is in Persian, please tell me how can I provide it to you and how can we take the file back up in the wikimedia again. Another question is why the file is deleted before any discussion about it being made with me?
to answer your last question first, because it had been tagged for speedy deletion/copyvio. Due to the legal implication, this requires fast deletion; otherwise we would knowingly host a (likely) copyvio.
|description={{en|1=Petroglyph in Golpaygan, Isfahan, Iran. depicting horseback hunter with falcon and saluki-like sighthound. ca. 8000-10000B.C}}
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Netbios|Netbios]]
Then this is a mistake from my side. if you check the rest of the photo I have uploaded you will notice that I give the whole information and full attribution. Is there any chance to edit the file and provide the information again?
As I explained above, you need to provide a valid permission (including a release under the choosen license) from the photographer. If that is done, the file can be undeleted and edited. Please always sign your posts. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio, I am a bit confused about licences & source of this kind of of work. If you make changes to one of images, I can copy changes to others. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the FOP-template is the standard to use when your image is of a still copyrighted work, but covered by freedom-of-panorama terms of the local (national) copyright law. However, in some countries (for example in Italy), graffiti are considered as illegal and non-copyrighted or non-copyrightable. In such countries you do not necessarily need the FOP template. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i dont know how to set it righr, can you do this for me? The owner, an youtube angency has given me the permission to use File:Dieaussenseiter.jpg. I sent an email to the german ORTS system with the forwarded permission.
--Leoll (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., you should have written this into the description. I will add an OTRS-pending tag, which will prevent deletion for some weeks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ach du bist ja von :de. Also diese Einschränkung "Nur zu Dokumentationszwecken in Wikipedia Projekten verwenden" wird von OTRS mit Sicherheit nicht akzeptiert werden. Medien auf Commons müssen für beliebige Zwecke frei benutzbar sein. --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, also ich füge hier gleich mal das Mailzitat ein:
"Hi Leon,
anbei Bilder die ihr verwenden könnt.
Beste Grüße,
****
Original Message -----
From: ****
To: *****
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 4:** PM
Subject: Wikipedia: Bild der Aussenseiter?
Guten Tag,
wäre es möglich, ein Bild der Aussenseiter zu erhalten, das auf Wikipedia unter der Lizenz zur Dokumentation und unveränderten Weitergabe veröffentlicht wird? Dies wäre sehr freundlich und würde den Artikel der Aussenseiter sehr auffrischen. Den Urheber des Bildes werde ich selbstverständlich angeben.
Im Prinzip jede auf Commons:L#Acceptable_licenses erwähnte Lizenz. Konkret empfehlen würde ich die Lizenz "Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland"[5], weil das die für neue Werke am häufigsten verwendete Lizenz ist und es eine auf deutsches Recht portierte Variante gibt (oben bereits verlinkt). Eine Emailvorlage für die Genehmigung samt Lizenzerteilung findest du hier; der Ablauf ist in Commons:OTRS/de beschrieben. --Túrelio (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand exactly your asking. All my pictures have download date (this is automatic by system). If you would like to mark all original date, when these picture have been made, I fear I cannot give that in every case. Please let me know what can I do for request. Thanks and greeting.
Dorogifc (talk)
Hi Dorogifc,
thanks for your feedback. I was indeed talking about the entry "|date=" in the description mask. This is not for the upload date. If this is filled automatically with the date of the upload, this would be absolutely stupid, but not your fault, of course. In case of photographies, this entry is for the true date when the photo was originally shot/taken. In case of your uploads, this is even more important, as many are "old", historical photos, for which the date also has encyclopedic relevance.
Therefore, just try your best to identify the true photo date from the source (if the original was a printed photo, there may be some date information on the backside) or from the depicted event (might be possible for File:Sport celebration in Buzanszky stadium.jpg). It does not need to be the full date, the year would be already good. In cases where you only know the decade, just write that. In cases, where you have absolutely no idea, write "unknown". Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Shruti Marathe - A Marathi Actress.jpg has been deleted because the given source site is labeled as "All text, graphics, audio, design and other works on the Site are the copyrighted works of MarathiStars unless otherwise indicated. Content on the Site is for personal use only."
Dear Turélio and Moogsi:
Regarding your recent proposal for deletion of some of the files I have uploaded, namely the IHRU/SIPA files and a couple other (Moogsi) and the ANTT files (Túrelio):
If you check the website given for
File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Nave e Altar-Mor.jpg
which is
<http://www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/arquiteturismo/06.069/4584>
you will also see that the author clearly authorizes use of his material as long as he is quoted, which I have done exactly in the format the author stipulates ("How to quote")
Still Moogsi: regarding the two other files: I haven't been able - yet -to find the necessary licenses.
The file
File:Túmulo de D. Pedro de Meneses.jpg is a cropped version of a photograph from 1921, which I believe makes it eligible under the public domain category. But go right ahead and delete it if you want, IHRU/SIPA has a dozen others I can use. I just happen to like this particular one.
The author of
File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Cadeiral.jpg
is a lawyer herself (!), but I have not been able to get in touch with her yet. Feel free to delete the photo if you wish.
Turélio:
Regarding all the ANTT-Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo photos you question: the source I provide (ANTT homepage) should lead you to the Biblioteca Nacional Digital site, where all digitized historic sources are made available. But I´ll save you the trouble: check
http://purl.pt/index/geral/PT/about.html
read the following
"SERVIÇOS
Para além dos serviços técnicos de armazenamento, organização e apresentação dos objectos digitais, a BND integra ainda serviços que suportam a sua utilização pública, propiciando diversas formas de acesso livre e gratuito aos documentos digitalizados."
"utilização pública" and "acesso livre e gratuito aos documentos digitalizados". I think you should be able to translate :-)
By the way, I am a historian myself, which I gather you should be able to guess if you take a look at the articles I write (in Portuguese), where I put all this wonderful free material to good use:
Livro das Fortalezas
Livro do Armeiro-Mor
Bíblia de Cervera
Apocalipse do Lorvão
Thesouro de Nobreza
Livro de Horas de D. Duarte
etc., etc., etc....
The spreading of culture and knowledge, using only public domain material... hey, it's what Wikipedia is all about! I appreciate your effort, though. Happy New Year to both of you! :-)
PS. I'm new to all this, so please let me know if you read this, ok? I still haven't figured out how to edit my user page yet... If this is the wrong way to answer your requests, I apologize. I just don't happen to know better - yet ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Zyx (talk • contribs) 15. Januar 2013, 23:31 Uhr (UTC)
Hallo Túrelio,
Du hast hier gerade die templates gelöscht. Leider ist immer noch die Datei mit den Rahmen da und nicht meine hochgeladene Version. Woran liegt es? Danke und Grüße–—Oursana (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Oursana, ich habe die älteste Bildversion, wie erbeten, versteckt. Wenn du die noch siehst, könnte es ein Cacheproblem deines Browsers sein. Die 3 späteren Versionen haben doch keinen Rahmen mehr, oder? --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, genau so war's, auf den Cache falle ich gerne herein. Die ersten uploads haben unten links noch ein Stück Rahmen, vielleicht kannst Du die auch löschen. Ich bin nicht so erfahren im hochladen, vor allem habe ich glaube ich noch nie eine andere Version hochgeladen und Rahmen entfernen war Premiere. Entschuldige bitte deshalb die fehlerhaften uploads.–—Oursana (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the permissions needed and I think it shouldn't have taken so much time. if you think it wont be up soon let me know so that I upload another version of the photo with the new license. Netbios (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily undeleted your original upload and tagged it with OTRS-pending. Now you can use this file, though it depends on OTRS' evaluation of the permission whether it can stay or not. --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. the permission OTRS has is the best one can offer from this side of the world. since the photo is created here then I dont think that is a problem. Netbios (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you know someone who can mark this large category (apart from Dennis, Morning Sunshine or me), please ask if they can mark some images in this category. The backlog is around 600 images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, die Namen der Urheber der Originale sind mir nicht bekannt. Mich interessiert nicht das bunte Glas, sondern die Architektur der Kirche. Viele Grüße --Bodo Kubrak (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht hierbei nicht um dein (oder mein) Interesse, sondern darum dass in Deutschland Innenraumwerke nicht durch die Panoramafreiheit abgedeckt sind, ergo die Fotos das Urheberrecht der Künstler/Architekten verletzen, sofern diese nicht bereits 70 Jahre tot sind. --Túrelio (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich will versuchen, den Kirchraum abends zu fotografieren, sodass kein Licht von außen auf das Fenster fällt und Details des Bundglasfensters nicht zu erkennen sind. Bodo Kubrak (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Die Alternative wäre, zu versuchen, den noch lebenden Architekten zu kontaktieren und um Erlaubnis zu fragen. Er sollte ja durchaus ein Interesse habe, dass sein Werk (sofern das auch für die Glaswand gilt) in der Wikipedia dargestellt wird. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, könntest Du dié Benutzerrechte von User:Dalton Holland Baptista zum "Automatisch bestätigten Benutzer" und "Dateiverschieber" erweitern? Ich bin heilfroh, dass Dalton, nachdem er vor ca. drei Jahren durch Vandalen genervt, WP verließ, wieder on board ist. Er ist sicherlich der beste Orchideen Experte in WP (auch gerade: pt) und stellt erstklassiges Bildmaterial zu Verfügung. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Autoconfirmed user" ist er schon, wenn ich das auf "User rights management" richtig sehe. Ich habe ihm jetzt auch mal mover-right gegeben, obwohl er nicht so wahnsinnig viele Edits hat. Schau ihm ein bißchen auf die Finger. --Túrelio (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks a lot. Sure I'will be careful and possibly will be able to manage. Despite I haven't edited much here, I have a lot of work done on pt-wiki (and I guess more than 1000 photos uploaded here to Commons). Thanks again. Cheers Dalton (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
....kannst Du nochmal kurz schauen, bei mir ist immer noch das rote Ausrufungszeichen bei einer Aktivität von Dalton. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...und nochmals danke an Euch. Dalton hat schon die erste Orchidee, die er selbst erstbestimmt hatte, als Synonym verschoben. Orchi (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. However, it would be better if you could declare/mention the mutual identity on the userpages, because if undeclared such a situation may led to questions or suspicions, which happened already[7]. The more important question: do you really need two accounts on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Professor Lene Hau in her laboratory at Harvard.jpg[edit]
Hi Turelio
I emailed to permissions regarding File:Professor Lene Hau in her laboratory at Harvard.jpg. explaining that this file is issued by the military (see website http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123133604.) It is the most commonly used picture of her, and is, as far as I know, a free use file.
Thanking you
Ybidzian
Ybidzian (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ybidzian, the problem is that per the image's caption it's credited to "Justin Ide/Harvard News Office" and labelled as "courtesy photo". That means, that the U.S. military or the website http://www.wpafb.af.mil/ has permission to use it, but it does not fall under PD-USGov. You would need to contact Harvard News Office and ask them for a release under a free license (which does not need to be PD, but at least CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). See here Commons:OTRS for the procedure and a permission request template. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if this message is in the wrong place, but I am at a loss as where to talk about the deletion of this image. I sent an email with all of the requested info for Commons:Deletion requests/File:HHH Ray Enners Day.jpg to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org 4 days ago. I went to the page we spoke on before, but it says the page is closed. This file was deleted when it shouldn't have been. How get I get the undelete request acted upon. Joeentry (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody from the OTRS team, to where you have sent the permission, will check your email and either restore the image or request more information from you. 4 days is not that long for OTRS, as these are all volunteers. If you don't see any reaction after 1 week, you might ask at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. I can't look into this, as I am not a OTRS volunteer. --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that these files can be so hastily marked and deleted by a single volunteer who can't undo the damage. Maybe the system should require more balance.
Das oben genannte Bild wurde von mir persöhlich aufgenommen, im Kloster in Krakau, wo ich damals, im Jahre 1981, ein Möchstudent war. Dieses Bild zeigt meine Person in dieser Zeit als einen Mönch: zeigt eine wirklich existierende Person, einem damal wirklichen Mönch in einem legalen und wirklichen Tracht. Dem Orden gehörte das Photoapparat mit Selbstauslöser, Photoraum und Photolaboratorium - welche für die Herstellung dieses Bilder benutz wurden. Zboralski (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, this picture are artworks created by the son of Enrico d'Assia. The father died in 1999 so the son is probably still alive. So they are to be deleted. I'll add them to this timeless list. Do not worry, I'm doing a lot of friends and enemies with these deletion requests. Raoli ✉ (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care. What I meant by mentioning "emotional" was, as Princess Mafalda was killed in a German concentration camp, it might not be wise if a German user now even deletes her images. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image got deleted due to an incorrect license before I had a chance to correct it. The license on Flickr has now been corrected but the upload wizard will not let me re-upload the image can it be undeleted or how do I get it to upload again?
Stthomse (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and deeply regret the copyright violations committed by me. The problem started when i started uploading pictures in the beginning, whenever i tried to upload a pic with the required copyright info it was rejected. So i started uploading them as my own. Can you please now explain me the correct method and the things i have to avoid while uploading media files.
Thank you
Shawrix (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate,
I have one more doubt :\. Banaras Hindu University The logo given by the author here has not given enough information either. He took it from the university's site. Can i do the same? in the same manner?
PS: I am a slow learner. I learn by practicals all that readings makes me dizzy. :S
Thanks!
Shawrix (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shawrix, you are talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BHULogo.jpg, right? In case you clicked on the image on :en-Wikipedia, you may have noticed the bold text "Non-free media ..." on top of the description section. This image is not under a free license, but used per the fair-use clause of US copyright, which has specific terms and limitations. Only very few Wikipedias allow such kind of material. Commons does not and cannot allow fair-use material, because it would violate the fair-use terms of US copyright law. So, if you want to use "your" logo only on :en-Wikipedia, you can try to claim fair-use (en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline). If you want to upload it to Commons, you need to provide either a permission (see Commons:OTRS for details) from the rights holder or try to convince us that it is below threshold of originality. --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am uploading pictures that I have taken and have been given notification that they are subject to copywrite violations. They are most definitely photographs that I have taken, and have the rights to.
Do I need to prove this? What procedures can I take to ensure the pictures stay online.
as you can see from the problem messages on the image pages, all 3 uploads have been found to be published earlier in the same (or larger) resolution at http://www.gearslutz.com. This suggests that you have copied them from that site. Any explaination for this? --Túrelio (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turelio- Remoteness AKA Steve Remote, the sole owner of Aura Sonic, is the photographer and publisher of those pictures. He is the moderator of the forum that the pictures are in. They have been uploaded on GearSlutz, Facebook, and www.aurasonic.com. These pictures have been uploaded on the common page with intent to publish in the Aura-Sonic, Ltd. wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLurie12 (talk • contribs) 25. Januar 2013, 23:07 Uhr (UTC)
O.k., then you need to ask Mr. Steve Remote to email a confirmation that the 3 images in question (put their filenames into the email) 1) were originally shot by him and 2) that he releases them (in the uploaded resolution) under the license choosen by you. This email needs to come from his business email address (no hotmail and alike acccepted) and needs to be send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). The email will not be made public. An OTRS volunteer will check the permission and either confirm the images by adding a so-called OTRS-ticket to their pages or ask for more information. --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I will have him do that promtly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLurie12 (talk • contribs) 25. Januar 2013, 23:14 Uhr (UTC)
Will I have to upload the pictures again? When/how will I know that this will get verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLurie12 (talk • contribs) 26. Januar 2013, 00:04 Uhr (UTC)
1) No; though they seem to have been deleted by a colleague of mine, they can easily be restored as soon as OTRS confirms the permission, which may take some days (remember, all are volunteers). 2) Usually the OTRS agent/volunteer sends a back-email when the permission is o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received your message that my upload of the Hersman picture is "missing information about where it comes from or who created it". I included an NTSB Public Domain tag because the photograph is the official portrait of this government official, as shown on the official NTSB U.S. government website, which I described as the source. What addition info is needed? Thanks. (adding sig: DonFB (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hi DonFB, you (as anybody else) need to provide the information that enables us to verify the authorship and license claims. In case of your uploads an online source is missing, "U.S. National Transportation Safety Board" is not enough, as we don't have the time to contact the "U.S. National Transportation Safety Board" as ask them for verification whether it is really under the claimed license. --Túrelio (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
die Kategorie habe ich nun hinzugefügt. Das Problem ist aber, dass sonst alles fehlt bei deinem Upload: keine Beschreibung, keine Quellenangabe, keine Lizenzvorlage. Am besten lädst du dasselbe Bild — als neue Version von File:Flughafen Schönefeld 3.jpg — nochmal hoch und achtest dabei darauf, die Beschreibungsvorlage auszufüllen und eine Lizenz auszuwählen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my photo, but I took the photo of myself and gave it to KRK to use on my behalf... So I
was under the impression that I was within the rules of use. Can you clarify for me?
Thank you, THELBT — Preceding unsigned comment added by THELBT (talk • contribs) 27. Januar 2013, 23:07 Uhr (UTC)
Hi THELBT,
though I didn't actually delete the image, I had tagged it for deletion after I found it to be a crop from the larger image shown on http://www.krksys.com/krk-featured-users/jacquire-king.html. Such a scenario suggests a copyvio. In addition, the EXIF data of the uncropped version from krksys.com says "Copyright - Joshua Hill Photography". So, if you are this Joshua Hill, then you should send a confirmation from your business email address (no hotmail and alike) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming your original authorship in this photo and confirming the release of the cropped version under the choosen cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Don't forget to mention the filename on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, though i emptied the cage I still see the frame in the upper version and one utilizing page. Sry for my several uploadings.–—Oursana (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just already sent an e-mail to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org", please check my e-mail, Thank You very much for your kind attention and your help. ~~ Erwin Mulialim(talk)14:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Eduardo, as I do not read Portuguese, I had to translate your comment using Google translation and I'm not sure whether it is correct. I assume that you want to have above mentioned image be deleted as duplicate. I have commented at the DR discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was taken by me 28 years ago from de original poster, so it's not de original neither a scan. Anyway, I was who worked in this poster, I made the original, so I have its rights. But, on the other hand, the image has no rights, this is to say, it's not copyrighted in any sense, it's free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielory (talk • contribs) 30. Januar 2013, 12:53 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Turelio, it was me who took the picture in black and white showed up the poster, which is the same picture that is reproduced below in blue colour without the head, so I have the rights on picture and poster. Thank you for your valuable work!
Dear Turelio:) I noticed there was no action taken after this image was tagged and nominated for deletion: Deletion requests/File:Saakashvili Latsabidze Giorgi.JPG
I think it would be appropriate now to keep this image since the nominator has no provided other sources. I would appreciate your consideration. Best, 193.43.158.22905:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. It wasn't appropriate of me to directly address someone in this way, and I regret doing it. I'm not certain about who made the nomination, so the level of snark was unnecessary. I'll be more careful in the future --moogsi(blah)22:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is an unsigned photo taken in February 1975 in Rome and first published to the Corriere dello Sport in the same month. According to URAA it was in PD in the USA in 1996. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)10:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was not a scanned image from the newspaper if this was your question. It's a copy coming from the archive of an acquaintance of mine who played in that team and is portrayed there. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)10:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., yes that was my question. However, as that acquaintance of yours likely obtained the image on-time, i.e. shortly after it was shot, is there really no information about the photographer available? --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS email sent; one speedy deletion necessary[edit]
Hi!
First, thanks for your help with these first steps; I've never contributed to Commons before and didn't really understand how the permissions were supposed to work. I've sent the OTRS email as suggested.
The one thing I can't help is the file discussed here. I think I uploaded that as part of a test of the UploadWizard extension, and forgot about it. Please do delete that as quickly as you can; it wasn't meant to even have been uploaded!
Hi, thanks for adding the Nazi symbol template to one of my recent uploads. If there are any possible problems that you spot with providing sufficient context for any propaganda related material, such as the title or links to the source catalogue, please leave a note or email me and I will handle as a personal priority any improvement needed, or indeed raise a deletion request for any material that is overly disruptive to be of educational use. Such images are a difficult area, I think a conservative approach is necessary, and I will keep an open mind as to the best way to interpret policy in line with current consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling the speedy deletions today. Though I was filtering for the IWM's object-type field based on previous tests, I missed that these badges and relics were categorized differently, but have added a new filter based on how they happen to work. I'm afraid the IWM catalogue is rather inconsistent. Anyway, I've stopped for the time being, so I hope to avoid too many more mistakes like this. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need some kind of proof of this? And how do we do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannadk (talk • contribs) 7. Februar 2013, 15:15 Uhr (UTC)
Hi Dannadk, yes, this is to be preferred. The permission procedure is explained on Commons:OTRS (in Danish: Commons:OTRS/da). If it is only about the current 3 images, you could just take the permission template[8] (or the Danish equivalent), write the filenames (or full URLs) of the 3 images into it, add the name of the agreed-upon license and mail it to Mr. Boesen and ask him to date and sign it (put his name under it) and to mail it back to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). The permission email will not be made public, but only checked by an OTRS volunteer, who will then tag the images covered by the permission. However, if you intend to upload more images from Mr. Boesen over a longer period of time, you should check with Mr. Boesen whether he would to agree to issue a general permission for all uploads of his images via your user account (User:Dannadk). If he agrees, this would allow to have one permission-ticket for all your uploads. Otherwise you would need a new permission for each batch of images. --Túrelio (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file already attributes the original author sufficiently, it links the original file, it says "derivative work", and it includes the attribution license. You will stop edit warring or I will report your actions on AN/U. My patience is already thin enough with Maxx12's scurilous lies and accusations. Fry1989eh?21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It DOES give a source, it hotlinks the original file, and uses the attribution license of Katepanomegas. Why is it so hard for you people to just ask me to change something? That's been my main complaint this entire time, that Maxx12 and the IP did not come and try and ask me to change it, but instead both made baseless accusations and changed it themselves. You of all people should have noticed my irk at that, and then you do the same thing! Try asking me for once, say "can you please do this to the file?" (you don't even have to include the "please"!) or something to that effect, I'm not an unreasonable person when you ask me, not accuse me and then change things on me in the assumption I would never do it myself. Fry1989eh?21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am neither Maxx12 nor the IP, nor did I take part in their way of discussing. I did not accuse you, I reject this claim of yours. To the contrary, to eventually be able to defuse the situation I tried to understand what was the conflict. Therefore, on COM:AN/U, 36 hours ago I asked/wrote you
":@Fry1989, your last edit-version[9] doesn't make sense. You added the license-template of Katepanomegas, but at the same time claim it solely as own work and claim to be the only author."
You did never really reply to my question on COM:AN/U, instead you ranted or retorted against the other users. Though that might have been understandable in regard to their accusations, it was not appropriate behaviour towards my factual comment. When I found no answer, I went to your talkpage and demanded an answer to this simple question. I still got no answer from you, but only a link to an image talkpage with rather extensive comments. When I finally found your statement, which confirmed my assumption, I adapted the entry to what is appropriate IMO.
All this was not about you not giving due credit to this Katepanomegas, which you already did by using his license-template, but it's about having the correct entries in the description fields, as these are being read by automated programs when constructing the credit information for other online/mobile uses. The way you have done it now is fine, you don't even need to display the source image, but it's also o.k. that way. --Túrelio (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your question, I had to go back and read it again and I still don't see one. IN fact, the only thing you said in that entire section of AN/U was (and I quote)
@Fry1989, your last edit-version doesn't make sense. You added the license-template of Katepanomegas, but at the same time claim it solely as own work and claim to be the only author. Apart from this case we do really need a thorough discussion on Commons what is a derivative work and what not, as this term is used here far too generously IMO.
Where in that statement, is your question about whether or not my upload was from File:Great coat of arms of the king of italy (1890-1946).svg?? So no, I didn't ignore your question, your question was non-existent until you subsequently directly asked me on my talk page. And if we're going to talk about people ignoring answers, let's talk about how I said I would answer on the file talk page, which I did only moments later, that you ignored and then edited the file saying I didn't answer you when I clearly did. You're the one who ignored things, my answer was not "hard to find" as you suggest, it was the first sentence! Now I will reiterate my main point one last time: If you have a problem with one of my uploads and think it needs some changing, come to me and ask about it. Don't just unilaterally change things up because you assume I wouldn't be receptive. Good day! Fry1989eh?01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, the comment ":@Fry1989, your last edit-version[10] doesn't make sense. You added the license-template of Katepanomegas, but at the same time claim it solely as own work and claim to be the only author."
..is written as an english statement, rather than a question. It prevents an answer except as a challenge. If it were phrased as a question, it may be easier for a polite non-combative person to answer it (not that I'm referring to fry or any of the people who seem to be very consistently interacting with him in all the same places he's contributing as both polite and non-combative, as it seems they are acting otherwise to get some particular result). Basically, questions have question marks, and have answers rather than refutations. So when you say that he hasn't answered your question, it may help if you ask one, or make it more obvious that you are asking a question. Penyulap ☏09:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Penyulap, besides of the fact that you are merely repeating Fry1989's statement in his last posting above, which is an unnecessary redundancy, a reasonable reply to my original comment at COM:AN/U — whether actually phrased as a question or not — would have been to say, "you are wrong because ..." or "you are right and I will correct this." None of this had happened. Anyway, as the underlying problem in the file description has been finally corrected and the conflict disappeared, there is no need to perpetuate that disagreement.
I don't know what role you are taking as of recently. Your first 2 comments on Fry1989's talkpage yesterday weren't at all helpful for Fry1989 and they contained a wrongful accusation towards me (excuse to block). When I point a user to a relevant (and easy to solve) problem, I can expect an appropriate answer. When I don't get such an answer and have to take care again about the underlying problem, this is an unnecessary spoiling of my time. In case you aren't aware of it, neither I or nor my other admin-colleagues receive any payment for our mostly unpleasant work, for getting insulted on-wiki and off-wiki, for even getting threatened, etc.
Even though you may think you earlier claim (excuse to block) was a correct prediction, it was not. The fact that later I did indeed mention a block on Fry1989's talkpage, resulted from Fry1989's edit-behaviour[11] and from his own threat against me[12]. While I blocked quite a number of users, nearly all of these blocks were done for uploading copyvios after warnings, and I don't need any excuse for blocks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alfonsay, sorry, but the NC-restriction (no commercial use) is indeed not allowed on Commons. You may try to ask the Flickr-user if he/she will lift it or give Commons a permission to use/distribute it without the NC. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you or anyone, will delete my uploaded files, I will delete all my contributions to Wikipedia. I had a lot of work with a lot of articles and I will consider authentic vandalism from you and I will use all my LEGAL rights against you and Wikipedia. I have the express permission from all my sources, when they are not mine. I do not put someone else's work without expressed permission. All Seigokan files have authorization from the Hombu Dojo in Himeji, Japan, by Seigo Tada President, as I am the Secretary General (3rd Dan) of Seigokan Portugal. The other files are or my own work from adaptations of my sources or authorized sources.
So, please remove all notifications on the files.
Thanks.
Best Regards, Eduardo Lopes Seigokanportugal (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eduardo, if we were on Wikipedia, you might be immediately blocked for issuing a legal threat against another user. Just to put things straight: you have no legal right at all to have anything hosted on Commons, which is also true for anybody else. Commons has no obligation to host anything from you (or anybody else). We offer to host media which are in our scopeand which are free enough to be used by anybody for any purpose, including commercial uses.
However, it is the uploader's obligation to provide evidence that either he/she is the true author or that the uploaded work is truely under a free license.
Lets see your disputed uploads:
File:Charles George.jpg - an image from 1911, which you claim as own work. So, how old are you, 110 years? Who is the true photographer? When did he die?
File:Eduardo Lopes.jpg - said to be from 1938 and claimed as own work, but found here. When challenged, said to be from your uncle (1997) and to be "an adaptation of a work done by Bernard Paris (Renard)"[13]. Thereby, not own work. Permission needed from 1) the original photographer and 2) the person who has done the adaptation.
File:Mestre Seigo Tada2a.JPG - said to be from 1940 and sourced to a book, but again claimed as own work. Permission needed from the original photographer.
As a general note: In case you really don't know: if you reproduce a 2-dimensional work (photo), you do not earn any own copyright and you do not become its author. Instead you have to get the original photographers permission and put his name in the author entry. --Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice about Flickr licenses not being revokables. I was not aware of that detail. My apologies for the incorrect edits I made. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2105:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, kannst du mir bitte zwei Bilder löschen, das eine lud ich aus Versehen anstelle der Fassung mit verpixeltem Kfzkennzeichen, bei dem anderen müsste diese noch stärker sein: dies und jenes? Nur aus Gründen der Vorsicht. Danke im voraus, Gruß, Alupus
Nun, wenn du die Nummernschilder nicht mehr lesen kannst, dann ist es in Ordnung und die Datei soll bleiben. Vielleicht hat mir da das Gedächtnis einen Streich gespielt, weil ich sie ja kurz vorher noch gesehen habe ;-). --Alupus (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems trampling on the copyright of a Belgian artist doesn't hurt you. Will you pay the fees when he (or his agency) sues the WMF and re-users, as the Belgian owners of the Atomium regularly do? --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.
Please check the source to verify that this is correct. In particular, note that publication on the Internet, like publication by any other means, does not in itself imply permission to redistribute. Files without valid permission should be tagged with {{subst:npd}}.
Usage notes:
If the work requires attribution, use {{Attribution}} instead.
If this is your own work, please use {{Cc-zero}} instead.
" because apparently all pictures posted on Tumblr is Fair Use as I see, but I don't know if this one is... I haven't any permission, you can delete it if you want to.
Hi Degagebouche, the problem is that Commons does not (and cannot) allow fair-use. Fair-use material needs to be uploaded locally at the project where you want to use it — provided the project has such an exemption policy. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., thanks for the clarification. I have reverted my reverts for these 2 files now. Do the other files also contain such watermarks? --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conozco la regla sobre los años de defunción del artista. Sólo pensaba que con el enlace que ponía en la página de Europeana esta fotografía en concreto estaba libre para subirla a commons y usarla en wikipedia. Usted debe entender más por ser administrador, muchas gracias y perdone las molestias. Saludos --MarisaLR (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mr Turelio, thanks for your message. Sorry ig my english so bad. you can see it [17] from thats history user:Willy2000 was put the taq for forbidden name, so thats why i blocked him. i am so sorry because didn't check before for him global account. I will open him Block Account. Thanks Imanuel NS Uen (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the personalized and humane approach.
I've seen your message on Id admin talk page and was really touched. You're not just a good admin but also a good human being.
In terms of numbers of edits, my contribution on Wikipedia(s) far is less than Commons but there more often times I've filled a void of informatory articles. For example, on Hindi Wikipedia, I've created about 40 pages pertaining India's National AIDS Control Organisation and all State AIDS Control Societies in India besides some 40 other articles and 100s of edits, still its just 1200+. Similar are cases of some other Wikis where edit count numbers are less but they took nearly 40-50 times more time for editing. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
für Deine Recherche ;-). Ich habe gesehen, dass einige meiner Bilder, die gelöscht wurden, am 1. Januar wieder hergestellt wurden. Diese Bilder sind damals noch mit meinem alten lokalen Benutzernamen MBO163 hochgeladen worden. Kann man sie jetzt auf mein Konto übertragen?
Hello. There was a renaming request for this file to File:Fantasy Microsoft Windows logo.svg, citing the fact that Microsoft Windows 1.0 did not have the logo nor was there any such proposal to this effect. The requester again posted the message on my talk page. Do you feel I should rename to the suggested name as I am unsure about the whole affair? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Moin Túrelio, schau Dir mal die Bilder von Cr7cr9 an. Soweit ich das sehe sind das alles URVen. Einige seiner Dateien wurden schon gelöscht. Ansprachen beim Benutzer werden leider hier und drüben in de.wp ignoriert. Gruß, --Martin1978 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeg, har en stærk mistanke om at der er værkshøjde på billedet, og at det dermed er copyrighted selvom det er fra før 1945. --Gajolen (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Google translat.: I have a strong suspicion that there is a work height of the image, and that it therefore is copyrighted even if it's from before 1945.
Thanks, now I got it. You think it might be considered not a simple photography, but a work of art, whereby PD-Denmark50 would not be applicable. As this would need a discussion to get several opinions, you should open a regular deletion request. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio- I have created multiple user categories to organize my images. I have about 300 uploaded so far. I wanted to add a single category to all of them and hope there is a way to do this as a batch process. I wanted to add Category:All Images by User:Godot13 so I have one folder where I can see all images. Could you instruct me on if this is possible? Thanks --Godot13 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, if you don't want to do it manually, this would be a job for a bot. However, despite being on Commons for year I never got accustomed to batch processing/bot programming. So, you might ask for that at COM:VP. Also, check whether this discussion might help. --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links as a result of renaming categories[edit]
Hi, I have noticed that you and others have been renaming a lot of commons categories recently, leaving a lot of dead links on wikipedia pages as a result. I have been trying to fix a few of them but perhaps it is better when you change the name of a category, that you check the dead links on wikipedia and repair them youself. Kleon3 (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kleon3, usually I am not the "renamer", but the "deleter" after the content of the old cat has been removed to the new one. When the old cat has interwikis, I usually follow them and check whether there is a back-link and, if there is, whether it is correct; if not, I correct it — though this work is the job of the "renamer". However, this process works only if the old cat has not visible interwikis. Anyway, thanks for your repairing. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, in der italienischen und englischen WP werden die Wikilinks aus den Artikeln genommen. Weißt Du, wie man in Zukunft die Wikilinks oder neue Wikilinks in Commons oder Wikispecies kopieren kann, oder wird das auch automatisiert? Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merkwürdig, die iw-Einträge wurden entfernt, trotzdem werden die iw-Links weiterhin angezeigt. Versteh ich auch nicht. Ich werde die weiterhin manuell einfügen, sofern welche fehlen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tùrelio - I would ask you your opinion and your help for this situation. As you can verify personally, in 2010 I transferred a lot of picture from the Wikipedia Italia image archive to the Commons Wikimedia. I did so in order to help, as they were looking for volunteers who would do that work, and I happily did so. Nowadays many many pictures are in the Commons Wikimedia store under my name, Decio Mure. Now I desire to find a solution to have those pictures not anymore under my name. I have personal issues and problems in real life that forbid me to spent time to take responsibility for these pictures... and some of them have legal problems/implications. Some of them have been already deleted for copyright or are in debate for various violations: File:Cimento moto alpino 1935 Roma.jpg , File:Vele di Scampia.jpg , File:Veduta_di_Mori_e_Montalbano.jpg , File:Francobollo_1_sterlina_LARGE_oro_autoadesivo.jpg , File:Pianto di uomo arte.jpg , File:Pianto di uomo arte 2.jpg...
...and mainly I am worried for a large series of image of Pistoia, Italy: File:Giostra Orso Pistoia 1998.jpg and a whole series of pictures of the same kind, all uploaded under my name in 2010, because these are artistic work done in recent time and is controversial if thay can stay or not. Basically, for personal issue now I desire not to be involved in such debate, I have many problems in real life that ask fully my attention, so I would ask you what can be the best solution for all: I did that work in 2010 in order to help, but now, today, I really desire to have all those pictures re-transferred on Wikimedia Italia repository or deleted and uploaded by another user who may look after them and debate in the questions/problems may arise. What do you think? You have a long experience as administrator and maybe you can suggest me how to do. There is a person, Antonio G. here in Avellino, who would like to upload my pictures and give a look time to time on them, he is a student. We did so accordingly with File:Caserta_camera_di_commercio.jpg as you can verify, and I asked deletion for my file. We could do the same for all the uploaded file. Please suggest me the best solution because I really desire to not have any worries for copyright or similar issue now in that period of my private life.
I can also ask for the deletion of the entire personal account of mine, Decio Mure, but in such case what would be done of the pictures I uploaded? All erased? That's a pity... so please what would be for you the best solution? Greetings Decio Mure (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Decio Mure,
sorry to hear that. To start with your last proposal: a truly complete removal of a user account is not possible, as far as I know. What is possible is the removal of your user and usertalk pages. However, this wouldn't change anything with your uploads.
So, I think the best way to dissociate your username from your transfer-uploads would be 1) to identify and list all those images with a questionable copyright status (for example, derivatives) and get these deleted, and 2) for the remaining uploads (without any copyright problem) to get them re-uploaded by User:Antonio g60 and thereafter get your original upload deleted as duplicate. If you don't have enough time to start step 1) (listing) by yourself, I can try to take care of that, though it will take quite some time, as I am currently rather busy in RL and will even be completely offline for the next week. --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
Hello Túrelio many thanks for your answer. Yes we can do as you suggested... and I will do the most of the job: it is my responsibility :) I'm sure with your help the problem will be easily solved. Ok! I will start to list the Giostra di Pistoia file with a questionable copyright status, and I will continue with the help of Antonio G. to upload the "ok" file and list as duplicate the files of mine. Ok! Great! And I will also de-link the referred pages (if any) from the old files to the new files! You, as administrator, can give me a great help just counselling me how to do things correctly regarding Wikimedia rules and policy. I will do the most of the work. If you want you can just proceed to deletion of Decio Mure files when the new file is provided and all is done correctly (de-link, etc. etc.) I will ask nothing more to you! I'm sure we can end this cycle in the best way just collaborating!
P.S. I do not want to process ALL files... the files that are truly mine like the mountains, woods, nature, etc. I will keep on my account, without any problems, and I'll take care of them, and also will add others! :)
the files are IMO not free enough. the AGB (terms of use) grants the right to publish the image without fees, but forbids relicensing, transfer and editing. Rbrausse (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, objections/disagree, all so-called "Rules" is appropriate remains to be established.
Based on existing policies (please see the translation Here or Click Here) in the Indonesian Wikipedia community, then the user name: "Hindustanilanguage" is not allowed.
Why are you posting this here, when the underlying conflict has amicably been solved days ago[18] ? Provided a username is not per se insulting/derogatory/attacking, one needs to balance between adhering to local project policy and enabling global single user login (SUL). --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, forgive me for pitching in, but the Hindustanilanguage left a message in my talk page about this message. I can only say to Erwin that once a user is established as a trusted user project-wide, he would be regarded as trusted user in id-wp likewise, and must be exempted from the current policy. I'll left a message to Erwin too. Hope this will clear the situation. Bennylin (yes?) 14:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully de-linked all of them. The most are unused at all... like Conflitti 2008.png - even in such case is needed for you to redirect the old name to the new name? How can people look for the old name if unused (and unknown)? Is it unnecessary traffic for you? Anyway, as you can verify, I carefully delink each file. Greetings --Decio Mure (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Decio Mure, I've processed those 4 files. Well, for files such old, redirects are required as there may be external uses (hot-linking), where the image would disappear without a redirect. However, nothing in the visible description has an association to you. --Túrelio (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio! The artist has already released the photographs of paintings I just uploaded under a license approved by Wikimedia. An email was sent to Wikimedia on 14 November 2012, the receipt of which was confirmed by a "ticket" with the following number: Ticket#2012111410011543. Is further permission/confirmation required? Please advise. Artfreak4567 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, then you should add {{OTRS-pending}} to all images covered by this permission. As soon as the permission is confirmed by a OTRS volunteer, he/she will add the definitve ticket to the images. --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's sad. If you want to use it on :en Wikipedia, it might qualify for fair-use. However, this requires local upload, as Commons does not allow fair-use. Otherwise, you need to identify their record company or whoever might have produced the cover. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn´t upload the picture but marked as copyvio. About this, I don´t know if you speak spanish, but it is a very offensive message (to your mother), and the fact that user wrote "new WikiLove message" in the Summary is even worst. Bye. --Andrea (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am an employee from IpkoFoundation I have the rights from them to post the images File:WikiAcademyKosovoOpeningCeremony87.jpg , if there is something wrong please let me know and help me to fix it.
Hallo Turelio,
Deinen Antrag auf Löschung der obigen Datei, weil die Aufstellung nur zeitweilig erfolgt, verstehe ich nicht. Die Aufstellung erfolgte in Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Auswärtigen Amt Berlin und DIE GALERIE Frankfurt am Main und ich verweise dabei auch auf die Datei:Igor Mitoraj, Valencia 2006.jpg, aus der hervorgeht, dass diese Skulptur auch nur 3 Monate in Valencia ausgestellt wurde.
Kvikk
Wenn du mal dem Link auf Commons:FOP#Germany in der Löschdiskussion gefolgt wärest, hättest du die detaillierte Erklärung gesehen. In Kürze: "in Zusammenarbeit" usw. ist völlig belanglos, weil nur der Künstler das Urheberrecht an seinem Werk hat, das AA hätte dies nicht einmal bei einem Kauf. Panoramafreiheit in D. verlangt nunmal dauerhafte Anbringung im öffentlichen Raum, ersteres ist hier nicht erfüllt. Der Verweis auf andere Foto unter vermeintlich vergleichbaren Umständen ist hier auch irrelevant. Dennoch Danke für den Hinweis. Ich werde mich darum kümmern. Wo steht das mit den 3 Monaten bei File:Igor Mitoraj, Valencia 2006.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Turelio, Plakette von RS hängt im Eingangsbereich eines allgemein zugänglichen öffentlichen Schulgebäudes... ist aber NICHT von außen zu sehen (oder zu fotografieren). Name des Künstlers, der die Bronze-Plakette geschaffen hat, ist (mir) nicht bekannt; Fotograf war ich selbst. Wenn´s (zwingend) nötig ist, kann ich versuchen, mehr (= Name des Künstlers; Jahr...) von der Schule zu erfahren... oder von dem Enkel von RS. --Moltkeplatz (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, dann ist nach dem Gesetzesbuchstaben bzw. der Rechtsprechung wohl nix mit Panoramafreiheit. Wenn der Künstler noch lebt, könntest du versuchen, ihn zu kontaktieren und um eine Erlaubnis zu bitten. An sich sollte das ja auch in seinem Interesse sein. Das gilt übrigens für alle Kunstwerke, mit Erlaubnis des Künstlers ist Panoramafreiheit belanglos. --Túrelio (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plakette ist signiert "P.V. 1930". Ich fürchte, da kommt nach 80+ Jahren nichts mehr bei raus. Ich kann aber mal den Direktor des Berufskollegs (als Hausherrn und insofern Vertreter des Eigentümers = Stadt Essen) ansprechen. Nützt es, wenn zumindest dessen Einverständnis vorliegt? --Moltkeplatz (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, es sei denn der Künstler hätte ihm sämtliche Rechte daran übertragen, wozu es aber keinen Grund gibt. Er könnte aber vielleicxht wissen, wer die Hinterbliebenen sind. Vielleicht rückt er ja eine Emailadresse heraus. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich weiss leider auch nichts über etwaige Rechteinhaber. Ein offenbar identisches Medaillon habe ich in einer Daueraustellung über die frühe Regionalplanung des Siedlungsverbandes Ruhrkohlenbezirk im Gebäude des Regionalverbandes Ruhr (RVR) in Essen gesehen (1. oder 2. OG, Flur). Wenn ich nicht irre, ist die Ausstellung bzw. das Medaillon dort noch zu sehen. Vielleicht ist der RVR so freundlich und leistet hier Unterstützung. Ggf. wäre die Stadt Essen um Mithilfe/Aufklärung zu bitten. Gruß--Tfjt (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bild ersetzt durch Bild einer gleichen Plakette vom Grabstein von Robert Schmidt. Vorheriges Bild kann damit ggf. gelöscht werden.--Moltkeplatz (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., das ist wohl etwas kurz. Ich werde einen normalen (langsamen) LA dafür eröffnen. Da der Künstler 1966 geboren ist, könnte sich hier eine Kontaktaufnahme lohnen. Gib mir Bescheid, wenn du das machen willst und eine Kontaktadresse gefunden hast, dann besorge ich dir einen passenden Genehmigungstext als Vorlage. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, ich habe die Email-Zustimmung des Künstlers. Er wird ein entsprechendes Formblatt gerne unterschreiben. Bitte sende es mir (am besten wohl per Email)... und Anweisungen, wie ich es eingebe: <censored>yahoo.com .--Moltkeplatz (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, noch einmal meine Frage/Bitte: wie komme ich an das Formblatt, das der Künstler auszufüllen und zu unterschreiben hat? An wen sende ich es?--Moltkeplatz (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Turelio, gibt´s nen Weg, das Bild von dem im öffentlichen Raum stehenden Kunstwerk in Commons zu halten? Hilft es, wenn ich die Lizenz ändere? Wenn ja, wie bzw. wohin? Eigentlich ist meine Philosophie, alles "frei" zu geben... aber wenn´s anders besser geht... kein Problem.
--Moltkeplatz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das Problem ist nicht deine Lizenzierung, sondern die Frage, ob du überhaupt dazu berechtigt bist. Wie du aus meiner Formulierung im LA entnehmen kannst, kann es durchaus sein, dass der Künstler das Teil nicht registriert hat, womit er in den USA sein Urheberrecht verloren hat (absurd aber wahr). Die Überprüfung der Registrierung bzw. Nicht-Registrierung überlasse ich aber lieber meinen US-Kollegen. D.h., es besteht durchaus eine Chance, die aber völlig unabhängig von dir ist. --Túrelio (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deanlaw, are you sure that the original drawing is also covered by PD-USGov? As the drawing is even signed, it might be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nose art painted on U.S. Airforce aircraft is done by Airforce "employees" (typically enlisted men) who are government employees and so would fall under PD-USGov . Thanks for checking on this! Deanlaw (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tindaro-Skulptur von Igor Mitoraj (2).jpg[edit]
Hallo Túrelio,
Du bist sicher ein Superexperte und ich dagegen ein kleines Licht. Deshalb habe ich mich bei obiger Datei an andere Veröffentlichungen über ausgestellte Werke von Igor Mitoraj orientiert, unter anderem an die Datei Igor Mitoraj Tyndaros Screpolato.jpg, nach der das Werk in Cracow/Polen zeitweilig ausgestellt war. Und es gibt weitere Kunstwerke, die zeitweilig ausgestellt wurden und trotzdem in Wikimedia enthalten sind. Deshalb verstehe ich den Antrag auf Löschung der obigen Datei nicht. Für die Ausstellung sind das Auswärtige Amt in Berlin und DIE GALERIE Frankfurt am Main verantwortlich.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
KvikkKvikk (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte nicht ganz so ironisch. Wir Admins haben die Urheberrechtsgesetze nicht geschrieben und versuchen nur unseren (unbezahlten) Job zu machen, um dieses Projekt am laufen zu halten.
Dein oben geschilderter Ansatz ist zwar nicht grundsätzlich falsch, führt auf solchen Projekten und insbesondere auf Commons aber oft in die Irre. Denn einerseits ist das, was zunächst gleich erscheint, häufig doch nicht gleich, da z.B. die Regeln zur Panoramafreiheit (Commons:Freedom of panorama) von Land zu Land variieren, teils recht stark. Hinzu kommt, dass den langfristig Aktiven völlig klar ist, dass von den >16 Mio Dateien auf Commons immer noch jede Menge hier unrechtmäßig liegen. Bei täglich 8000 neuen Uploads lässt sich einfach nicht vermeiden dass immer wieder schlechte Fische durch die Eingangskontrolle durchrutschen, ganz abgesehen von den Altlasten. Für das Exponat in Krakau habe ich den LA Commons:Deletion requests/File:Igor Mitoraj Tyndareos screpolato.jpg gestellt, weil 3 Monate nicht "permanently" entspricht. Was dein Foto angeht: ich hatte dir schon in meiner früheren Antwort gesagt, dass nur der Künstler/Urheber das Recht hat, Abbildungen/Darstellungen von seinem Werk zu genehmigen, nicht der Gallerist, nicht der Mäzen, nicht der Käufer des Gemäldes und auch nicht der Außenminister. Da Igor Mitoraj noch lebt, warum versuchst du nicht, ihn zu kontaktieren und um eine Genehmigung zu bitten? Macht zwar etwas Mühe, kann aber durchaus erfolgreich sein. So habe ich z.B. dieses wertvolle Foto File:TheoVanGogh.jpg bekommen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although back then it made sense to get rid of all those almost frivoulous additions to BSicon set, meanwhile we started working at creating some kind of order among the “other color” sets. And for a good overview of all the stray variants needing standartization, those 5 files would add to the big picture, should they be available again. You can read the specifics at Talk:BSicon/Colors#Light greens. Thanks for your attention! -- Tuválkin✉04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio!
Du hast mich am 23. Februar wegen des Files Greifengespann.jpg angeschrieben, leider habe ich das heute erst gesehen, mein Fehler, Spamfilter nicht gecheckt. Mittlerweile sind meine drei Uploads gelöscht worden, nachdem ich auf eine Anfrage per Mail an permissions-de@wikimedia.org keine Antwort erhalten hatte. Ich hätte die drei upgeloadeten Bilder gerne lizensiert, habe aber folgende Probleme:
Greifengespann.jpg - bin im Besitz des Originalabzugs. Der abgebildete Künstler Lothar Rechtacek ist mein kürzlich verstorbener Vater. Wer das Bild anno 1971 geschossen hat, wusste er selbst nicht mehr. Das Kunstwerk sowie den Künstler sollte ich also abbilden dürfen, doch ist der Fotograf unbekannt. Wie bekomme ich das Bild in den Wiki-Artikel "Lothar Rechtacek"?
Bueste Rechtacek.jpg - Künstler als auch Fotograf dieses Bildes ist Ulrich Jörke, mit dem ich persönlich in Kontakt stehe. Ich habe seine Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes auf Wikipedia unter der Lizenz CC-by-sa 3.0/de
Wie bekomme ich dieses Bild in den Wiki-Artikel "Lothar Rechtacek"? Reicht ein Antrag wie hier beschrieben: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Textvorlagen ?
Melusine Acryl.jpg - Das Foto habe ich selbst geschossen, der Künstler selbst hat mir die Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung auf Wikipedia vor seinem Tod erteilt. Ist eine Einverständniserklärung wie folgt in Ordnung?
"Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild [Melusine Acryl.JPG], dass ich der Fotograf bin. Für die Abbildung des Gemäldes auf Wikipedia unter nachfolgenden Lizenzbedingungen habe ich zudem vor seinem Tod die Erlaubnis des Künstlers Lothar Rechtacek (lothar@rechtacek.de) erhalten und bin somit Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts.
Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter folgender freier Lizenz:
CC-by-sa 3.0/de
Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.
Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.
Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.
09. März 2013, Wulf Rechtacek"
Sorry, dass ich dich so mit Fragen zuballere, aber bin auf diesem Lizenzrechtegebiet absoluter Nichtwisser und du bist der Einzige, der mir geschrieben hat ;)
Also, dass die Dateien zwischenzeitlich gelöscht wurden, ist belanglos, weil sie leicht wiederhergestellt werden können, sofern als legitim gewertet. Deine Frage "Wie bekomme ich das Bild in ..." ist, sorry, zunächst sekundär, da das ohnehin nur möglich sein wird, wenn die Bilder nach unseren Bedingungen als urheberrechtlich einwandfrei betrachtet werden.
zu Bild 1): schwierig. Woran siehst du dass es der "Originalabzug" ist? Das Negativ hast du nicht? Der Fotograf hält prinzipiell das Urheberrecht am Bild, weshalb die Verbreitung, erst recht unter einer freien Lizenz (wie es Commons verlangt), nur mit seiner Zustimmung erlaubt ist. Das gilt übrigens auch für Passfotos, die du beim Fotografen machen lässt. Obwohl du sie bezahlt hast, darfst du nicht einfach eines davon einscannen und hier hochladen. Das muss der Fotograf genehmigen. Falls du nicht schon alles versucht hast, den damaligen Fotografen ausfindig zu machen, würde ich das versuchen. Ansonsten stehen die Chancen eher schlecht. Wo ist das Foto eigentlich aufgenommen worden, im eigenen Studio deines Vaters? Lässt sich aus dem Abzug schließen, ob es von einem Fotografen oder vielleicht von einem Familienmitglied (Ehefrau?) aufgenommen worden ist?
zu Bild 2): einfach. Du kannst die vorgeschlagene oder auch diese Textvorlage nehmen. Allerdings solltest du den Text dahingehend ergänzen, dass 1) der Lizenzgeber (Herr Jörke) Urheber sowohl des Fotos als auch des Kunstwerks (Original) ist, und 2) die Lizenz natürlich nur für das Foto des Werkes gilt.
zu Bild 3): etwas heikel. Wenn du die Kollegen vom Supportteam (heißt hier OTRS), die du unter permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org erreichst, damit zufriedenstellst, o.k. Schlimmstensfalls musst du die Nachfahren kontaktieren.
Wow, danke für die rasche Antwort! Also zu Bild 1: Da werde ich nochmal recherchieren, da fällt mir noch eine Quelle ein, die ich nicht angezapft habe. Zu Bild 2: toll! Zu Bild 3: Der zu kontaktierende Nachfahre des Künstlers bin ich ja selbst (bin sein Sohn), daher kein Problem, oder? Nochmals danke für das schnelle Feedback! Gruß, Ulfen81 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holaaa mil disculpas por favor me pueden ayudar con una imagen que fue borrada, no tengo claro el porque?que puedo hacer para recuperarla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negritorri (talk • contribs) 9. März 2013, 23:21 Uhr (UTC)
Hola, as of yet none of your uploads has been deleted, However, 3 of your uploads are proposed for deletion because there is suspicion of License laundering using Flickr. The Flickr account, which you used as a source, claims that these images had been shot January 12, 2013. However, the same photos have already been deleted from Commons for being copyvios last year. --Túrelio (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Túrelio. I note a byline in the EXIF for this file crediting Johan Jacobs, which suggests this image is either a professional headshot or perhaps an author photo for a book dustjacket or back cover. If it's the former, the copyright is likely held by the photographer (this is the practice for headshots in the film and television business in North America, at any rate) and can't be reproduced without his permission. If it's the latter, the copyright may belong to the author herself, but it may belong the photographer or to the publisher. All of which is only to say that even if Ms De Coster contacts OTRS with permission to publish the image under a free license, it may not be sufficient. The same goes for her book covers (File:Cover wijenik decoster.jpg, File:Project arne quinze en saskia de coster.jpg; File:Book cover - Dit is van mij by Saskia De Coster.pdf may fall below the threshold of originality), the rights to which are almost certainly held by the publisher. --Rrburke (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rrburke, as I am not on OTRS myself, we should find a way to communicate that to OTRS, at least to the volunteer who will eventually work on her permission, if she sends one. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, je ne sais pas si la remarque vient de vous mais je vous rassure, j'ai le droit d'utiliser la couverture du magazine littéraire du Matricule des Anges dont Pascal Commère était la "vedette" , le principal invité, avec son portrait en couverture, pour l'article sur lui dans Wikipedia, le rédacteur en chef, Thierry Guichard, est heureux que Pascal Commère soit dans Wikipedia.
Paris le 13 mars 2013 poulot
Hi Poulot poulot,
please always sign your comments using --~~~~.
The problem is that in both cases you have claimed to be the author by yourself. You can say that legitimately only if you shot the original photography. If you only have permission from the true author/rights holder, then you need to forward that permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . For the procedure and a permission-template see here: Commons:OTRS/fr. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are from València, from the Falles Festivals. As long as the Fallas are works permanently stationed in the street during its whole lifespan, the photos of Fallas are considered to be able to be published as a PD-Works by the Spanish Law (the Spanish law does not mention explicitlly it, and the Courts have never pronunced, but the Spanish Laws considers the sand statues to fall under this situation, and the burned cupboard/wood figures can be considered to fall under FOP by Spanish law as said in a previous discussion I'm looking for.--Coentor (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to You, You are Welcome. Please, consider that I upload my files from the mobile so I can't be much precise with the lisening, as I use the "default" one.--Coentor (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nature of his works, he resp. his heir(s) might be willing to give permission. However, first you need to do a research who currently holds the copyright of his works. --Túrelio (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the copyrights are handled by an agency called Bild-Kunst. I think this is all beyond me. I think it would be better to have the images deleted. Curly Turkey (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ... Suddenly, I cannot use this Upload Wizzard of Commons[19] even using Google Chrome and I tried Opera. I can just use the old form but I have many images. May I please know if there is something wrong with the Commons Server Upload Wizzard? Thanks waiting for your kind reply. Cheers. -Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, ... Buenas dias! Since 10:40, 27 January 2010 (3 years ago) until May 15, 2013 (Wednesday in the Philippines, with my total editcount of 29,302 - or of more than 28,000 Commons uploaded photos, large files of 6-8 MB each or 4,600 x 3,400 each) --- yesterday, at 3:33 p.m., this DSCN 1329, [20] raw, unedited and original picture is and was uploaded by myself, shared to all believers, skeptics, agnostics, mystics, photographers and infidels alike); I respectfully request thee, as I hereby submit to the Commons community of passionate and professional, including amateur photographers, the instant Picture perfect of mystical origin, but never magic, in the very Sanctuary and main Altar of the 1638 St. Mary Magdalene Church of Kawit[21] for Commons judgment and comment. I did submit some photos of this category to the Philippines professional photographers when I bought my Nikon AW 100 last year, but they failed to decipher the pictures. Embedded in this photo are Cryptology[22] Lights trillion of times faster than the speed of earth light, meaning, no time, no space, no mass ... time travel direly absolute. I ponder that at this time, at your moments, thou may not be able to detect the innermost core of the deepest secrets of the entire existence of Universe, but, for sure, as I and you are both passionate scientists of photography, then, if you would please, I hope that this rarest photo with embedded Codes of Light, would be a candidate for the next Picture of the Year. Sincerely, --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ramon, if I understand you correctly, you are asking for or how to propose File:KawitChurchjf1325_14.JPG for the next Picture of the Year (POTY) competition, right? As have never activily participated in these competitions on Commons, I have Zero experience with that. From Commons:Picture of the Year I read that POTY is elected from the Commons:Featured pictures in the same year. So, you first need to get it elected as "Featured picture". A starting-point for that may be Commons:Featured picture candidates. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Thanks Túrelio. It is just an eloquent language of mine to dream that this picture might be entered in the competition. To be sure, what I passionately desire, is just for your objective comment on this photo which is only 1 of my 28,000 photos (excluding about 14,000 not uploaded to Commons). I do understand that Philippines forum on photography (composed of skeptics, but not as sharp as you are, since your record here in Commons, your tons of edits, which point to your extreme passion for photography, speaks of itself - res ipsa loquitur) is not capable of professionally submitting an erudite comment on this photo. Thus, today, (as I did watch Star Trek, into Darkness, the Coordinates of Jupiter in the Movie here in Philippines), I decided to talk to you and another administrator, hoping that this photo would be professionally criticized, that is, an objective comment written: what is this picture, the white clouds of light? If you read the Le Petit Prince, it is stated that "what is essential is invisible to the eye" and I add: Nikon lens can capture what the naked eye cannot. Simply put, you dedicated your daily life for editing hundreds of thousands of photos including rotating my own works (since our internet here is slow, I thank thee for this hard job), then, it is my Faith that you can objectively comment on what this photo is all about, in the eyes of an Administrator-photographer. Very sincerely--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your long text by chance. PoYs are elected from the featured pictures. Before nominating a picture as FPC it is a good idea to put it on QIC and get feedbacks on the general quality of the photo. To be honest: If you really mean File:KawitChurchjf1325_14.JPG I guess that is has currently neither a chance as quality image nor as featured picture because the photo has massive quality and sharpness problems. The quality and Wow bar for indoor shots of churches is quite high at FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kawit,Cavitejf1448_03.JPG -- Thanks for your kindness. I am happy that after 28,000 uploaded photos here in Commons, I got the real one -this DSCN 1329, [23] I am a mystic, Catholic, but skeptic and I only believe what is and can be proven by science or shown by photography. I understand that interior Church photography, especially, this one, has poor light and could not qualify in general as good or featured photos. But, I dream and hope that this photo would be aptly and scientifically explained, I mean the clouds and miraculous appearance of the white Lights. Very truly yours and cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
are you identical to "Teun van der Velden" and are you also the depicted person with the yellow/green shirt? You do not need to answer that publicly, if you don't want; you may send me an email. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eigentlich hätte hier der Benutzer das Bild1 überschreiben können. Lassen wir das jetzt so, oder machen wir was (wg. redundanz)? --Atamari (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mit der Neufassung der Policy Commons:Overwriting existing files wäre Überschreiben vermutlich keine zulässige Option gewesen. Ich werde ihn mal fragen, wann das Foto denn wirklich aufgenommen wurde. Die neuen EXIF-Daten sind ja offensichtlich nicht "echt". Letztlich wird es wohl darauf hinauslaufen, dass die alte Fassung, die auch schlechter aussieht, verschwindet. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:copyright status of older photos from unknown photographers in Poland[edit]
Hi Canoe1967, if I remember correctly, I found it in her article on :de, which she had written by herself, but which has been deleted in between. But you can find it also here, a page that is linked from her userpage on :de. However, you may still remove it, as I consider it not important. --Túrelio (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove it for now and she can add it back if she wishes. Her uploads probably need OTRS or they will be deleted. They are all in DR now. Her Enlgish seems fine to me but German help with OTRS couldn't hurt. She has user email turned on if you want to help out or on her talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio,These pictures do not belong to me. I bought it from someone else without permission. Now delete the pictures you want to have. I delete them, the label says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracas (talk • contribs) 20. März 2013, 13:27 Uhr (UTC)
Dear Turelio,
I understand and share your concern about the legitimacy of the material uploaded on wikimeida common.
I made the pictures on these collages and both are to be on wikimedia temporary only, I'll ask for their removal on the 22/3.
Would you please remove the warning tag so that I can refer to them in a wikipedia redaction exercice (only at previsualisation stage) I am doing ?
Thanks,
Benoit40 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Idealerweise sollte auch der Bildhauer angegeben werden. Wenn der schon >70 Jahre tot ist, ist die FOP-Vorlage natürlich nicht nötig. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What process do I put a picture (which is not of my authorship) in the Wiki?[edit]
I am already affiliated Wikipedia Portugal / Brazil for almost a year, but as I'm making new articles, need your help to help me understand the process I have to do to put (and legalize) the images are not of my Wiki written so as to be used in numerous different articles. Thank's --CristianoMisterium (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. In general: every image, which has not been shot by yourself or which has not xpxressedly been declared as being under a free license by its creator, has to be considered as copyrighted. It does not matter that it is shown on a website or that there is no (C) symbol under it. Even images shot by yourself that depict a still copyrighted artwork (painting, sculpture, etc.) are not permitted, as they violate the copyright of the original artist, except the artwork is permanently installed in the public of a country which has a freedom-of-panorama exception in its copyright law. Now, when you find an image, which you need for a Wikipedia article, you can try to contact the creator of that image and ask him whether he is willing to release this image under a free license ("for Wikipedia only" is not enough). --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently deleted/ moved two photos that I earlier added to the page 'Neon Sarcastic' called 'Codename: Disaster' and 'Chemistry Was Never The Problem' which apparently is due to copyright law.
I, as well as my band own full copyrights to both photos as I am a member of said band (Bryce Newbold. These photos are picture of the singles we have produced and brought out via many different forms of media outlets and the release date for 'Chemistry Was Never The Problem' is today. I hope this can be fixed today as we are on a very short time scale.
Thanks
Bryce Newbold
Neon Sarcastic
Hi Bryce, though I haven't deleted them, I had tagged them for deletion. While the "Codename: Disaster" cover is only a question of sending a permission to OTRS, as I had advised you, the chemistry-cover is less easy, as the (likely) original photo on the cover is from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jesusbravo/5447502170/, where it is labeled as "All rights reserved", which means that you cannot use it for other works without a permission from the original photographer. So you need to provide a permission from this photographer. As I am busy for this day, you will have to deal this with OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! For your question about File:Papa Francisco recién elegido.jpg, there is no problems, because is mine. Yours,--Tenan (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Right now I put the authors and origins of the photos, sorry I forgot to put them. You know, here are 6 am so here should be sleeping jajajaj, (all this is translated) soy Argentino jejj --Rodarte (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodarte, the no-source-tag gives you 7 days. So you may do it over the next days. After you have put the source information in the description, you may remove the no-source-tag. Thank you for Franciscus I. --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Buenas tardes to any and all administrators who would like to guide me in sharing wisdom to Commons. May I respectfully ask if it is possible like in Wikipedia, to be adopted by you and/or any Administrator? I am just looking at Wikipedia articles and found that there is such thing as adoption there for purposes. I want to learn more but as you know the tons of Commons and Wikipedia rules are very difficult for me, a slow learner, but I love photography. I discover Commons and it asks many lovers to join and share their wisdom, photos. Hence, like a prolific creater of Philippine towns, maps, etc.[25]User talk:TheCoffee, and Administrator
[26] on Wikipedia, even in good faith, it so difficult not to commit mistakes. I believe that if I am guided by a Commons administrator, then, it will be easier for me to share my original photos here in Commons. Please help me and adopt me, best wishes ([27]Total editcount: commons.wikimedia.org 10:40, 27 January 201018,466 -17,099)--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ramon FVelasquez,
thanks for your confidence. Over the last months, I have seen that you have uploaded a lot of images from the Philippines, as I have added the rotation tag to a number of them. I had already in mind that we need to talk about a number of your images which depicted works of art that might still be copyrighted.
As opposed to some wikipedias, at Commons we have no mentorship or Adopt-a-user program. However, feel free to ask me, if I am around, or any other admin or experienced user.--Túrelio (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, please help me, and thanks for your kindness[edit]
Muchos gracias, Túrelio and good morning, it is now 12 midnight March 25 here, beautiful Philippines. I am very much impressed with your great contributions, hard work and dedication to Commons. I pondered and ponder on contributing to Commons since 2009. I was enticed to share my photos, and I did solely for Commons since last year. I did stop uploading in any other site. However, I am not a Commons legal expert and I am quite stressed to see the tons of Rules in Commons. I comprehend that the same were made for good and to avoid legal actions. However, if I commit mistakes and/or errors because I do not know the rules, especially the very gray areas and finer points of law on copyright of Commons, what happens to my work, my passion, my expenses, and dedication, if one day, Commons rule would dictate that I be blocked. I found an administrator here who suffered, not blocked, yet, de-admin. I believe in destiny. My time has come, and I decided to put in Commons alone all my hard earned photos. Let me explain tersely how I shoot the subjects: a) I wake up at 10 am, b) ride an air-con bus to the places - Bataan, Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila (note, that I stayed in Pangasinan for 3 weeks last Nov-December for capture the landmarks until Dec. 4). Here in Bulacan, after I arrive at the town hall and churches, including landmarks earliest at 3 pm, I ride tricycle and shoot. I finish one town and shoot another ending at sunset at 6:00 pm. It would take 5-6 hours to return home. I begin uploading at 10 pm to 4 am. with very slow internet, maybe 2 mbps download and .06 upload speed in speedtest.net. You will notice that I was not rotating before, since I found that you would rotate and review or enjoy my photos. Lately, I was advised so I did rotate. Now, I contributed 18,000 edits since 2010 (then, I just contribute very very few photos). I sincerely desire that if you have time, please review and of course enjoy my hard earned photos, so that I would be advised by your kindness to avoid Commons violations. I am not familiar and it is very hard for me to comprehend the Commons rules. Please help me in your sweet time, please, please, and please. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I see you do this work really systematically, serious "business". In the 2nd half of the week I'll try to identify potential problems. Magandang gabi. --Túrelio (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you've remarked on some of my uploads stating that there are no sources given? I'm confused: the source of the images are given right there in the infobox, and yes, the images are my own work. Care to show me where exactly I'm going wrong?
Just do what I had written already: Hi Walkalia, when you produce a collage, you need to write the exact source information (full file name/link) for all images into the description. Take File:Galle city collage.jpg: in source you say "own work", in author you write only your name. But outside of the description frame you write "op right picture of aerial view of galle fort taken from GalleMediaWorks", which contradicts you above entries. Or take File:Brit lankan collage.jpg: all images in this collage were originally shot by you? --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the taxobox of the Hungarian page Colchicum hungaricum there is a nice picture of the plant (Magyar kikerics 3.jpg). Despite this picture is in the pubic domain, I cannot transfer it to Commons, because Commons does not recognise the Hungarian template used for "Public domain".
How can I proceed to make the picture available for other wikimedia pages, e.g., the German page Colchicum hungaricum?
Hmm, I am not that well-versed in Hungarian language ;-). I would recommend you to contact my hu-versed admin-collageaues User:Grin or User:O, both speak also english, and ask them to make the transfer or help. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw right now that the photos that I upload were denied because you cannot proof that I do have permission to use them. The photos are from a band they I know, they are my friends and they allow me to use and share their material (photos; musics). I'm doing this on other websites (last.fm; musicbrainz.com; discogs.com; etc.) always with their permission. How do you want a permission? An e-mail will be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrOmega13 (talk • contribs) 24. März 2013, 17:18 Uhr (UTC)
Aren't you busy in real life? Where did you find that that picture cant be published here? That site belongs to Rio Tour, a public organization which belongs to Rio's prefecture. They obviously allow reproduction. Again, aren't you busy in real life? Soulflytribe (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Turelio,
I have asked the three photographers for permission and they've all sent me emails saying that I have their permission to use their photos, and they're happy!
I have then sent all the information with the attached permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but haven't received any confirmation from them.
I don't want these images erased so I'm asking you if there's anything else I need to do? As for album covers, I am the designer and owner of BlueLand Records so I also sent in those permissions.
I changed the author names to the photographers.
Thank you for your time,
Brian Baritonesaxophoneman (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
3/26/13[reply]
Hi Brian, as the people (OTRS), to whom you sent these permissions, are also volunteers, it may take a few days. However, in order to prevent premature deletion (which isn't a big issue, as it takes 2 clicks for an administrator to un-delete), you may insert this code {{OTRS pending}} into the pages for which you have sent permission. --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed commons@wikimedia.org with the letter of permission from Alex to use this image of my client Montanna Thompson on her official wikipedia page. Please see email
thanks. However, as the statue looks rather recent, we will have to delete it as the freedom-of-panorama exemption in U.S. copyright law does cover only buildigs, regrettably. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All these murals are intended to stay permanently (as long as it is possible form murals). Some of them has been over there for over three years, some are newer, maybe some more will appear in future. Maybe {{FoP-Poland}} should be added. Panek (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your bad-faith accusation. At the time when the image was uploaded, there was no information about the alleged CC license at the source site. Fortunately the uploader showed a more constructive attitude than you, as you can easily see from User talk:IM Serious. --Túrelio (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Und wo steht im Impressum die CC-Lizenz? Nirgends! Und was stand unter dem Bild zur Lizenz? Nichts. Was soll also das Gelaber hier? Davon abgesehen dürftest du wissen, dass es der Job des Hochladers ist, einen fremden Lizenzstatus zu belegen. Es ist nicht der Job der recent-upload-patroler und/oder admins sich auf externen Websites durch mehrere Unterebenen zu klicken, ob da nicht vielleicht doch irgendwas zur Lizenz steht. Ich und einige paar andere Admin-Kollegen wir reißen uns hier für die notwendige Drecksarbeit auf Commons rund um die Uhr den Arsch auf[28] und werden dann noch angepöbelt, wenn ein Hochlader mal eine Twitternachricht senden muss und Piratenwikiautor Bartjez einen (1) Edit machen muss. EOD. --Túrelio (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stadtbad Kempten - Bau und Eröffnung (??).jpg[edit]
Hallo Túrelio, Die Fraigabe für die Bilder ist in Ordnung, hatte vor ca. ner Sunde berteits nen Administrator bezüglich wiederherstellen gefragt, der wollte es später erledigen. Vielen Dank das du es Jetzt sofort machst. Vielen Dank!--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, bin schon dabei. Ah, der Uploader hat dich gebitte. Mich hats noch gewundert als ich bemerkt habe dass du mit der Wiederherstellen begonnen hast und nicht jener Admin den ich gefraht habe. Besten Dank für deine Bemühungen und Grüße--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm uploading whole Flickr set and some images contains art in public space. I'll delete them when all images will be transfered. No need to flood del reqests. Yarl✉16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find it a bit questionable to include images that are clearly not allowed on Commons in such Flickr-set-uploadings. As you know, the data of these files will stay forever on the servers, as nothing is ever really deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know kwat you mean, I always trying to avoid situations like this. Cheers, Yarl✉ 16:41, 27
We see that his photo was deleted by you. We see that the reason you gave was "Notification of possible copyright violation for
File:Tedmalloch interview.jpeg". Will it be possible for you to give us a bit more inforation as to why the photo was deleted, who issued the notification of copyright violation and what needs to be done to get the photo stay on the wiki page. Please assist.
Thanks,
-Madhan
Hi Madhan,
assuming that you are User:Madhangc1, though you weren't logged-in when commenting. It wasn't actually me who deleted File:Tedmalloch interview.jpeg, nevertheless I had tagged it as likely copyvio. This suspicion came when I found the same image, which you had claimed as own work, in higher resolution on http://www.li.com/news-events/news/2013/03/15/the-end-of-ethics-and-the-way-back-markets-degenerate-without-honesty-and-trust. So, if you are really the photographer, then please send a confirmation stating your authorship, the license you had choosen and your full affiliation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). For the procedure and a permission template see Commons:OTRS. If you are not the photographer, but your agency (?) has the full copyright for this image, which has to cover the distribution under a free license, which includes commercial use, then your agency should send the above mentioned permission. If neither is true, then you need to ask the original photographer to send such a permission to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio,
Thanks for providing us with more details. I am talking to Dr. Malloch regarding this and will get back to you shortly.
Best Regards,
-Madhan
Hi Túrelio,
I had the owner of the photograph sent an email as per the required format to the email address "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". I hope you and your team received it. The email was:
sent on "Friday 05 April 2013"
with the email subjec "RE: [WSX #9093]: Fwd: Ted Malloch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is not the right picture !!!!!"
Is it possible for you restore the photo as soon as possible? Dr. Malloch would like to have his photo on his Wiki page as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience and help. Looking forward to hear from you.
Den Zeitungsartikel habe ich hochgeladen, da er einen Bezug zum Literaturnachweis des Artikels Katharina Bregant herstellen soll. Ein Mitglied von Wiki hatte Zweifel. so kann er die Sache überprüfen.
Zu dern anderen Sacheb nehme ich später Stellung. Was für einen Lizenzbaustein muss ich bei einem alten Bild nehmen (1900 bis 1930). Die Bilder würden also unter PD-OLD 80 bzw. 100 laufen. m.f.G.--192.26.237.1110:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist besser, wenn du dazu auf deiner Disku kommentierst, damit sich das nicht über mehrere Seiten verteilt. Die Benutzung von PD-xyz setzt eigentlich voraus, dass der Fotograf und dessen Todesjahr bekannt sind, weil sich die Frist danach berechnet, nicht nach dem Erstellungsjahr. Siehe auch: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. If Otis Sistrunk is shown in the image, he can't have shot it by himself. So "courtesy by Otis Sistrunk" just means, "thanks to Otis Sistrunk who has given us a copy of this photo to use it on our .mil website". PD-USGov is only valid if the photo has originally been shot by a US federal goverment employee performing his duties. However, for this photo we still have no idea who has shot it. --Túrelio (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image - Marina Kunarova.jpg was deleted when we had already sent the letter confirmation/allowance from the company which is the right holder of all the images I uploaded.
Please kindly recheck it, or let me know what should I do to keep it, and the rest ones.
Thank you. What about the other files? I had sent again the confirmation letter indicating the names of the files. Can you please check them? Thanks! --Yessenya (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yessenya, no, as I am not on OTRS myself, I have no access to what has been sent to OTRS. You can by yourself add {{OTRS pending}} to the pages of all those files for which you already have sent a permission to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the overlap in requesting rotation for those newly uploaded files. And thanks for your help in undoing the duplicate requests. Senator202916:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please restore the previous edits to Category:Yura Movsisyan, that you deleted when the category was empty? The category is not empty now. Froztbyte (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do I have to do? I already provided the sources and the authors for the images. Zvezda Soyuz (talk)
Images for upload to Commons have to be released by their creator (or legitimate rights holder) under a free license, that allows any kind of use, including commercial uses; see COM:L and COM:CB. That fact that an image is visible on a website has no relevance for coypright. --Túrelio (talk)
Okay, thanks for the advice. I will review all of the images :) Zvezda Soyuz (talk)
For images that have been originally created by bodies or employees of UOW, you might eventually get their permission, but you need to ask them; for details see Commons:OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not CU. But, if they don't go on with such activity, it may not be worth the effort. It seems all 3 account have stopped uploading. At least one left a comment on an image talkpage. They may just be ignorant; though the images will likely be out of scope, anyway. I'm offline now for the weekend. --Túrelio (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., dann wirst du von einem OTRSler eine Rückmeldung bekommen; da bin ich nicht involviert. Arbeite aber bitte auch all die anderen Punkte von deiner Disku ab. Schreib dann am besten jeweils dadrunter ob es geklappt hat oder Schwwierigkeiten gibt. Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, ich weiß nicht, wer dafür verantwortlich ist, aber wohl irgend ein Admin hat diesem Mahnmal mit Eigennamen einen englischen Namen verpasst: Monument to the citizens of Solingen. Wohl aus völliger Unwissenheit um die Sache wurde der Eigenname auch noch falsch übersetzt. Es handelt sich hier nicht um ein Monument für die Bürger Solingens (to the citizens of Solingen), sondern von den Bürgern Solingens. Kannst Du die Umbenennung bitte einfach wieder rückgängig machen? Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sent several e-mails to justify the addition of several pictures of the Stranglers to Wikimedia commons at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. did you get them and can you take off the "no permission" tags that you put on the files ? thanks. Cecilepont (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cecilepont, I am an admin, but I am not on OTRS to where your emails were addressed. As these are also volunteers, it may take some time until they have processed and evaluated your permissions. Anyway, in order to prevent premature deletions, I have now added OTRS-pending to your remaining uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Túrelio:
he visto que se ha quitado la imagen que ilustraba la ficha de la revista Intramuros por dudas sobre el copyright. ¿Cómo se hace para demostrar que esa imagen es una portada de la revista Intramuros?
Saludos cordiales,
Beltrán Gambier
From the impressum I've now seen that you may be the owner of that website. O.k., if you are not the photographer of the sculpture on issue 34, then you need to check whether you have enough rights from the photographer to release his/her image (even if placed on a magazine cover) to release it under a free license. If not, you should not re-upload it. If yes, then please send a confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) and mention the name of the deleted file. For the permission procedure see Commons:OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminación imagen logo club "La Nucia Spartnas"[edit]
Buenos días
Disculpe si este no es el modo de ponerme en contacto con usted, pero no he encontrado otro modo.
Me ha llegado un correo sobre la eliminación de una, bueno de dos, imágenes que he subido esta mañana, 2/4/12
La primera es el logo de nuestro equipo, imagen que creamos desde el club y es utilizado para enviar a la prensa para cunado hable de nosotros.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_La_Nucia_Spartans.jpg
Le pediría que reconsidere la intención de eliminarla
En cuanto a la imagen de la mascotas la compramos de una página de imágenes, en cuanto a esta le haré una fotografía cuando se disfrace en un partido.
I am not sure whether I fully unterstand you, as I have only basic knowledge of Spanish. Therefore I will explain my reasoning.
1) IMO the logo in image File:Logo La Nucia Spartans.jpg has enough originality to be copyrightable, though that is a matter of opinion. So the question is, who has originally created this logo (mainly the graphic part)? I have converted to speedy-deletion-tag to a regular DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo La Nucia Spartans.jpg, where you may comment.
--
Translated with google: It is clear that the image of the town can be considered iconic helmet, but the typography of the texts and the construction of the logo was made by us, tried to include the club's colors (white, red and black) with capital of different sizes to generate the feeling of strength
--Weblamarina (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, j'ai reçu votre message m'avertissant que la photo (de mon père,en fait) n'a pas de signalement de copyright. A vrai dire, personne à qui j'ai consulté ne sait ni le nom du auteur de la photo (Antonio_Girão_Barroso.jpg) ni sa date. Que me conseillez-vous de faire? L'édition a été faite par moi-même, ainsi que la biographie que je dois encore éditer. Please, help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliana C.Barroso (talk • contribs) 2. April 2013, 14:20 Uhr (UTC)
Hello and congrats for choosing a lovely kitten for this page. The earlier one I had seen was too scary.
I've just seen you deleted the above file. It was originally an upload of a Turkish speaker with a minor correction by me keeping in view of Turkish pronunciation. I don't see any reason for deletion and hence I request you to restore it. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. for updating info that the file is still on Commons with a new name. But I guess in renaming somebody have violated the norms by using English name for a Turkish filename. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
What is the problem with the Atomium photo? Atomium is a public building. There are at least 1000 photos of it on the wiki. What is the problem with mine? --Dudva (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Túrelio, je t'assure que je suis bien l'auteur de la photographie qui a été modifié et de la modification de celle-ci, je ne sais comment te le prouver, mais je n'ais de toute façon pas modifié la licence ni l'auteur primaire .
Bonjour Garitan, I have to write in english, as I am not that good in french. I see absolutely no problem with copyright. It is just that per our policy COM:OVERWRITE older images shall not be "overwritten" by largely modified versions. Instead the "new" version shall be written into a new file. Then the projects can decide by themselves whether to use the old or the new version. --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put in my page (Eliana C.Barroso) a photo from my father, writer, brazilian (cearense), in his bio, but I don't know the name of the author so I can't know about the license or any other copyright...Sorry, the photo is posted as Antonio Girão Barroso.jpg and I ask you to help me how to change the information (tags or something else) about this photo and keep it in the place where it is and don't delete it ! Thank you!
PS:You can answer my question using my email (barreli73@yahoo.com.br) ?? If you write in portuguese it could be better,ok?
PHOTO-I said I don't know anything about the author of the photo, his name or date (I guess it was in the 70ties). Do you speak french or portuguese ?
PHOTO IN WIKIPEDIA (portuguese version) I need more info about how to change the source or the name of the author-photograph, will you help me ? You can use my email (barreli73@yahoo.com.br) to answer me ? Thanks!
Hi, I don't speak any portuguese and little french. By the way, you have a page on Wikimedia-Commons, here: User talk:Eliana C.Barroso, that is your talkpage. I have added the date information to the image. However, if you don't get a valid author/source information, I doubt that the image can remain on Commons. In Brazil, the author retains his copyright for 70 years after his death. Therefore the image cannot be free, even if the photographer died shortly after taking the photo of your father. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magst du zwei Löschanträge (Heute, bei mir auf der Disk) schließen?
Seine Begründung: "I'm the author and file was loaded without my permission" dabei hatte ich damals vor vielen Monaten von der französischen Wiki auf Commons unter GFDL-Bedingungen (siehe hier) übertragen. Wenn du dennoch Probleme sieht, kannst du sie weghauen, mir liegt (persönlich) an Bildern nichts. Wäre nur schade für die Ägyptologen... p.s. Antragsteller ist sehr wahrscheinlich identisch mit Uploader (auf fr). --Atamari (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Turelio, I provided the source information for the files: File:Olga Stojanovic and Dejan Stojanovic.jpg at [29] and File:Dejan Stojanovic, Olga Stojanovic and Sava Rakocevic.jpg at [30]. I will also upload this photograph [31] to be able to create a gallery.
Please keep in mind that majority of these photographs were taken by the same people who took the previous photographs uploaded in 2010 and there were no issues. All this was clarified long time ago with User:Magog the Ogre. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My dear estimated this is 100% mine, because you have to say that I make a copyright violation, request to withdraw its demand, thanks.
ESPAÑOL
Mi querido estimado, esta imagen es 100% mia, porque tiene que decir usted que hago una violación de derechos de autor, solicito que retire su demanda, gracias.
--Matador3020 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, I did not say "copyright violation", but "violation of privacy". It shows a medical record for an identified person. --Túrelio (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My dear friend, that person is me, and I want to make known to all as the result of the Monitor, nothing more. If "violated" my privacy, I assume that all the blame is mine, but my privacy and mine alone, because I practiced that.
ESPAÑOL:
Mi querido amigo, esa persona, soy yo, y quiero dar a conocer a todos como es el resultado del Monitor, nada mas. Si "violo" mi privacidad, asumo que toda la culpa es mia, pero es mi privacidad y solo mia, porque a mi me practicaron eso.
--Matador3020 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a surprise. I couldn't imagine that somebody would voluntarily disclose own medical records. Do you think that is wise? The additional problem is that the document contains your real name. Now people (well- and less well-meaning) can associate your user name and your real name. Think again if that is wise. Finally, when viewing the document in full resolution, I have seen a clear copyright note at the bottom left-hand. --Túrelio (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte Bild auf Wiki Commons GMCamillo1.jpg wiederaufleben lassen. Gehört zu Artikel Camillo Bregant (1879-1956) auf Wikipedia und stellt Generalmajor Camillo Bregant als Rittmeister ca. 1912 - 1914 dar.
Das Bild ist PD-old 100, der Autor ist in der Familie zu suchen und die Quelle ist auch die Familie Bregant, wobei die Rechte bei mir liegen. Weiters bitte rename GMCamillo4.jpg to GMCamillo3.jpg Grüße--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Die Umbenennung ist erfolgt. Die PD-Old- bzw. falschen self-CC-Vorlagen habe ich probeweise mal durch PD-heirs ersetzt, was vermutlich angemessener ist. Denn PD-old-mit Zahl bezieht sich ja nicht auf das Jahr der Erstellung sondern auf das Todesjahr des Fotografen, der bei dir ja offenbar unbekannt ist. Die offenen Einträge in der Beschreibung solltest du selbst ergänzen.--Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die schnelle Reaktion! Wurde die datei in Wiki Camillo Bregant auch entsprechend umbenannt? (von 4 auf 3) Weiters ist auf der Kategory Generals of Austria Camillo Bregant fälschlicherweise dem Buchstaben C statt B zugeordnet (familyname)--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wieso markierst du als Admin die hochgeladenen Bilder als copyvio, anstatt sie direkt zu löschen? Und warum sperrst du den USer nicht? Das ist nicht als Vorwurf gemeint, sondern nur als Frage nach dem üblichen Verfahren ;) Gruß -- Hephaion (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
achso, ich dachte, es wäre bekannt. Auf dewiki haben wir dafür jetzt schon nen Filter eingesetzt. Hier nur ein Überblick über die Treffer, bestimmt schon über 20 Konten, die wir gesperrt haben. Vielleicht ist da schnelleres Löschen/Sperren nötig? Kurze Frage noch: Was sind attack images? Gruß -- Hephaion (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bilder, die darauf abzielen bzw. mit der Absicht hochgeladen wurden, eine i.a. konkrete Person zu diffamieren/verleumden/usw., was sowohl durch das Bild selbst als auch via Beschreibung/Dateiname erfolgen kann. Das ist auf :en ein großes Problem, weil die keine gesichteten Versionen haben, so dass ein solches Bild im Artikel sofort sichtbar ist. --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is probably a way to query the table that contains the deletion log to look for files with "Lead photo for" or the distinctive hyphenated timestamp those files now have. I know very little about MediaWiki so I will need to figure out how to find someone who does know. The list as it is was made by processing the output of Special:Log/delete, which definitely is not the best way to do it. It was kind of annoying and I only really did it to make the point that the majority of these uploads get deleted. I hope there is an easier way to present this information; I'm kind of disheartened that no effort was made by the app developers to collect any actual numbers –moogsi (blah) 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a MediaWiki-dummy. For code/script questions I usually ask User:Rillke or User:Rd232.
In my experience, communication between Commons and developers/WMF was always near to non-existant. I had always the impression that they change or develop something, do some testing on :en Wikipedia and then force it on all other projects. Every second MW-update, how minor they always declared it, resulted in several things not working on Commons. O.k., for specific bugs one can complain at BugZilla, but that seems to be of use only when already something bad has happened. Sorry, for sounding frustrated, but I am. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to the photo producer on the phone and she emailed me some images. I emailed her the form to email to OTRS or me. She is the actual rights holder as the producer but would like to credit the photographers on the image pages as well. She is new to Wikimedia and I am explaining how things work. She has many good images we can use in articles. She is wondering if she can license only a certain resolution of the images although larger ones can be found on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. About your last question: my and, as far as I know, the common opinion is, yes. Very few people disagree about that. But if the question is important for her, you might ask our legal expert User talk:Clindberg. --Túrelio (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have one more to upload then she can attach the file names to the OTRS emails. You were correct and Clindberg confirmed that sizes can have limits in the licenses.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Photo File:Micah Johnson HLN 2(web).jpg[edit]
Hi Turelio. I noticed that you deleted the above photo. Would you help me understand why? I know I'm still learning my way around, but that screen grab is clearly of me. I'm the anchor of the broadcast and it was linked to the Micah Johnson (journalist) Wiki page. The photo was marked as Micah Johnson and placed on the appropriate Wiki article. That's not a photograph, but a screen grab from one of my broadcasts. Thank you. Jackryan733 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jackryan733,
the file was deleted due to suspicion of copyvio, as it was found on http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartfanning/5490950253/in/photostream/ labeled as "(C) All rights reserved". Apart from this formal problem, a screenshot/grab/capture is not totally different from a regular photography in regard to copyright. Sure, the main issue is that it is (nearly) always a derivative work of the original screen content. If the screen content is above threshold of originality, it is copyrightable and the copyright will usually be with the camera man/woman/TV producer/whoever, but not with the person who created the screenshot. So, you need to check 1) why is it (C)ARR on that Flickr page (may be a copyvio/copyfraud) and 2) who owns the copyright in the broadcast shown in this screenshot. If it is the station, then you need their permission. You know, putting somethin in Commons is rather different than putting it on any website, as we claim (and every uploader confirms it per his/her licensing) that our content is free to be used for any purpose, including commercial use. --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio,
WOW - if everyone would give that kind of an explanation - especially to those not as familiar with Wiki, it would be a lot happier place around here. The frustrating part of all of this, is the extensive 'Proving' that you own something. In this case, whomever is the owner of that flickr account, is in multiple copyright violations. They have taken 100 screen grabs of talent from CNN and Headline News that they are in no way, part of. Because that is my image and I am the performer in that photo, what is your suggestion for me being able to add it to the Wiki article? Thank you very much for so much time. Jackryan733 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jackryan733,
- in regard to the Flickr-account I would recommend to leave a comment below the image on Flickr (requires to open an own account at Flickr).
- in regard to your "proving", well, you didn't really answer my question "who owns the copyright in the broadcast shown in this screenshot". As a non-broadcaster I would assume the camera-man, but my assumption may be wrong. It might be the broadcasting company, per default or per contract. In that case you should ask them to send a confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). If you are totally sure that you own the image, then please send a confirmation from your own business email account to the OTRS address. Email content will not be published. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Desisto de tentar contribuir. Imagens de pessoas que já morreram e estão em todos os quatros cantos da internet, são livres. Como que eu vou consegui a permissão se nem sei quem é dono da imagem que deve ter milhões de copias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assisbrandao (talk • contribs)
Let's stick to the facts. You have claimed that you are the creator/photographer of File:Peter Tosh.jpg. For File:Jose Ermírio de Moraes.jpg you claimed that it has been created today and that is under a CC-0 license. Only the creator of that image can state that. Contributing requires a bit more than just copying images to Commons. Copyright remains with the author for 70 years after his/her death, not my making, but the law. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that before. "Photos below are open for usage by mass media" is no free enough for Commons. We require uploads to be free for any kind of use, including commercial use. Se the first sections of Commons:Licensing. --Túrelio (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this art center is a non-forprofit institution, I really thinking this artist's portrait can be use including commercial use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artanalysis (talk • contribs) 7. April 2013, 01:05 Uhr (UTC)
What you or I think is irrelevant here. It's only up to the creator of the work or the rights holder to decide for which kind of use it is released. Feel free to directly ask the creator for a release under CC-BY- or CC-BY-SA-license. --Túrelio (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention. The source images are uloading. I will point to them after completion of upload. Have a nice day. Best regards. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This URAA nonsense is really not my playground. However, after reading the boxed explaination about wartime extensions of copyright in France, this image might even be copyrighted in France (50y pma +30y) if Vuillard died in France per death certificate ({{France wartime extensions URAA}}). --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think you meant for France, as mort pour la France, which is not the case : he "died [in 1940] of a heart attack outside Paris in the embrace of his powerful patrons" [33]. Hence, my understanding is we should consider either 70 years or 50 years + 8 years and 120 days (cf. [34]), but not 70 years + 8 years and 120 days (cf. [35]). Cheers, — Racconish Tk 09:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, I misread the death-part. In regard to copyright-duration in France it should then be 1940 +50 +8.3 = 1999. However, this would still mean that it's copyrighted in the US per URAA :-( . In case of impending deletion, move it to http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Main_Page. --Túrelio (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for trying to help our in this murky matter. My understanding is URAA applies in the US only if that work is still copyrighted in the foreign source country, which is not the case here. I think the template is misused in this case, but I asked for third opinions here. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 15:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke erst mal für Deinen Hinweis.
Aber was macht man, wenn der Künstler nicht bekannt ist? Trifft ja auf tausende Bilder in den Commons zu. Oft werden die Künstler ja erst durch die Zuarbeit von anderen eingetragen.
OTFW (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn der Künstlername nicht auf dem Werk drauf oder dran steht, bist du rechtlich erstmal raus. Die Frage ist wie wir hier intern damit umgehen. Vielleicht wäre es fürs erste gut, an der Stelle wo du sonst den Künstlernamen einsetzen würdest, einfach "(von ?)" o.ä. zu schreiben. Die Angabe "unbekannt" ist eher ungeeignet, weil sie ein echt anonymes Werk nahelegt, was ja garnicht der Fall sein muss. Strategisch sollten wir vielleicht Pflegekategorien für Fotos von Werken in [Stadt] mit noch nicht bekanntem Künstlernamen o.ä. anlegen, falls nicht schon vorhanden. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi Tiberius876, both your uploads are credited in the EXIF data to TÓTH LÁSZLÓ. Explaination?"
Hi Túrelio! Sorry but I don't understand the problem. "Tóth László" is my name. I'm beginner here so if it's a stupid answer, please forgive me. --Tiberius876 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiberius876, well, that identity was not evident. A lot of new uploaders take images from somebody else and claim them to be their own. Anyway, per our policy, you are not compelled to disclose your real name, as you have done now. Also, you should consider that others who re-use your photos, now will credit it only to "Tiberius876", as this is what is written in the author-entry. If that is o.k. for then, you need to do nothing. If you would re-users to credit your real name, you should either replace the author-entry by your real name and/or add the switch "|1=Tóth László" at the end of your license template (and remove the "self|" from it). --Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I was noticed it a few weeks ago; but can't find any license abuse. There are plenty of Wikimedia images there: http://www.zazzle.com/gifts?ch=best_gift
I know many authors are not happy to see if somebody else is making money from their work. But I think it is perfectly OK according to our norms even though it may not be an educational use. It is a difficulty faced by us while providing a license. Our intention is to provide media for free educational use. Many educational uses are commercial (like printed text books in under developed countries sold for a small price); and it is difficult to distinguish whether a commercial use is for mere entertainment or not. And in this case too, how can I say a poster hanging on a living room wall has no educational use? Anybody who see it will be educated a bit. :) See this discussion too. JKadavoorJee06:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I understand. I just used this opportunity to share my point of view about it. Nowadays people are much concerned about if their works are commercially reused and try all efforts to stop it. But unfortunately it results in the failure the achievement of the Common's goal. We should have to educate people that Common is for free contribution including commercial reuse; anybody can simply walkout if they can co-operate with it instead of spoiling the system. I've much hope in the new proposal. JKadavoorJee13:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which license should I put there when it's my daughter (family)? This is a perforation of the ticket. Please add your free license.--Luppus (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained earlier on your talkpage. Did you ever read your talkpage? And if it's your daughter in this image, you have even more reason to add the personality-tag. It is for the protection of the depicted person against abuse by third parties. --Túrelio (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nimms von mir aus raus. Allerdings kommen US-Mil-Foto i.a. mit intakten und ausführlichen EXIF-Daten. Vielleicht findest du das Foto im Web in intakter Form. --Túrelio (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ich werds rausnehen. Das hier ist ein übrigens auch ein PNG, d. h. jemand hat das Original-JPG der Army umformatiert. Daher gibt's wohl auch kein US-Mil EXIF.
though it wasn't actually me who deleted your 2 uploads, I had tagged them due to suspicion of copyvio. The reason was that both had in the EXIF-data the photographer entry "Amanda Stevenson Lupke", whereas you Massiah1507 had claimed to be the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
So how can I fix this so that I can have it displayed? I hired Amanda to take the photograph.
Hi
this is a copy of our last discussion.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishtea
As I wrote, I have sent to OTRS yesterday a mail with attached 3 letters from michael behagen
who own the rights.
I understood that this procedure of uploading images while its OTRS pending is possible.
Have I done something wrong?
Thanks
Irishtea (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Irishtea, while I see no evidence of a "discussion" between us on your talkpage, yes, uploading simultaneously to sending a permission is possible. Seems I failed to see the OTRS-tag. However, it is not only the permission that is missing, all 3 images are also missing a license-template. Assuming that you had agreed upon the license with the author already, this should be added before the OTRS-ticket. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your quick answer. you mentioned:
"I see no evidence of a "discussion" between us on your talkpage"
Could it be associate with the fact that when I came to upload the images this morning,wiki acted like I need to log in again, and when I loged, it did not recognize me and I needed to register as irishtea again?
thanks.
Irishtea (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. If you look at the edit-history for your talkpage, there were no edits at all after my 3 problem-message-postings. Anyway, that's not really relevant. When you add the missing license-templates to your 3 uploads, you are entitled to remove my no-license-template from them. --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[36] As you know, I can't post there. But I agree with what Neotarf says. There is no "conspiracy theory" in his post. Russavia and Mattbuck picked a fight and dragged it across the Wikis. They then involved their friends to block someone after heavily baiting and attacking that person. They did far worse, and yet Tony is dragged through the mud. Blocking someone for a week on their first block for a minor offense doesn't seem to encourage "Mellow" in any kind of way. It is the exact opposite. It is obvious that the people involved against Tony were acting in a way that would result in a ban in any normal Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There you go being incivil again. You attacked him on en.wiki. Russavia attacked him on en.wiki. You attacked him here. Russavia attacked him here. You broke the rules on multiple Wikis and caused a lot of problems. This is pointed out, and you make further incivil comments in an attempt to hide from your wrong doing. Why do you compound abuse with more abuse? You have a really long history of it. You also have a long history of making really nasty comments on IRC, through email, and other cites. Your account should be locked from all Wikis for the safety of all Wikis, because you feel that it is your right to spread as much hate and incivility across Wiki as you can. That is not what Commons is for. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, even assumed everything you wrote is true and complete, it is still not o.k. to cross-wiki-insult another user. He should have complained (not insulted) at the project where he felt insulted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is inappropriate to cross-wiki insult others. That is exactly what Russavia and Mattbuck did. Tony1 did not insult people. He told them to leave him alone in a very harsh way. But he did not insult them. Instead, two of our admin did that and one was involved in the blocking of Tony1. That really, really looks bad. It also shows an overreaction that was created by two admin who were clearly misbehaving elsewhere. This should warrant their being censured. Our admin are not allowed to troll other Wikis, violate rules, and then drag Commons into that fight. Why would we stand by as they do exactly that? Thankfully, Russavia is currently stopped on the other Wiki because he is re-blocked for abusive behavior. But Mattbuck is still causing problems and Tony1, who had an impeccable record, is still blocked for doing far less than what multiple admin have done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I should be globally blocked, do something about it - take it to meta and make your case. Then watch them laugh you out of the room. I don't feel I am being especially uncivil by saying you are trying to make this some sort of conspiracy. Frankly, I think I'm being fairly polite by saying that. I didn't attack Tony1 here or on en.wp, though I did block him for longer (at his own request). So, to summarise, as usual you are being ridiculous and trying to stir trouble. Consider this my last word to you on the subject. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Claim: "I didn't attack Tony1 here or on en.wp" Truth: "Wow, you two really are conspiracy nuts." You were highly incivil both here and there, and that is obvious to anyone who bothered to look. You were especially involved when you used your admin privilege here. Such behavior would normally result in a desysop. Turelio, it is obvious that Commons admins are being mislead by two individuals that have caused a lot of cross-wiki trouble and campaigned against a highly prolific and trusted user from Wikipedia. I know that you are a decent person who acts to do the right thing, and it is obvious that the right thing is correcting the wrongs committed by Mattbuck. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I was rather sure that all this is not because of any genuine interest in this case by you, Ottava; after offering a helping hand I and especially the friendly Jastrow got this nice responses and from beloved Tony1. Now, I will not lift a finger for this case. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall, I am of the type that was very hard against FOP in general and I would not want the picture on Commons in any format. I am just arguing for Tony1's defense because he is a good contributor. If you remember, I was friends with Russavia (obviously not with Mattbuck). I just do not like to see someone basically kicked to the curb without any prior history like that. 24 hours would have been fine. Even 48 hours would be acceptable. But a week (then turned into indefinite by Mattbuck) was just over the top. There is a war being fought between Wikis and it could easily be calmed down by making some efforts towards mutual understanding and fairness. Ottava Rima (talk)
Look, as I wrote in my last posting, I and — even far more — Jastrow left 3 helpful and clarifying postings on the signpost-talkpage, which were met with nothing than spite by Tony1 - despite the additional fact that neither she nor I was involved in the file-deletion and in Tony1's block. This guy evidently loves stereotyped thinking (and behaviour) and as we are associated with Commons, we belong to the dark side, whereby he feels entitled to insult us. However, he shows the same behaviour against :en-user. Being a good contributor is not enough. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turelio, how do you honestly not understand why Tony1 feels cornered and reacts that way? It is obvious that the bear baiting turned abuse of adminship would make anyone distrustful of others. Tony1 is a extremely prominent member of the Wikimedia community and has a lot of friends who are just as outraged about it as he. I think you are allowing your own defensive nature cloud your ability to see things from his perspective. There were multiple people who weren't part of the Commons clique who stated that the block should be undone on the page without any budget. A week for a first block for using a cuss word is rather extreme and not something that Commons does. These are things you should have immediately recognize, yet I am still baffled how you focus on others instead of looking at how it is a clear and appropriate response to obvious injustice. People have the right to be outraged over abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, recently I used Up!. The prob with this tool is that while it is handy in bulk uploads, it overwrites pics without your knowledge. And at least two users are furious (still controlling themselves) over the uploads here:
File:Penelope.jpg - too bad, horse pic overwritten with a lady's pic.
I am currently very busy in RL. Couldn't you simply re-upload "your" versions under new filenames? Thereafter the version-history of the 2 above mentioned files could easily be "cleaned". --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Spektakl Przychodzimy, odchodzimy. ”Dobro powróci” (plakat) i File:Gramy dla Jarka (plakat)[edit]
Witam. Nie mówię po angielsku, więc pisze w swoim ojczystym języku. Usunąłem szablon o naruszeniu praw autorskich, uważam że zgodnie z Polskim prawem, fotografie zostały wykonane z poszanowaniem prawa autorskiego, gdyż plakaty prezentowane na zdjęciach stanowią część kompozycji i zostały ukazane w szerszym kontekście (kadrze). Jest to moja opinia, która może być błędna, ale jako uczeń szkoły fotograficznej zapoznałem się z Prawami Autorskimi obowiązującymi w Polsce. Mateusz Opasiński
Hallo Túrelio, gibt es eigentlich eine Möglichkeit den Weida-Stammbaum-01 auch zu löschen? Viell. wegen Qualitätsmängeln o. ä.? - Er ist völlig unleserlich und ich habe den Stammbaum deshalb in WP:de mit einer Vorlage erstellt. Baustelle-Weida. Gruß von --Adelfrank (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn du dich auf die gestern hochgeladene Datei beziehst, ja du kannst als Uploader einfach die Löschung (uploader-wish oder low-quality) beantragen, solltest sie aber vorher von deinen Seiten entlinken, denn dort ist sie ja in Benutzung. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, ich bitte dich ein Auge drauf zu halten dass das hier nicht wieder reinrevertiert wird. Ich habe eine Stimme abgegeben, diese sachlich begründet - und wurde dafür von einem Admin massiv beleidigt. Wenn du wünschst, kann ich an dieser Stelle auf jeden der Punkte eingehen und begründen, warum die Beschuldigungen falsch sind. Im Moment tue ich das noch nicht, weil ich noch nicht die Hoffnung aufgegeben habe dass dies relativ offensichtlich sein sollte. Alle Pro-Stimmen respektiere ich selbstverständlich, ich bitte nur, meine Meinung mir unbenommen zu lassen, ohne giftige Kommentare drunter. Danke --A.Savin21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke. Manchmal vermag ich die Aggressivität, die gelegentlich aus der Deutsche wiki hierüber getragen wird, kaum zu fassen. --A.Savin21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hilfe, wie macht man den in Category:Rondo Ordnung? Rondo ist eine Skuptur in Wuppertal und hat (lt. Unterkategorien) wenig mit Venedig zu tun? Da hat jemand unkontrolliert die Kategorie gesetzt. --Atamari (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So vom Sprachgefühl her würde ich sagen dass "Rondo" auf Commons keine ideale Wahl war; siehe auch [37]. Das klingt ja sofort spanisch/itali./usw. Überleg mal, ob nicht "Rondo (Wuppertal)" sachlich akzeptabel wäre; eindeutiger wäre es auf jeden Fall. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn er der einzige ist, der ein als Rondo bezeichnetes Kunstwerk gemacht hat, dann eben Rondo (Dingsda). Dann brauchst du nur deine Dateien herüberzukategorisieren und die Sup-Kats. mitnehmen und die alte Rondo bleibt dann erstmal als Dummy-Kat. --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich hab die vermutliche Ursache für den Unsinn entdeckt. In den EXIF-Daten der verbliebenen Bilder steht u.a. als Schlagwort "Rondo". Vermutlich erfolgte die Kategorisierung per Bot :-( . --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. To be precise, I did not really delete it, but I hid it from view; only admins and higher can restore it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Du meinst jetzt nicht den üblicherweise 3. Reiter von links "Bearbeiten" (sofern du auf Sprache Deutsch eingestellt hast), oder doch? Bei mir taucht "Edittools" jedenfalls nicht auf, obwohl ich relativ viele Zusatzfunktionen aktiviert habe. --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In der Leiste mit Erweitert - Sonderzeichen - Hilfe steht manchmal (jetzt zum Beispiel) rechts daneben “Editools” mit den ganzen hilfreichen Sachen wie {{DEFAULTSORT} {{NAMESPACE} {{PAGENAME} #rRedirect . -- [ ] [[ ]] {{ }} {{{ }}} “ ” u.s.w -- Steinbeisser (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nee, tut mir leid. Ich hab sowohl Bild- als auch nicht-Bild-Seiten geöffnet und weder Edittools noch eine Erweiter-Leiste gesehen. Frage vielleicht mal im Forum. --Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two little questions about permission confirmations[edit]
Hello,
Sorry to bother you with these questions regarding permissions :
1. Do the written permissions have to be handwritten or do you accept emailed letters ?
2. When several authorizations are awaited from a single person, does this person has to send one authorization by document or can he/she make one only list of the authorized documents ?
Thank you very much.
Best,
--Joiesoudaine (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you need more than 1 permission from one licensor, you can put them together into one permission. For the process, see here Commons:OTRS/es and for permission templates see here: Commons:Modelos de mensajes. Permissions do not need to be handwritten, but they need to come directly from the licensor. --Túrelio (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. One of the permissions have already be sent by Jacques Burtin to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>. The three other permissions, from Bruno Montpied, should be sent today.
Best regards,
--Joiesoudaine (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The permissions for the three remaining documents have been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by Bruno Montpied, their copyright owner, this morning at 10:09.
La fotografía del Palacio Díaz Vélez es de mi propiedad y ha estado en mi familia desde fines del siglo XIX. ¿Suficiente? Eso espero.
Gracias por borrar los cuadros colorados tan poco amigables. --Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La imagen Martín Rodríguez 2 la obtuve de la obra "Memorias del general Lamdrid", un libro de mi propiedad que data de fines del siglo XIX.
Los datos completos de la obra ya los puse en la primera contribución que hice y que fue borrada arbitrariamente.
Espero que no borres esta y que quites ese cuadro rojo tan poco amigable.
Gracias.--Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the book differs between the 2 image versions. 1) "Memorias del General Gregorio Aráoz de la Madrid" 2) "Memorias del General Aráoz de Lamdrid". I assume that the first is correct, right? You wrote "Aráoz de Lamdrid" in the author entry. I assume that this person is the author of the total book, right? But is he really also the artist who created the drawing of Martín Rodríguez? Also, the license nbeeds to be changed, as you are not the author and you cannot self-license it. It's probably PD already. --Túrelio (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Estimado:
La foto es de mi propiedad, yo la saqué de un caudro propio de circa 1910.
¿O.K.?
Favor de eliminar el poco amigable cuadro colorado.
Gracias.
I am not sure I understand you correctly. Are you really saying that you shot the original photography in the oval frame? In addition, I doubt your date of 1910. The lady is born 1899, she would have been a girl a 10-11 years in 1910. --Túrelio (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La foto es trabajo propio, de mi propiedad su original, que data circa 1910.
Tode está bien.
Favor de eliminar el nada amigable resaltado color rojo.
Gracias.--Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"La foto es trabajo propio" - congratulations, you are more than 100 years old? Possession of a printed photo or even a film-negative does not equal authorship. You need to provide the name of the author. --Túrelio (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Por facor, basta de incluir esos cuadros horribles colorados.
Dedico parte de mi tiempo en contribiur con la enciclopedia. Por favor no estropeen el trabajo de otros.
La foto la tomé personalmente de una foto de mi propiedad que data de principios del siglo XX. ¿Suficiente?
Gracias por eliminar de mi contribución el cuadro colorado.--Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, possession of a copy (photo) of a work by someone else (original photographer) does not give you any copyright or authorship. This photo is not your own work. What is the original, a photo in a book or a printed photo? Is there any author or studio information on the front or on the backside?
STOP attacking me. It is you who gave me additional workload because you put wrong and insufficient information into the description at upload. And please stop complaining about our problem-messages. This is our default, not my personal choice. If there hadn't been problems with your uploads, then there would have been not need for such messages. So, it's you own doing. --Túrelio (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Estimado:
No puedo, por el momento, satisfacer tu interrogante ya que el libro en cuestión está en mi estancia y yo estoy en la ciudad.
En mejor memento, te contestaré.
Atte.--Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vous avez supprimé le fichier que j'avais téléchargé : Léa_Jouvet.jpg
Or il s'agit de ma propre photo! Et le site que vous citez, (www.leajouvet.fr) sur lequel il y aurait "violation", c'est également mon propre site!
Donc, non, je ne me "viole" pas moi-même...!
Par contre, depuis, je ne peux plus la télécharger. Pouvez-vous rétablir tout ça?
when we find that a recently uploaded image is already present on an external website, which has not been mentioned as the source, this automatically raises the suspicion that it has been copied from that website and thereby is likely a copyvio - just to understand why it was tagged and deleted.
In case you are the depicted person, did you really shoot this photo by yourself or was it shot by a photographer? In the latter case you need to send a permission from the photographer to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Turelio, I wonder if you can do something about this vandalism because I already made my report [38]. On 10 January 2010, the user Keepscases upload this map using alot of references I suppose as we can find in internet [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] as maximum extension territoy of the aztec empire [46], but the user Sémhur "updated" with his own version of the aztec empire using the "Provinces tributary of the Triple Alliance" [47] as we can see with this map of the user Yavidaxiu without a previous consensus on discussion page, so I reverted to the original image and I told to the user to upload another image with his own version but now we have a R3R war, unfortunately the user El Comandante has joined to this vandalism, so please I hope you can do something there as administrator. Thank you. --Giggette (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giggette, I am busy in real-life today. What you should add (also in your COM:AN-posting), is a clear statement to which file exactly you are refering, i.e. the problem-file. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phalaenopses is the correct plural form of Phalaenopsis, as in crisis--crises. Moving categories such as "Magenta Phalaenopses" to "Magenta Phalaenopsis" changed the names from format "Adjective nouns" to "Adjective noun", which is against our way of naming cats. --Pitke (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tag them, just performed the badname-deletion requests, which seemed sensible to me. Please discuss this first with User:Orchi, as the several renames had more than Phalaenopses-to-Phalaenopsis transition. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could email someone like this user at their private email address. They may be able to verify the info and forward only the needed info to OTRS for a ticket number. Just a thought.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned a more 'secure' method to send a licence to OTRS on that French military image that caused all the uproar over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, o.k. Well, that was meant as a proposal for the OTRS people, of which I am none. Anyway, I'll possibly try at the weekend. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I marked File:Banda Damone.jpg for deletion because copyright violation, I agree it can't be the original source, but I showed an image from 2006, 4 years before the image was uploaded to Commons, and there are a lot if you search for it with reversal google search, I think the author must prove he is the author, there are some other very similar images like this and this. Thank you, but I don't believe Lotus666 is the original author. --UAwiki (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it looks a bit fishy. I suggest you to open a regular (slow) deletion request, which may provide further input from others. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to send an informal confirmation to OTRS that I took this photo. Why? The original on Flickr is already CC-BY-SA. My username is obviously related to the account on Flickr, which you noted yourself. I asserted my rights already with the UploadWizard. Why is extra confirmation required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilK421 (talk • contribs)
Your username NeilK421 is possibly related to Flickr-user Neil Kandalgaonkar. I don't remember whether it was CC-BY-SA when I checked. As you may know, licenses on Flickr can easily be changed by the user, without leaving any record about the former license. "I asserted my rights .." - for a honest uploader this may seem to be clear enough. However, as you as a new user may not know, each day hundreths of uploaders to Commons assert us being the photographer or having the rights, when in fact they aren't, but simply have copied an image from somewhere. From your position as a Flickr-user you should be thankful that on Wikimedia-Commons unpaid volunteers check new uploads in order to protect the intellectual property of content creators, which does not happen at Flickr, PhotoBucket, etc., as far as I know. Anyway, I have now ordered a bot to record the current license of this image on Flickr. So, you don't need to do anything. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio!
Für User:2000tennisfan und User talk:2000tennisfan benötige ich dringend fachliche Ünterstützung!Die Benutzerin ist wirklich die Mutter und Ärztin von Mona Barthel, das habe ich nachgeprüft. Sie hat unter dem Benutzernamen 2000tennisfan neue Fotos aus 2013 - und schon bereits früher - zur Verfügung gestellt, die jetzt teilweise zum Löschen vorgeschlagen sind z.B.(File:Barthelfedcup.jpg). Leider kennt sie sich mit unseren Vorschriften nicht so aus, ist auch nur bei Commons - und nicht global angemeldet. Da sie dauernd mit ihrer Tochter unterwegs ist hat sie sehr wenig Zeit sich um WP zu kümmern. Kann man hier irgendwie helfen? Für eine kurze Nachricht oder Idee kannst du mir ja am Besten auf meiner de.WP-Disk antworten. Viele Grüße und noch ein schönes WE! - ----Martinder Ältere!19:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have alerted me to missing source info on a jpg file. I'm not sure how to enter new information on to the wiki format lines that are provided. I did try to make a change to the format line 'source' to include the reference info as to where the photo was originally published. Not sure if it worked. The photograph was used by the National Cyclopedia of American Biography, but it actually comes from the estate of Sylvester Poli. Being his grand-daughter, I have permission of use. Can you help me in any way with this, or possibly educate me on how to change source info?
though both images may be in the public domain, we need all available information about the source, the author (photographer) and the date (year) of publication, in order to evaluate the copyright status. In the description of both images you put your username into the author-entry. This may be the result of a misunderstanding, but is rather surely wrong, as you don't earn any copyright by reproducing an existing image. So, you should try to find out the name of the photographer/photo studio (backside of the original print/postcard?). If you honestly do not find anything, you need to write "unknown" in the author-entry. The same for the date. This is rather important for the evaluation of U.S. copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I know that exists the original colour version of that image, but I could not find it. I saw it time ago. So I did colorized it. Maybe is it better upload separately the b/w and the colour version? --Vanzanten (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per our overwrite-policy that would have been better. However, I also find the authorship claim for the original b/w version questionable. The username RiccardoP1983 suggests that the user was born in 1983 and he would not have been able to personally creative a photo in 1960ies or 1944. --Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you divide the b/w version and the colorized version of those photos in two different pages? I do not know how do it. Thank you! :) --Vanzanten (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for you inputs. Please give me some time to email Commons with permissions for use of mentioned images. I hope you agree and thanks again. --BiH (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BiH, with the images tagged for no-permission you have per default 7 days from tagging. When a permission has been sent, you should add {{OTRS pending}} to the image page(s). If you provide permission for those images, that have already been deleted, they can be undeleted. --Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a DR here but the uploader removed the notice and said an OTRS ticket means the image can remain here even though the US has no FOP for sculptures installed after 1977. I placed the notice back in but I wonder how long it will remain here?
Here, I filed a speedy delete and the uploader also removed the notice. This is not friendly behaviour. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leoboudv, it's a bit of a borderline case. If truely a permission has been sent to OTRS, we can surely wait for OTRS to evaluate it. I expect our OTRS-volunteers to be aware of the double-copyright (sculptor/photographer). Just put the image on your watch-list and wait for the outcome of OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that US FOP meant that no images of sculptures installed after 1977 could be used here except in cases of De Minimis. Is my understanding wrong with OTRS? Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the uploader correctly, he said that he got permission from the sculptor (photo itself was CC-BY-licensed anyway). FOP, if applicable, would be/is a sort of bypass around/without permission by the sculptor, when allowed by copyright law (not the case here). OTRS needs to evaluate whether he has indeed permission from the sculptor. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes you are right. I had missed the uploader's detail that he had permission from the sculptor. So, I decided to withdraw my formal DR as a form of good faith here. Thanks for mentioning this detail and Goodnight from Vancouver where its 1:32 AM. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
das Bild File:Monkey in the Gambia with a young.jpg (alt) und Bild File:Monkey with her baby.jpg (neu) ist identisch, das alte Bild kann gelöscht warden... wir hatten so ein ähnliches Problem schon mal. Im Detail stimmt hier aber das Datum nicht, das neue Bild soll von 2013 sein, wobei es schon 2012 schon mal veröffentlicht worden ist. Da hat der Autor das Datum mit dem Uploaddatum vertauscht.
Ich habe doch angegeben, dass das Bild (und die Gestaltung) von mir selber stammt. Wie soll ich denn nachweisen, dass ich (Nutzername Anna Berg) identisch mit der realen Person (Almut Nitzsche) bin, die das Plakat gestaltet und die Fotos gemacht hat? Bitte um Hinweis, wie ich das lösen soll. Danke!
--Anna Berg (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dieses am 6.5. als QI nominierte Foto zeigt eine gedruckte Karte, was ich als Copyright-Verletzung einstufe. Bevor ich einen Löschantrag stelle und mir den Groll des sich auf Panoramafreiheit berufenden Users vielleicht unnötig zuziehe, wollte ich noch eine zweite Meinung einholen. Die Aufnahme wurde in den Niederlanden gemacht.
Gruß
Hallo Norbert, tatsächlich sollte es durch Commons:FOP#Netherlands abgedeckt sein, da die Panoramafreiheit in den N. mindestens so weit geht wie in D. Allerdings fehlte auf der Bildseite der entsprechende Hinweisbaustein {{FoP-Nederland}}. Das habe ich jetzt einmal nachgeholt. Danke für deine Aufmerksamkeit. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Aaron-Michael Fox, I've been updating the Huntington, WV wiki page as per the request of Mayor Williams. All the photos I have uploaded were either taken by me, or given to the City for the purpose of updating the wiki page. Any help you could offer on citation would be appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvfunnyman (talk • contribs)
Hi Wvfunnyman,
just in short for now, as I am busy. You don't need to associate your username on Commons with your real name, if you don't want that. However, you should then send an informal statement about that association/identity to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS), where this is handled confidentially. You should do this at least for File:Huntington trolley bus on Fourth Avenue.jpg and eventually for all other images that were originally shot by yourself (not just reproduced). In addition, you need to think/decide which author name you want to be credited with, as re-user have to credit you per the CC-BY license. About the old photos I will comment later. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't believe the note you left on this image applies. The basis for it being in the public domain is not that the owner granted permission. Instead, the claim of public domain is based on the fact that the image was originally published before 1978 without a copyright notice in the 1947 University of Michigan yearbook, Michiganensian, at page 212. No copyright notice appears within this publication. See also: Wikipedia:Public domain#Published works. Hope that clears it up. Cbl62 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure about that either. What moved me to tag it, was the comment on the source page (click on "description"): "This image may be protected by copyright law. Contact the Bentley Historical Library for permission to reproduce, display or transmit this image." I'm aware that this claim is rather vague and that no photographer is mentioned. Are you sure that the cited yearbook is the first publication of that photo? --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is one of many prepared for use in the yearbook depicting the team's star football players. Since the 1947 yearbook had no copyright notice, the image is now public domain. The notice from the Bentley is a generic one that they post on every image in the database (presumably as a precaution) whether the image was first published in the 1890s or the 1990s. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I've removed the no-perm-tag now and cropped the border away. If you don't like that, feel free to revert to the original version. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, i'm from the pt-wiki. I'm not familiar with the procedures of the Commons and would like to report this user. The images uploaded by her are obviously not own work. grats Rodrigolopes (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
du hast meine Bilder als "mit fehlendem Urhebereinverständnis" markiert. Die als Herkunft angegebene Seite www.steampunker.de ist meine eigene und unterliegt daher letztendlich auch meinem eigenen Publikationsrecht. Sofern dies hilfreich ist, können die Bilder auch mit "ich bin selbst Urheber" markiert werden. Dies bezieht sich auf alle meine uploads.
Hallo Alex, aus dem Benutzernamen des Hochladers geht halt nicht hervor dass du das selbst bist. Du musst das auch nicht zwangsläufig offenlegen; das bleibt dir überlasssen. Allerdings hat der als Autor gewählte Benutzername auch Auswirkungen auf die Zuschreibung der Fotos durch Nachnutzer, die gemäß der CC-BY-Lizenz ja denjenigen als Urheber nennen müssen, der im Autor-Eintrag angegeben ist, sofern keine abweichende Angabe im Lizenzbaustein gemacht wurde. Was du also machen solltest ist, eine Email von deiner mit der Website verbundenen Emailadresse (...@steampunker.de) an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org (deutsch) zu schicken, in der du deine Autorenschaft über die hochgeladenen Fotos (am besten per Dateinamen alle auflisten) und deinen Willen, diese der gewählten freien Lizenz zu unterstellen, äusserst. Der Inhalt der Email wird nicht veröffentlicht. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo,
also ich habe umgehend eine Mail an die permissions-commons-de geschickt mit der entsprechenden bestätigung. auch die fragen habe ich ausführlich beantwortet und von meiner domain-mail versendet. Dennoch hat user Fastily die Bilder gelöscht. Wieso??? Ich finde das etwas willkürlich und fände es nett, wenn Probleme oder Unklarheiten bestehen, diese einfach anzusprechen bevor irgendetwas getagged oder gelöscht wird. Ich bin schließlich auch darum bemüht, dass alles korrekt zugeht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassmiranja (talk • contribs)
Keine Panik! Einige Kollegen sind etwas schnell mit dem Löschen. Die Löschung einer Datei mag dir als one giant step erscheinen, für einen admin ist es nur one small step, aber ebenso auch die Entlöschung.frei nach Neil Armstrong Will sagen, sobald OTRS die Genehmigung anerkannt hat, kannst du mir Bescheid geben und ich stelle die Datei wieder her. Falls sich mit der Genehmigung nichts rührt, kannst auch auf Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard mal nachfragen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22:01, 27 February 2009 Túrelio (talk | contribs) deleted page Wojciech Kossak (Author requested deletion or blanked page: content was: ' {{copyvio|en:Wojciech Kossak died in 1942. This work will be copyrighted until the end of 2012}}')
OK thx, but I am newbie in Wikimedia, now theoretical question, is it possible to undelete one chosen page in Wikimedia? C12 (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Canoe1967, I can and will delete them, but — at least for the signature — I would prefer if you could forward the email (from Chanel company or just user:Chanel Ryan?) to OTRS in order to have a record of it. Eventually you could let them add it to ticket# 2013041310001871, which was for your upload. --Túrelio (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thank you again. There isn't an OTRS for the signature which she uploaded herself. She was having problems with other images and came to the help desk. That is where I got involved and helped her with OTRS etc. She should be clearing up the licenses for her other images in the next day or so from her company email address. I will have her mention a delete on the signature as well. Btw can you give a quick opinion on File:Branson Belle stage curtain 2005.jpg? I am not sure if it is copyvio or below threshold of originality for protection in the USA. Just speedy it, request by uploader if you think it is copyvio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the stage curtain: I would guess that the original curtain is below TOO, but I'm not experienced at all in U.S. copyright law and jurisdiction. You could simply put it through a regular DR with intent of assessment of the potential problem or you could ask User:Clindberg directly. --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo,
ich habe ein kleines Vandalismusproblem mit diesem Foto und dem anonymen Nutzer 144.30.0.116 [[49]].
Bei seinem ersten Edit hat er die Bildbeschreibung fast vollständig gelöscht ohne Angabe eines Grundes, was ich rückgängig gemacht hatte. Inzwischen hat er die Bildbeschreibung wieder sinnentstellend verändert, französische Worte in die engl. Bildbeschreibung eingefügt und (aus meiner Sicht) sinnvolle Kategorien entfernt. Er hat scheinbar ein Problem mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Entenpaaren :-)))
Wie geht man hier am besten vor? Kann man diese IP sperren lassen oder solchen anonymen Nutzern Nachrichten hinterlassen, auf die sie hingewiesen werden?
Gruß
-- Norbert Nagel (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Norbert, ich habe seine Edits komplett zurückgesetzt und die IP für 3 Tage gesperrt. In Anbetracht seiner früheren Edit-History scheint das ein Gelegenheitsvandale zu sein. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the pro- and the contra-side with Jimbo's porn-purge, though pro and contra here is not to be taken 100% literally. Sure, there were more on the contra-side. Anyway, the total number wasn't that large. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only heard of this porn-purge at 2nd hand, from a prolific contributor who abandoned WMF projects over it. I know nothing about admins taking sides, the specifics of the sides taken, or whether Jimbo was sanctioned or reverted.
Do you have an objection to that follow-up? Would you prefer to draft it yourself? If I don't hear back from you by the 19th, I'll assume you have no objection to my drafting it. Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no objection. Later, I'll add a comment at the COM:AN threat with the essence that if the community (which one exactly?) thinks an individual rfA/rfB/rfWhatever merits a larger audience, 1st a (sort of) consensus about that (case-based) should be aimed (probably in the discussion-section of the respective rfX) and 2nd the rfX should then be "advertised" (notified) to the general public, i.e. VP etc., eventually in addition to individual notifications as you had done in the jcb-case. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. I have contacted the official individual, and I been given permission to use following deleted images: "Asarulislam Syed.gif", "Jannat_Pakistan_Party_coat_of_arms.png", and "SHALIMAR-POSTER.jpg".. Where do I send written permission in .pdf I received? Thanks.. --BiH (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As had been linked in all the no-permission-messages on your talkpage, before you removed them, permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, du hast eben das Bild Glane.JPG auf Initiative von Benutzer Overberg gelöscht. Ich vermute nur vorgeschobene Löschgründe, Overberg ist eingeschnappt wegen der unter de:Glane (Ems) geführten Diskussion. Daher meine Bitte: Bild wieder herstellen, wenn es geht. Gruß WatzmannTalk11:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nun, er hatte "Urheberrechtsverletzung meinerseits" angegeben. Es war natürlich nicht zu erwarten, dass jemand so etwas schreibt, wenn es garnicht zutrifft. Ich habe es jetzt erstmal wiederhergestellt. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, Urheberrechtsverletzung!--Overberg (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
PS Schau Dir auch meine letzten drei hochgelanden Karten an, da war ich mir mit der Lizenz nicht sicher.--Overberg (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bei dem Chaos was die beiden gerade hier anrichten mal eine Frage die mich interessiert: Gibt es bei Commons eigentlich eine Regel, die ein solches systematisches Verhalten sanktionieren? Ich bin eigentlich keiner der gerne Sanktionen fordert, aber als Uploader eine URV zu einem eigenen Upload zu melde ist für mich ein ziemlich fragwürdiges Verhalten.
Warten wir mal ab, was die CU-Untersuchung ergibt. Aus den verschiedenen, z.T. länger zurückliegenden Löschbegründungen könnte man schließen, dass es für die dahinter stehende Person selbst sicher besser wäre, sich von der Wikimedia-Welt zu verabschieden, sie aber Schwierigkeiten hat loszulassen. Das ist ja durchaus kein singuläres Problem. --Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was meinst du jetzt mit "alle Edits"? Deine (User:Overberg) Edits und/oder deine Uploads oder Sendkers Edits/Uploads? --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. Edits als solche können nicht einfach gelöscht werden. Sie verschwinden natürlich aus deiner allgemein sichtbaren Edit-History (die für Admins (und höher) aber weiterhin sichtbar bleibt), wenn die Seite oder Datei, auf/in der du die Edits getätigt hast, gelöscht wird. Admins können Inhalt und Edit-summary einzelner Edits "verstecken" (für andere Admins aber weiterhin sichtbar), wenn ausreichend schwere Gründe dafür vorliegen. Sog. Oversighter können einzelne Edits/Dateien so "verstecken", dass sie auch für Admins nicht mehr sichtbar sind. Dafür müssen aber definierte schwerwiegende Gründe vorliegen, siehe Commons:Oversighters. Die Benutzer- und Benutzerdiskussionsseite können auf Wunsch des jeweiligen Benutzers, wenn nichts dagegen spricht, courtesy-gelöscht werden. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Da schreibe ich eine Email an Sue Gardner. Das wird schon irgendwie klappen. Ich dachte, du könntest mir dabei helfen. --Overberg (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Du musst mich wirklich für blöd halten. Nachdem ich dir oben ausführlich und ehrlich auf deine Fragen geantwortet hatte (und zum Dank einen pampigen Kommentar erhalte (13:58)), fällt dir plötzlich ein, dass all deine Uploads, die du über die Jahre großenteils ausdrücklich als eigenes Werk erklärt und in die Gemeinfreiheit entlassen hattest, URVs sein sollen. Einige davon werden bereits auf externen Websites verwendet. Entweder hast du damals gelogen oder jetzt. Ich vermute eher letzteres und kann dir bzgl. deiner URV-Behauptungen kein Wort mehr glauben. --Túrelio (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn ein Zweifel am meinem Wahrheitsgehalt besteht und ich kriminalisiert werden, dann muss man löschen. Am besten alles. An gestohlenen Dingen lässt sich keine Eigentum erwerben. --Overberg (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dann will ich hier eine Erklärung abgeben: Die Urheberrechte meiner gesamten auf diesem Server gespielten Arbeit ist zweifelhaft und ich fordere die Verantwortlichen dazu auf, sie umgehend zu löschen. Sie dürfen nicht mehr der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Dazu darf ich noch meiner Verwunderung Ausdruck verleihen, wie man mit dem Einsatz und der Mühen Freiwilliger hier umgeht. --Overberg (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interessant und wie du mit meiner Zeit (als unbezahlter Freiwilliger) umgehst, spielt natürlich keine Rolle. Aber egal, du bist jetzt als undeklarierte Sockenpuppe von Sendker gesperrt worden. "kriminalisiert" hast du dich übrigens selbst. --Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ich habe gerade gesehen, dass Overberg jede Menge Löschanträge raus gehauen hat. Kann man die jetzt einfach revertieren? --SteveK (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im Prinzip ja, hab ich bei ein paar schon gemacht. Allerdings sollten m.E. trotzdem alle einen regulären Löschantrag (oder eine Löschdiskussion) durchlaufen, in Form eines (oder ggf. mehrerer) sog. Massenlöschanträge. Dazu könnte man die ca. 250 Dateien je nach Inhalt und Quelle gruppieren, z.B. offensichtlich eigene Fotos bzw. Fotos aus deklarierten anderen Quellen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this file was deleted due to possible copyright by you , but this file is not picked by me from internet,it is my own work... please not delete it... check the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Jain" i want to add pics(my own work) to wikipedia articles, but i can not just prove for every pic that its my work, if pics will be deleted,how can i contribute here Soh nat (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Peru 1970 image is in the worldwide public domain. The website "futbolperuano.blogspot.com" is trying to retroactively claim copyright to it by placing a watermark on the image, but that is not valid. Peru's copyright law did not get formalized until 1996.
The Cubillas y Sotil image is trickier since it was published in Ovacion (sports magazine from Peru), but again copyright law in Peru was extremely ambiguous prior to 1996. While the image probably holds some copyright claims in Peru from Ovacion, the licensing in the USA is free given that copyright laws in Peru in 1976 did not match those in the USA (1976 is also the year when Peru was under the "Revolutionary Armed Forces government," and everything going on during that period was quite convoluted).
Best regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., but that sounds like PD-only-in-the-US to me. If that is true, it makes little sense to host it on Commons, :en would then be a better place for it. However, to be really sure you might contact our top-expert for such questions User:Clindberg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the 1970 image is in the worldwide public domain. I also have a copy of it which is in worse condition (and has a calendar on the backside with an add for a "chifa", Peruvian-Chinese restaurant) than the BlogSpot's image. Many of the players in the image ended up in the reserves for the 1970 World Cup.
I will ask Clinberg about the second image to make sure.
Assuming that these are not CVs (and I'm not talking about taking pictures of sculptures, as these are PD in Poland, as long as such sculptures are permanently installed in the public space) I don't see why they should be deleted. pomyłka means mistake. I will ask the uploader though. Masur (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Túrelio, ich möchte einfach mal Danke sagen und Dich auf ein Glühwein einladen, es ist so kalt hier an der Küste, da hilft nur noch ein Grog oder Glühwein, gut so früh am Morgen kann es auch Kaffee oder Tee sein. ;) Tschüß Ra Boewatt??05:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morgen Ra Boe, Danke. In Aachen ist es zwar auch trübe und regnerisch, aber zumindest nicht mehr so kalt wie vor ein paar Tagen. Aber dein virtueller Glühwein war trotzdem willkommen ;-) . --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright owner says in the metadata that there is a 'Non-Commercial' restriction on this image. The image should be deleted and the uploader notified what licenses are acceptable. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. The uploader is a good person but he is not completely familiar with what Non-Commercial restrictions on licenses means. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With File:Russell 1.jpg and all of the sculptor's works before 1963 someone did a search in http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ They did not find any renewals for statues. I think they did find renewals for songs and other works that were probably another J. Weaver. Our John Weaver moved to Canada permanently in the late 60s early 70s so it is unlikely he would of known about renewals or possibly didn't want to renew them. All of the Smithsonian descriptions do not list any copyright markings on his works between 1963 and 1977 nor any of his works actually. I still may contact his heirs to see if they will license photographs of all of his works after 1977 and add the OTRS# to the list at User:Canoe1967/Sculptors. This list, hopefully, will help us get more images where FOP is a concern.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when you are sure about that, it might be helpful to add this information somehow to Category:John Weaver (artist) or to the talkpage with a note on the front page. I do add the {{NoUploads}} per default to any artist's cats when I recognize he/she isn't dead for >70 years. It's meant more as "pay attention" or "take a closer look" than as "no go". --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration of previously-deleted Greg LeMond image (File:Greg LeMond 1988 Vuelta a Andalucia.jpg), using non-free promotional license?[edit]
Hi. I think there could be a case to be made for restoration of File:Greg LeMond 1988 Vuelta a Andalucia.jpg under {{Non-free promotional}}, for publicity photographs of people or events, such as headshots or posed shots, from a press kit, because there is no free-equivalent image available that I've found thus far showing Greg LeMond racing for PDM. Would you assist and support me in this? (The photo that was deleted depicted a large-format cyclist promo/publicity "autograph card" released by PDM team to promote LeMond, the team and their sponsors.) Thank you for your time. joepaT19:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi joepa, as you wrote "Non-free promotional", are you aware that at Commons we do/can not allow fair-use material? As you want to use the image on :en, you can simply take it from http://flickr.com/photos/78811693@N00/5337946599, upload it directly to :en and elaborate a fair-use rationale. People at :en may ask you why you are claiming it under fair-use when on Flickr it is under a CC-BY license. You may then explain to them that at Commons we consider this CC-BY license as bogus, because the image is obviously a reproduction of a fan-card and the Flickr-user is rather not the photographer of the original photo on this fan-card. Hope that helps. --Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sure, these are Promo shots. However, I couldn't find them anywhere else in the web, so there is currently no evidence for a blatant copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the barnstar - 10:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC) - I just noticed it today, it is a great reward, and priceless, more than, if I sell my photos amid advises to sell them. Free photos as Jimbo Wales opted no advertisements, is the very heart of Commons. Future generations will call me blessed for the photo in my User Page, 1 out of my 31,000 uploaded ones, came from Outer Space at 8-8-8 that year in Heavens. If you come to the Philippines, I can show you the Lights in my 2 palms, as I miserably failed to photograph them. In time, they will be revealed. Very sincerely, --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can I upload this portrait successfully to the public domain?
The son of Robert Earl Sawyer granted me the right to do so.
Thank you for your help.--Fred Bokker (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred, the relevant question is, who is the photographer? Only the photographer can release an image under a free license. Per your above statement I assume that you are not the photographer. Therefore, you shouldn't have written author=Fred Bokker. If the said son of Mr. Sawyer is sure to have the full rights for this photo, you should ask him to sent a statement of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). However, you should prepare this declaration out of the template on Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries. Substitute "work" in the template by File:RobertEarlSawyer.jpeg. For the license you may either choose CC-Zero, which is equivalent to Public domain and which I would not recommend for a portrait, or CC-BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/). You should then send the finalized permission text to the son of Mr. Sawyer and ask him to date and sign it (add affiliation/contact data) and to send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. His email will not be made public. --Túrelio (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Steinsplitter, ich hab IRC noch nie benutzt und hab vermutlich auch kein Programm dafür — ja, sowas gibts ;-). Bzgl. Muehsam: vermutlich ja, aber mir ist das auch erst beim Nachprüfen mehrerer seiner Uploads aufgegangen, dass das nicht so ganz zu einem copyvio-Hochlader passt. Aber kein Problem, sobald er sich meldet, können event. schon gelöschte Dateien eben wieder entlöscht werden. Ich habe gerade mal auf seine :de-Disku gepostet. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Can you give the reasons of deleting this picture from Wikimedia project? Evidently there is mistake, since picture actually did not contained any links, and you're probably had confused it with similar picture from russian section of Wikipedia. So it would be nice if you restored this picture back, since I wouldn't want to ask its author (fairly well-known person in Russia) to upload it again. Thanks... סּסּ (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi סּסּ, the image had been tagged by User:NBS for copyvio-speedy for "source=http://vk.com/masiania_shop", suggesting that uploader User:Samoleg might not be the creator. I wasn't even aware of ru:Файл:Масяня (логотип).png, though both look nearly identical to me. As both image versions are credited to Oleg Kuvayev, I wonder why Файл:Масяня (логотип).png is only legitimate under fair-use, but File:Masyanya Logo.png is under a free license. Is there any evidence that User:Samoleg is identical to Oleg Kuvayev? Has a permission been sent to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)? If there is enough evidence that the upload is legitimate, the image can easily be undeleted. However, as I don't understand any Russian and as I may not be on-wiki for most of the day, it might be better if you bring this case to Commons:Undeletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there any evidence that User:Samoleg is identical to Oleg Kuvayev?" Yes, one of the users from russian section of Wikipedia confirmed his identity by email. And I personally spoke with author about picture uploading. "Has a permission been sent to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)?" No, it's unnecessary I guess, since author has uploaded this picture by himself. "but File:Masyanya Logo.png is under a free license" It's because first file was uploaded earlier, w/o author's permission, while second was uploaded later by author himself. סּסּ (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., then please forward this information directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (see Commons:OTRS/ru), so that it gets recorded under a ticket#, which then can be associated to the image. I will temp-undelete the image pending OTRS-confirmation. In addition, you should research for the true date (year) of creation of the cartoon, as the current "2014-06-97" is surely nonsense. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will try, it may take a couple of days. But. Is it actually necessary requirement? In rules of russian wikipedia written, that uploading by author itself is enough... סּסּ (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misunderstood me. I was just asking that you provide/forward the above mentioned evidence for the identity of User:Samoleg and Oleg Kuvayev to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again! Can you help me with this issue? I guess it requires intervention of independent, non russian-speaking (yes, just so), administrator. סּסּ (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I assume it's about the time-frame for providing a permission or whatever. After an image has been tagged as OTRS-pending, it is rather save from deletion for some weeks,as it is well known that OTRS has quite a back-log. So, it will not become deleted soon. Anyway, it could easily be restored again, when the permission is accepted. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about subject of my request. User NBS has violated the rules, by inserting into file description wittingly false source link. Re-read please first post carefully and you'll understand. סּסּ (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, to me it seems that he made this mistake one time and that he should be aware now that the tagging was wrong in that case. As there is no pattern of repeated events, I fail to see any need for further action, and my admin-colleagues will likely have the same view. --Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these images uploaded by a bot likely fail US FOP as Stefan4 states and have to be deleted. Most of the DR's were filed on May 26 or May 27 and 1 week has now passed. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
these 2 images, both the "old" and the "new" version, have the problem that the photographer is not mentioned. As these are images of 3-dimensional objects, there is a copyright of the original artist (void due to age) and of the photographer (not void, as the photos are recent). Could you talk to Decio whether he would be willing to either have his authorship disclosed to OTRS (the author-entry could be a dummy-name) by us or to directly send a confirmation to OTRS that he is the photographer but prefers not to be mentioned in the author-emtry. Otherwise, these images will be deleted earlier or later. --Túrelio (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Turelio, I'm Decio Mure the uploader of the images. I am the photographer but I do not want my name mentioned. Could you suggest me, please, the shortest way to have the picture deleted? Once a time existed on Commons the possibility that the uploader just asking deletion of his image had simply the image deleted. Is that still possible? If not, could I submit a normal deletion request, just stating what I state here, and have shortly my image deleted? Thank you Decio Mure (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Decio, the reason that these 2 are different from the other files that Antonio g60 and I had processed earlier, is that there is no usable name in the author-entry. The files could be saved if you would transfer your copyright to Antonio g60, just by sending an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). Thereafter, your name would disappear from the public. Would this be o.k. or do you insist in deletion? IMO this would be a better solution, as a plain deletion would need to go through a DR, as the files were uploaded in 2010. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a picture under the wrong license and with the wrong credit, how can I delete it?
- I re-uploaded the same picture and forgot to change the name, how can I change the name for it?
could you be more specific. Which file do you want to delete und for which file do you want to change the name? By the way, which name, the filename or the author name? --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Turelio
Thanks you for your concern but the picture that I post I have the original file and can show you if you would like too
sincerely
wantip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feanwan (talk • contribs)
Das hattest du im April als URV markiert, aber einen Tag später war's wieder da. Ich weiß nicht, ob es das alte Bild ist, aber die Sache mit den Katalogen sieht schon mal nach abgeleitetem Werk aus. Gruß, De728631 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Die Bildhälfte, die damals zur Einstufung als copyvio geführt hatte, fehlt in der neuen Version. Aber ich denke, dass all diese Uploads einer Genehmigung bedürfen. --Túrelio (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich bin heute zu sehr RL-beschäftigt um mich darum kümmern zu können. Das Problem ist, dass die ursprüngliche Fassung von File:Flag of Ducal Prussia.svg eben schon die "falsche" war. Diese Fassung jetzt 5 Jahre später selektiv herauszulöschen, geht nicht einfach so. Vielleicht wäre es am besten, die beiden Versionen zu trennen, was wohl hieße, die "korrekte" Fassung in einen neuen Dateinamen zu überführen. Ein Problem dabei ist aber, dass es für die "richtige" Fassung von TcfkaPanairjdde keine Quelle (für die Grafik) gibt. Anschließend müsstest du zunächst all die Projekte, die derzeit die falsche Fassung nutzen, überzeugen die neue zu nehmen. Danach könnte man einen Löschantrag auf die "falsche" Fassung stellen. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steinsplitter, da du ihn schon 1 Woche gesperrt hast, würde ich es einfach dabei belassen, aber schauen was er danach macht. Wenn es so weitergeht, wären 1-3 Monate o.k., was für solche User de facto gleichbedeuetend mit dauerhaft ist. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sendker has sent a Template:OTRS ticket stating that the pictures he uploaded are not actually his. He has attempted to nominate them for deletion but you have reverted each nomination. Why? Is evidence required, beyond the uploader's statement, that the pictures originated from elsewhere?
Can you answer why you dont have notice or warned me about the deletion of that archive? That doesnt look like a good faith or behaviour for a Commons administrator, sincerely. And please, if you do that, be fair and do the same with File:Nelson Mandela painted portrait P1040890.jpg, wich is in the same situation. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been the duty of the nominator, which happens not to be me. Anyway, sorry that I didn't realize that you didn't get a notice. FYI: the deletion-rationale was "France has no Freedom of Panorama for modern art". Thanks for notifying about the Mandela mural. --Túrelio (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Noticed you edited the picture I just uploaded, so I have a question: This is a cropped picture, how do I add the correct lisens? Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a name-switch to the license and simplified the author-entry. By cropping the image of somebody else, one does not really earn own copyright in it. Anyway, you are mentioned in the retouched-message. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, gibt es eine Möglichkeit das obige Bild von Prinz Harald nach Wikimedia Commons zu exportieren? Bei [File:PrinceHaraldDenmark.jpg] steht: photograph from private collection Stender, Copenhagen 1911 - Zu Stender konnte ich nichts finden, überhaupt nicht schlüssig, ob es sich um eine Sammlung Stender oder Photograph Stender handelt. Da das Bild allemal über 100 Jahre alt ist, müsste es doch exportierbar sein, oder? - Nächste Frage wäre dann, wie macht man das? Kannst Du helfen? Wäre toll. LG --Adelfrank (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, der Umstand, dass die Datei von einer inzwischen geblockten Sockenpuppe hochgeladen wurde und mit no-Commons markiert ist, macht es nicht gerade leichter. Auf Commons wäre das Foto mit {{PD-Denmark50}} sicher zulässig, du könntest es damit allein aber nicht auf :de benutzen. Du müsstest erst noch mehr recherchieren. Z.B. die angeblich unmittelbare Quelle "Wartenberg Trust", was ist das? Haben die eine Website, wo die Postkarte gezeigt wird? Gibt es dort oder anderswo Hinweis auf Stender? --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio, lade gerade SW Fotos aus dem Fundus meines 2008 verst. Vaters hoch. Um sie zu digitalisieren scanne ich sie vorher ein. Wollt fragen ob das so ok geht. Dank+Grüßle--Wald-Burger8 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich nehme mal beispielhaft File:Verkehrslandeplatz Leutkirch-Unterzeil-e.jpg. Im Autorfeld darfst du natürlich nicht dich selbst (scannen macht dich nicht zum Urheber), sondern musst den Namen deines Vaters eintragen. Bei Quelle/source solltest du eher "scanned from photo-print" o.ä. eintragen. Im Datum/date-Feld soll das Datum (Jahr) der Originalaufnahme eingetragen werden, nicht des Scans oder des Hochladens. Am besten wäre es m.E. wenn du zum Abschluß des Hochladens dieser Bildserie eine Erklärung an OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), worin du deine Beziehung zum Urheber all dieser Fotos (bitte vollständig auflisten) angibst. Dir ist klar, dass du natürlich nur Fotos hochladen darfst, die dein Vater selbst aufgenommen hat. An fremden Fotos erbst du kein Nutzungsrecht. Falls du nicht der einzige bzw. erste Erbe deines Vaters bist (z.B. Mutter lebt noch, du hast Geschwister), solltest du familienintern eine zumindest mündliche Zustimmung der Miterben einholen, um späteren Ärger zu vermeiden. Das könntest du dann ggf. auch in der o.e. Erklärung an OTRS erwähnen.
Vielen Dank für Deine schnelle Antwort! File:Hauptstr. 50-a.jpg kann sofort gelöscht werden. Für die anderen hochgeladenen Schwarzweißfotos habe ich keine Zustimmung. Ich werde das aber beim nächsten Familientreffen (Schwester und Mutter wohnen räumlich weit weg)ansprechen und versuchen die Einwilligung zu bekommen. Bis dahin diese Bilder wieder löschen (ich schreibs einzeln auf die Disk.) Dank+Gruß--Wald-Burger8 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hauptstr. 50-a ist weg. Wenn du für anderen Bilder das o.k. (mündliche Zustimmung reicht hier sicher aus) hast, beantrage einfach deren Wiederherstellung. Das ist einfacher als sie nochmal hochzuladen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what is going on with Roland zh? The indefinite protection of one's talk page when vandalism, etc is not involved is indeed an unusual step, and not one that I think we should be entertaining. Comments welcome. russavia (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you already see my posting Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#user.2Ftalkpage_protected? In its first line follow the 2nd link to Foroa's talkpage to Roland's own statement. My choice was between taking an unusual step which has little practical relevance as Roland does not want discussions/notifications and does not discuss on his talkpage (elsewhere he does, a bit), but enables him to stay and further work on Commons, or insist on principles (not really written policy), which will guarantee his ongoing annoyance and soon departure from Commons. By the way, we just lost Herbythyme - though unrelated. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lieber Túrelio, auch wenn dieser thread in Englisch (verstehen ist kein Problem, das unmissverständliche Schreiben in Englisch hingegen eher) ist, erlaube ich mir Dir ganz herzlich in unserer Muttersprache zu danken :-))
Vorweg: Die Signatur "Roland" ist in "Roland zh" geändert - insbesondere eine mögliche Verwechslung war mir nicht bewusst und ist bislang nicht so konkret wie von Dir angesprochen worden; schon vor Jahren hatte ich unter "Einstellungen/Benutzerdaten/Signatur" die "Verlinkung" (aus Datenschutzgründen) 'ausgeschaltet' und Beiträge wie üblich mit vier Tilden signiert. Der letzte thread auf meiner Benutzerdiskussion war übrigens nicht der 'Auslöser' für diesen Wunsch, aber aus meiner rein persönlichen Sichtweise im übertragenen Sinn ein 'Déja-vu' für einen wohl deutlich über dem hiesigen 'Altersdurchschnitt' liegenden 'Internet-Oldie' wie mich, der solcherart 'Diskussionen' bereits vor zwanzig Jahren im Usenet, sogar in 'professionellen' Internetforen, und innerhalb der Wikimedia-Projekte immer-und-immer-wieder-durchlebt-hat. Nach dem Tod unserers Vater sind gerade erst vor zwei Wochen eineinhalb Jahre andauernde, äusserst erbittert geführte 'Diskussionen' um Bagatellen innerhalb einer 'Grossfamilie' und mit Aussenstehenden endlich zum Abschluss gekommen, was mein 'Nervenkostüm' zudem übermässig strapaziert und quasi einer 'Diskussions-Aversion' Vorschub geleistet hat, dies als eine ausserhalb von Wikimedia liegende 'Erklärung' für meinen offensichlich nicht alltäglichen Wunsch nach einer Sperre. Also auch kein wie auch immer gearterter 'Vorbehalt' gegenüber anderen Wikimedia Commons EnthusiastInnen, welche Funktion sie innerhalb Wikimedia auch innehaben mögen. "as this user wants so" als Sperrgrund ist übrigens auch faktisch absolut korrekt.
Dein Einfühlungsvermögen für 'meine Befindlichkeit' innerhalb von Wikimedia commons, nur gegenüber Foroa konkreter ausgesprochen, weiss ich umsomehr zu schätzen, nachdem ich die der von Dir wunschgemäss vorgenommenen Sperrung vorangehenden Beiträge und auch diese Statements gelesen habe, da ich wirklich kurz davor war meine 'Mitarbeit' bei Wikimedia Commons aufzugeben. Da Du die persönlischen Gründe für die Sperrung offensichlich gut nachvollziehen kannst, werde ich mein Bestes versuchen, Deinem Vertrauensvorschuss gerecht zu werden. Ich danke Dir auch von Herzen, dass Du die diesbezüglichen Richtlinien 'gedehnt' hast. Ich freue mich, in Zukunft wieder 'entspannter' weiterhin bei Wikimedia Commons insbesondere bei der Kategorisierung von Category:India und zuweilen auch Switzerland bezogenen Medien 'produktiv' im bisherigen Rahmen 'weiterarbeiten' zu können. Ganz herzliche Grüsse, Roland zh 10:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Mein Beileid zum Tod deines Vaters. Bei RL-Belastungen oder auch wenn man merkt, dass einen das Editieren auf Commons nicht entspannt oder wenigstens Freude macht, dann ist es gut einfach mal eine Pause einzulegen. Alles Gute. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lieber Túrelio, vielen Dank für Deine Kondulationswünsche, die ich gerne auch den Familienmitgliedern mitteile. Mein 'Lieblingsthema' Indien und damit verbunden das Editieren und Fotografie waren während dieser Zeit eine gute 'Ablenkung', da nicht familienbezogen. Nur die sich in den letzten Monaten häufenden o.e. 'Begleitumstände' waren der 'Tropfen auf den heissen Stein', sodass ein 'Ausstieg' dank zahlreicher anderer, vernachlässigter 'Hobbies' ansonsten die 'gesündeste Alternative' war. Ganz, ganz herzlichen Dank für Alles und auch Dir alles Gute, Roland zh 11:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I was categorizing an image and then notices his uploads http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jakeroads . I tried a French to English translator and the first image and the oldest image appears to be taken in France, the next is of boys in Italy, then one in Dallas, then the most recent is in Brazil which makes me wonder if this user actually took these photos or stole them from somewhere else. Thanks for any advice on this. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm, I fear, if this was based only on a casual discussion over at :en, it should first be discussed here. I am aware of the inherent risk for failure, but IMO you can't change speedy-deletion policy without involvement of this community or at least those interested. It might not need a formal rfc, but it should be proposed either on the policy-talkpage or Commons:Village pump/Proposals. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a change in policy so much as a lenient codification of existing practice. The problem is touched upon briefly at COM:IDENT and such requests can also be pursued as an office action. I did first start a discussion at COM:D before making the change there, but I just didn't see it necessary at COM:CSD since it's still a proposed policy and since the change should be so uncontroversial. — C M B J00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture that we must delete as quickly as possible.[52] The description is "female butt". That person on the picture has not given its permission for that kind of use. Kubura (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted by Fastily. I was offline until now. As you seem to understand the native language of User:August Dominus, could you check the filename (and eventually description) of his other uploads for inappropriate names? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plan Rathaus Mülheim von 1912 / Lizenzbaustein auf Commons?[edit]
Hallo Túrelio! Nachdem ich auf [53] keine wirklich befriedigende Antwort auf meine Frage bekommen habe, wende ich mich direkt an dich. Ich habe soeben unter [54] einen Plan des Rathaus Neubaus von Mülheim aus dem Jahr 1911 hochgeladen (vgl. auch dortige Quellenangabe). Der Plan stammt aus einem Buch aus dem Jahr 1912, der Urheber des Plans ist nicht bekannt, im Buch steht keine Quellenangabe dazu. Ich habe den Plan erst mal auf de-WP mit der Vorlage {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} hochgeladen. Nachdem ich mich nun noch mal durch etliche alte Bilder aus de:Essen und de:Mülheim an der Ruhr durchgeklickt habe, habe ich gesehen, dass wirklich niemand mehr Bilder auf de-WP hochlädt, sondern ähnliche Lizenzbausteine auf Commons verwendet. Deswegen meine Frage an dich: Gibt es eine Commons-Vorlage, mit der ich den Plan auch auf Commons hochladen kann? Ich blicke bei der Vielzahl der Lizenzbausteine einfach nicht mehr durch. Danke schonmal + Grüße, --Tuxyso (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you tagged File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg for deletion as a copyright violation. I though letters in simple fonts and simple shapes were ineligible for copyright protection so I cropped that portion of the main image of w:Whaam! to create a PD file. Why do you feel this is not properly tagged as PD-ineligible.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression was that it looked more than simple text. I wasn't even aware of the full cartoon from which it had been cropped. May be speedy-tagging was a bit too much, it might have gone through a regular (slow) deletion-request. I could restore it for that purpose, if you prefer. However, it seems you have found a solution with en:File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really a solution. I just loaded the file there so that I could initiate discussion at w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I actually need a PD version of the image in the future so that I can have an image to use for a potential w:WP:TFA. Could you restore this image for a more extensive discussion or a full deletion review.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Antonio G60 and I collaborate with Decio Mure; Decio has no more time to watch for his many files uploaded, particularly those controversial for copyright etc. etc. because he has many personal problems and I wanna to help him giving relief on those issues, because he has too many others on his own... We want to collaborate with friendship with you administrators, otherwise we would not publish so many photos for your project for free, in public domain... so, in the spirit of cooperation and friendship, I provided personally other pictures, totally equivalent if not better of those of Decio, with the prayer, please, to delete the Decio ones. I uploaded this image:
File:Santissimo_Salvatore_portale_frontale.jpg that is better for the following reasons: (1) better resolution in pixels (2) better quality due to the absence of solar disturb in the optical lens.
I also published File:Santissimo_Salvatore_scale.jpg in addition, to contribute - please take all this in the spirit of collaboration, we want to contribute to the project, not just erase pictures... we want to add more; the only request is to respect Decio Mure position who wants to retires from those issues, please, help him. Yours truly, Antonio g60 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i am Octavian Gutu i try to edit my page today and i cant upload my photos made by me and given to other media sources for my own advertising or news .
could you get a bit more specific. The only of your uploads that has been deleted so far, is File:Gutzu.jpg, as it had been published[55] in far higher resolution than your upload and far earlier (2008). Your upload File:Otto1.jpg is clearly not your own work and thereby requires confirmation/permission from the photographer. In addition, as you are depicted in File:Otogutu2.JPG and File:Ottogutu1.JPG, you can't have shot them by yourself. Who has shot these 2 photos? --Túrelio (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio this photos was made by my coach with my camera ottogutu-2-1 and ottogutu
The otto1 pic is not my work haw i mention, so please if you can delete it will be great.
Thx for great service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otomatrix (talk • contribs)
My coach is 78 ears old this days i don't think he knows what is email and how computers works, he just pres the button on camera that's it .
Gutzu.jpg was made by team photographer and given to me on a cd and some of this pictures i give to different medias and my friends who are journalist . So maybe they end being published at different websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otomatrix (talk • contribs)
O.k. So, at least for File:Gutzu.jpg, you could provide a permission. Thereafter we can undelete it.
About your coach-shot images: in that case you should prepare a declaration of permission by yourself. For a text template see Commons:Email templates; it should contain his full legal name and contact data (will not be published). You could then print it out and ask him to sign it. Thereafter you can scan it into a pdf-file and send that file to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I have done exactly this procedure already by myself. So, it's possible. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theo van Gogh has a CC licence. It also has a GFDL licence but that's absolutely fine under this proposal. There's something not right about your argument, or my interpretation of your argument. Colin (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before jumping to conclusions, look into the edit-history. The CC-license was added — against the will of the licensor (in his original permission) — in the WMF's controversial relicensing action some years after upload. By the way, if your "I don't buy your argument" means "I don't believe you", I find that a bit inappropriate, as I personally contacted the licensor and "negotiated" with them. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The first version has cc-by-3.0-nl and doesn't even mention GFDL. It was later changed to remove CC and replace it with GFDL (something that isn't technically allowed, though I'm sympathetic to mistakes being corrected) and yes that version of GFDL permitted the "upgrade". I wasn't active here during that licence migration effort and I can see why it upset folk. Anyway, the argument I made there stands: it is precisely because this isn't a truly free licence that you persuaded the owner. We could extend that argument to -NC and gain a truckload of top quality photographs by pros. But we don't.
The "don't buy" bit wasn't saying I didn't believe you about the persuading the owner to donate his image bit. It means your argument is unconvincing wrt allowing GFDL. Colin (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my country's legislation it is enough if the person can be recognized by people who know her/him, which is likely the case here. However, my main reason for the PR-tagging was that the uncensored image is 1 click away via the source entry. --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio! Die obige Lizenzvorlage ist veraltet. Leider kenne ich das hiesige Vorgehen nicht. Früher lizenzierte die Agência Brasil ihre Werke unter CC-BY-br-2.5, nun unter 3.0. Kannst du bitte die notwendigen Schritte einleiten? Wird da nur der Beschreibungstext geändert? Oder muß da eine neue Template:Agência Brasil 3.0 angelegt werden und neuere Uploads wären umzulizenzieren? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Mann, hast du keine leichtere Aufgabe? Allein nur herauszufinden, auf welcher der 15 Untervorlagen das 2.5 steht, ist eine Sysiphusaufgabe. Umlizenzieren vorhandener Uploads scheint mir nicht sinnvoll, weil die damals eben unter 2.5 standen und es ja eh keine wirklichen Konsequenzen hätte. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erledigt, ich musste 21 Sprachversionen korrigieren. Irgendjemand hatte bereits vor einiger Zeit die engl. Fassung korrigiert, weshalb hier die korrekte Versionsnummer erschien, die anderen Fassungen aber belassen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ja sorry habe dich angeschrieben Turelio,ich habe nämlich null Ahnung von dem hier,es geht um die Wiederherstellung.wäre es dir evtl mich bei Facebook unter meinen Namen Excalibur Steckimfels anzuschreiben?.ich werde wahnsinnig hier ;). Ich will ja auch nichts verkehrt machen. Bitte melde dich mal. Ganz lieben dank Sven(Devilsrock)
There will be no other notifications in case of further activity unless
you visit this page. You could also reset the notification flags for all
your watched pages on your watchlist.
Your friendly Wikimedia Commons notification system
I own the rights to that image. He is my father. It is a family photo. He died on June 15.
The email to you was created automatically by the system, not by my doing. Though the image File:Harry Rozmiarek.jpg has been deleted by a colleague, I had tagged it as copyvio-suspected after finding it on http://artsandsciences.osu.edu/Rozmiarek and some other websites, which per default suggests that the uploader may not be the author, especially as it was claimed to be created on June 17.(This is nothing personally, just standard procedure.)
As of your statement "I own the rights to that image", I assume that you are not the photographer. Therefore you cannot put your name into the author-entry. Even if it had been a work for hire, about which you need to be sure before confirming it, the name of the photographer should be mentioned. I recommend you to think about this and then send a confirmation/permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS), which should include the filename, the name of the photographer, the date (year) when the photo had been shot, your rights in this photo and your affiliation/contact data (will not be published). Thereafter you will receive either a confirmation of acceptance for the permission (photo can be undeleted) or a request for further information. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading photos and receiving copyright violation notes[edit]
Hi,
I have been trying to update certain pages on the Wiki page, 'Dynamic Duo' and have been unfortunately unknowingly uploading images that have copyright violations attached to them.
I had seen a portion that said to message you in case I was having some troubles.
I had no idea that random images that people have already been freely distributing on search engines would also be an issue when uploading unto Wikipedia! My apologies for causing problems!
How can I delete the photos and also remove the violation tags associated with the photos on my personal user page?
Hi JoAnne Chun, the remaining image will be deleted soon. The warning messages on your talkpage should IMO remain until your next upload. Then you can freely remove them. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Türelio, ich benötige Hilfe zu fehlerhaft hochgeladenen Bildern. Unter User:Huckety/galleryMon Jun 03 21:31:10 CEST 2013, Mon Jun 03 21:10:33 CEST 2013, Mon Jun 03 20:53:21 CEST 2013 und Mon Jun 03 20:40:11 CEST 2013 habe ich 200 Bilder hochgeladen. Durch das vergessen einer Klammer wurde die Beschreibung, der Autor und die Quelle nicht mit hochgeladen. Ich habe die Bilder mit den Baudenkmalen in der Stadt Grevenbroich verknüpft bevor mir der Fehler aufgefallen ist. Vieleicht kannst Du dir das einmal ansehen. Am einfachsten wäre das Löschen aller 200 Bilder in den angegebenen Bereichen. Ich würde die Bilder dann neu hochladen und neu mit Grevenbroich verknüpfen. Ich danke im Voraus für die Hilfe. Danke Huckety (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht also um die Zeile "|Description={{Kulturdenkmal|Typ=|Ort=Grevenbroich|Nummer=, richtig? Wäre das erneute Hochladen von 200 Dateien denn nicht aufwendiger für dich als die Ergänzung des fehlenden Eintrags in den 200 Dateien? Ich kann die Dateien aber auch gerne löschen. --Túrelio (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen Dank für die schnelle Antwort. Ich habe damit begonnen, die Ergänzungen per Hand zu korregieren. Arbeit ist beides. Damit ist das Löschen hinfällig. Vielen Dank für den Tipp und Grüße bis zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt. Huckety (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick removal of misnamed categories after I've given them the bad-name tag. As the creator of the original misspelled category, I apologize for the extra work I've caused you. You're providing a great service to Commons by dilligently and efficiently clearing away such deadwood. 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
O.k., this was not clear from the description. If you upload material to Commons that had been published ealier already, you should mention that in the description-entry "Other_versions=". I have now removed the copyvio-tags and put the source links into the description.
Panorâmicas de Istambul, Imagens antigas de Istambul[edit]
Hi Túrelio, of course I agree with changing the names; I should have remembered that when I moved them from my subpages. I'll add English descriptions also. Rgs. --Stegop (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stegop, thanks for already creating the redirs. About the template: I don't see any problem with that. If you think it might be of use for others and if there is no identical template already, go ahead. As I have no experience with other gallery-type templates, you might look if there are any and then eventually get an idea which name might be fitting. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the flickr source, this user's uploads from June 14 are 'Video screenshots' like this. Is this OK for Commons? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not an easy case. Indeed the images are (here and on Flickr) not very high-res, which is also suggestive for screenshot/capture. However, it's already an old Flickr-account. And it is seems to belong (or be related) to the band en:OK Go, which is a bit suggestive that "they" may have the rights. I would suggest sending a direct Flickr-mail to them at http://www.flickr.com/people/23302841@N00. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Turelio,
If you can see the license for these picasa images, please feel free to pass them. I cannot see the license. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any license; asked the uploader for it. The crocodile-painting shot woudl need a permission from the painter anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:UnterlindenRetable SJB.jpg This image is pd-Art but with the frames around the painting, it would be better if one could see the original license to pass it. If not it would be a mess to crop out parts of this 16th century painting. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've moved the source-links into the source-entry of the description. However, you need to add the author names into the author-entry and you need to check whether they are all under the same license and then add that license template to the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The account is created just today on Commons, used for vandalism-only on Inks' talk page [56] (now blocked). While it may seem obvious that the two accounts are related, I cannot guarantee that it is a sockpuppet, but it is definitely a bad faith edit trying to provide support to vandalism. - HurricaneSpin(Talk)20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though, if I understand the COM:AN/U thread correctly, the SP was never CU-proven, whereby I wonder how they justified this block. Anyway, at Commons we can't solve :en problems, but we also don't want to import them. --Túrelio (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earth100 went through a complex series of bans and unbans, warnings and mentorship, resisting to consensus and rash comments on WP. For now, I have moved the discussion back to WP, where it belongs. Thank you for your time, - HurricaneSpin(Talk)21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked really hard on my pictures and I've tried to add everything but this guy won't respond to me. I'd work more on my collages but I don't see the point if they're going to be deleted. could you please take a look and tell me what I'm doing wrong?
are all made by the State of Texas but are being threatened with deletion. I can't find a template for Texas but this guy demands one. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRaiderApache (talk • contribs)
Please always sign your postings. I've no idea who you mean by "this guy", that's me?
All your TX state rep-shots are missing a license template. You cannot upload images without a license. They are automatically marked as missing-license and will be deleted after 7 days. So, you need to find a license/permission statement on the source site and then put the appropriate template onto each image page.
Your montages are rather a mess due to the different licenses. I have corrected the syntax in File:Marshall TX Montage.jpg and removed the missing-license tag, but currently I don't have the time to check whether the licenses of the image in this collage are compatible. Your pasting of all the license templates from all single images doesn't make any sense actually. Externally nobody will get a clue how to use this image. Next time you are creating such collage, use only images with the same license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or GFDL), but not mixed ones. You may find some help here: Commons:Collages. --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. You are not "this guy." You are very helpful. --User:RedRaiderApache
Can you do something about User:Chapeaumeulon? He or she has been reverting image versions without discussion of any kind. It has been the fourth time that he has reverted File:Fanny Stevenson.jpg from a version edited and accepted by three different editors on the photo lab to a lower contrast version.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lower contrast and better perceived resolution ! evidence of this is that 299KB is higher than 216KB(even with an artificially increased resolution : 620 × 790 instead of just 529 × 732). Please check the quality of the picture I reverted, which is better than the other one (over-contrasted) that KAVEBEAR wants back. So... can you do something about User:KAVEBEAR? --- Chapeaumeulon (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The KB size does not reflect on the quality or resolution of the image. I have seen image blown up ten times there original size which were were even worse than the original. Both version were edited from the same original. This one is less cropped showing more background and generally better looking than the one advocated by User:Chapeaumeulon. The image was submitted to the photo lab and other editors agree this is an accepted version.naless contrast version already exist on File:Fanny Van de Grift Stevenson.jpg.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After on-screen comparing the appearance of both versions side-by-side in full resolution, I have to say that the first version from June 28 (i.e., the last "Kavebear version") looks clearly better to me — apart from the technical aspects. Though similar to File:Fanny Van de Grift Stevenson.jpg, IMO it looks better as it has less visible artifacts. Of course, that's just my subjective impression and I didn't produce a print-out to compare them in print. In my view, the last version (the "Chapeaumeulon version") is theoretically near to the original (initial) version, but looks worse than it. So, if you want to have a sort of "true" version, I suggest to use the original one for that purpose. In order to have a retouched version, I would suggest to overwrite the currently unused File:Fanny Van de Grift Stevenson.jpg with the last "Kavebear version", if Centpacrr doesn't object to. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment here... all the versions in the edit history of the original file are the same resolution... just cropped differently. In response to KAVEBEAR's request, I uploaded my version as a separate file. I also took the liberty of uploading a slightly cropped version as well. Below are the various versions now...
Original
Centpacrr's version
JBarta's version
JBarta's version cropped
JBarta, another attempt from scratch
I might also note that Centpacrr's separate upload has been blown up in size. That doesn't really increase the resolution or image quality... it just makes the image bigger. At any rate, now there are four to choose from. Not surprisingly, I'm partial to my edit ;-) – JBarta (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded another version (#5 in the gallery above). This was from the original with minimal work other than cleaning up the spots and just enough brightness/contrast adjust to make it presentable. – JBarta (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that depends on the circumstances, as also does the interpretation of such a statement. Is the "author" really the author, does he really know about copyright? --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. I assume that your question refers to the portrait image, right? If yes: considering that it shows himself and doesn't look highly professional, one can safely assume that he shot it by himself and thereby is free to release it in whatever manner, though I doubt that he is aware that such a release would include commercial use. If no, i.e. if you are refering to the text: that will be complicated, as he states that he used other sources. You need to check whether these "other sources" are already out of copyright, otherwise his statement is meaningless, as he cannot declare the work of others to be out of copyright, if it is still copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Laurenjones1 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: I am the sole copyright holder of this image and do not want it appearing online.
Converted by me to DR, as image is on Commons since 2006. Though the username Laurenjones1 of the nominating user suggests an association with the depicted person, this should first be confirmed via OTRS. -- 96.19.60.2505:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this issue, as mentioned, I am the sole copyright owner of the image and request it's removal. I can replace the image, or send you an image to replace it. Please let me know how to go about expediting this process. Some sites, for example, require holding a sign asking for an image or membership be removed to prove identity. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts regarding the matter.
Also, there is another photo I have tried to upload to replace this image previously but it was deleted. Maybe you can assist me with your expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenjones1 (talk • contribs)
Hi Laurenjones1,
in order to corroborate your request, please repeat your deletion request per email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) and ideally also include your relation to the image (photographer? depicted person?). Please use your business/official email address, not a throw-away address from .gmail, .hotmail or alike. Your email will not be published and can only be accessed by our OTRS-volunteers. As this would be a "courtesy deletion", please also include your reason (the why) for this deletion request. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained about the 3D elements. If they are allowed by wikicommons rules, I withdraw the DR. Please close the deletion request and Keep. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Schön, dass Du so lange durchgehalten hast. I danke dir für deinen unermüdlichen Kampf gegen die Urheberrechtsverletzungen und wünsche Dir weiterhin alles Gute. -- Rillke(q?)21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you did neither provide your username nor the filename in question, how should anybody know what you are talking about? --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you explain what adding this image to the COM:IDENT guideline achieves? The pupils are blurred and a Google Images search finds the original (which your link also goes to). But the original is blurred too. Are you saying the blurring was effective or not? I'm just not clear what the point you are making is? Colin (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a good (IMO) example/solution for such a scenario when you cannot realistically get permission from all these pupils. --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The section it is in is titled "Problems with attempts at anonymisation" so it might not be giving the message you expect! I'm not really convinced it is a good example. The EV is pretty minimal and we have other photos of him. I think if the photographer didn't have permission to publish classroom photos then he shouldn't have published this. Blurring doesn't give someone permission. My child's school allows parents to take photos but asks them not to publish them on the internet at all. Some schools simply have a no photos policy. Where the press is involved in a publicity photo, the parents are given a consent slip to sign. I think without further information like "This class was happy to have this photo published provided the children's faces were blurred" then it isn't a good example. Colin (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., then you/we should consider requesting this image for deletion, less for this individual image, but more so for this type of images/bypass per your above outlined rationale, which may then also go into the currently discussed scope/pip policy. --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a gap between "best practice" and "so bad we should delete it". One might hope, given the promotional/official website the class image came from, that they got some permission to publish a blurred photo. So I'm not sure we need to delete it but neither do I think it should be held up as "best practice". Does that make sense? I'd like to see an example of blurring as best practice because I'm not convinced it is often justified. It can easily be badly done, be pointless, ruin the picture, or the image had low EV anyway. It seems to be done too often on Commons to get round COM:IDENT rather than to accept we don't really need that picture: to many people see Commons ask some kind of ark for images and are unable to restrain themselves. -- Colin (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ich brauche mal Deinen Rat. Ich habe o.a. Fotos gemacht und diese Kategorie gemacht, die eine Unterunterkategorie von Category:Bicycles ist. Ein anderer Nutzer hat jetzt noch mal einzelne Fotos unter Category:Bicycles einsortiert. Ist das denn richtig so? --Nicola (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I.a. wäre das gemäß Commons:OVERCAT#Over-categorization falsch. Man kann bei Einzelexponaten, die halt einem Fahrrad entsprechen, darüber streiten, ob das nicht ggf. auch noch einer direkt Fahrrad-bezogenen Kat. zuzuordnen ist. Allerdings sollte es dann eher nicht die unspezifische Basiskat. Bicycles sein, sondern eine spezifischere, also nach Fahrradtyp o.ä. D.h., man müsste im Einzelfall prüfen, ob das jeweils passend ist oder ggf. den Umkategorisierer nach seiner Rationale dafür fragen. --Túrelio (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wärst Du denn so nett, den Benutzer User:Tm mal anzusprechen? Er hat die Fotos kategorisiert, ich habe es rückgängig gemacht, und er hat jetzt meine Änderungen revertiert :) Ich will ja keinen Streit.--130.180.52.5412:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Während Tm nicht einmal geantwortet hat, hat Tuvalkin jetzt von Bicycles auf Category:Bicycles in Portugal geändert. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that Edelseider is a good uploader and a contact of yours. In this case, he uploader 5 images from picasa in this category where the license cannot be confirmed...but I filed a DR on only 2 them. (not the other 3 images) I don't know if Commons can keep these images forever if the license cannot be established but I hope that someone can find the original source with the correct picasa license. (That is the reason why I filed these 2 DRs) Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mit dem Coverfoto ist es ungleich komplizierter. Aus dem Kontext gehe ich davon aus, dass das Hundeportrait von dieser Ylla selbst stammt; das Coverfoto ist also ein Derivat davon. Bei uns wäre das Foto m.E. bis 2025 geschützt, weil sie ja 1955 gestorben ist. Gemäß File:PD-US table.svg kann ein 1940 in den USA veröffentlichtes Werk durchaus 95 Jahre pp (hier also bis 2035) geschützt sein, wenn die Publikation mit einem Urhebervermerk erschienen ist (bei einer Fotozeitschrift anzunehmen) und das Copyright erneuert worden ist, was seitens der Zeitschrift erfolgt sein könnte; siehe en:U.s._copyright#Duration_of_copyright. Hier müsstest du selbst mal recherchieren bzw. einen US-Benutzer fragen, wo man nachsehen kann, ob ein copyright-renewal erfolgt ist. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio, thanks for your quick response on the Mansour image. We seem to have near-editconflicted on the noticeboard, so I just wanted to make sure you saw my second note there [58]. Fut.Perf.☼14:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallò, I agree with your changing of Natalino's image with new image: my photo was flight and taken with a camera phone, I love cats but also good images ;-) . Sorry for my not good English, best regards--Vito Calise (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das Bild soll in .de auf die Hauptseite. Du hast es von .en geholt, der Benutzer existiert dort aber nicht? Und wenn das 1950 von ihm gemacht wurde, dann muß er schon ziemlich alt sein... Was meinst du? --Ralf Roleček18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Schau mal weiter oben unter "Übertragung". Nicola kennt der Uploader wohl persönlich. Er existiert durchaus und war auch noch im März aktiv[59], leere Benutzerseite bedeutet nicht inexistent. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Waverley123 ist erst 1950 geboren, der Fotograf war höchstwahrscheinlich Roger Pryor Dodge (1898 – 1974) sein Vater, der ab 1917 auch als Fotograf tätig war. [60]Agathoclea (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, so ist es in der Tat. Der Fotograf war Roger Pryor Dodge, und Waverley ist sein Sohn. Er betreibt eine eigene Website mit den Fotos seines Vaters [61]. Er hat mich dazu animiert, den Artikel in die de:WP zu übernehmen. --Nicola (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. Ich habe die Beschreibung etwas angepasst. Könntest du ihn noch fragen, ob wir die Autornamenvorgabe in der CC-BY-Lizenz auf "Roger Pryor Dodge" ändern sollen, statt Waverley123. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Na, so unnahbar ist der nicht, hab ihn selbst kontaktiert. Jetzt ist endlich klar: es ist ein Selbstportrait von Ylla, aber Pryor Dodge ist der Nutzungsrechtinhaber. --Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pryor Dodge ist, wie ich, regelmäßiger Teilnehmer an der International Cycling History Conference, daher kenne ich den seit mehreren Jahren. Wir sehen uns einmal im Jahr für drei Tage :) --Nicola (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La web oficial de la escritora Maribel Álvarez ya cuenta con el sello de Creative Commons, por lo que entiendo que ya podemos usar las imágenes que aparecen en la web, ¿verdad?
Hola Mirabela1982, yo no sabe mucho espanol. I am not sure to which of your uploads/images you are refering, as none was sourced to a website, if I remember correctly. It might be easier to dialogue on your page User_talk:Mirabela1982#RE: with Ezarate, quien habla espanol.--Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of Cornelia Ardelean Archiudean.jpg - copyright violation[edit]
Hy there, I've sent an request about restoring this picture. Can you help me pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziparu (talk • contribs)
File:Istituto di anatomia patologica, museo, campioni 02 feti malformati.JPG[edit]
sorry for that.. I fixed a bit with photoshop, thinking it could be useful as I took pictures of all the foetuses exposed, so it's a complete documentation. Do what you think is good, fine for me. --Sailko (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read what was precisely written? I got the uploader's permission - he stated he does not want to go through the hassle of changing the license. He granted me a direct permission instead. How can I upload you the original mail from the Flickr uploader to prove it to you? I'm tired of wasting time of people who don't even read comments nor even address them in their suggestions. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, I have read, then I mellowed, then I thought about everything you have written again, and I reverted to storming out. I would like to apologize to you for what I've said. It seems that the flickr uploader is adamant to change the licence himself, I got his permission. What can I do? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, ich habe dir auch auf meiner Benutzerdisk geantwortet. Beachtet man die Einbindung in den Artikel ist das ein Screenshot aus einem Zeichentrickfilm und dürfte nicht als "Eigenes Werk" gelten, oder? --PigeonIP (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bilder von User:Ziegler175 bzw. Benutzer:Ziegler175[edit]
Hallo Túrelio!
Benutzerin Ziegler ist neu bei de.WP und Commons und hat schon viele Bilder hochgeladen. Allerdings unter verschiedenen Kategorien und verschiedener Benutzer-Schreibweise (Ziegler175, ziegler175 und Ziegler 175. Ettliche Bilder sind per Bot von de.WP verschoben, jedoch findet sie ihre Bilder z.Teil nicht wieder.
Lässt sich das irgendwie zusammenführen? Falls du dazu kommst, kannst du dir das mal anschauen?
Viele Grüße und ein schönes WE -----Martin1009-the Seeker20:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, das ist kein Problem!Komisch ist, dass sie unter Template:Commonscat jetzt 33 Dateien hat - aber bei Ziegler175 wesentlich weniger zu finden sind. Der Benutzer:Agathoclea hatte wohl auch schon drei Bilder mit der falschen "ziegler175" gefunden und korrigiert.Lass dir Zeit, das ist anscheinend von Anfang an etwas schief gelaufen. Viele Grüße----Martin1009-the Seeker22:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make my way through all the correct Wiki media procedures. As of now, my photo of Blake Colburn Wilbur was reviewed by Stefan4 - however since he won't "talk" I hope you can help me with this. Please see - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilburGen
re the photo of Blake Colburn Wilbur posted by Stanford Medical History Center to flickr in 2011. My family has the same photo (Blake is my grandfather) - but since Stanford posted the photo first - I figured it would be less difficult to use their copy.
Hi Wilbur, as I am busy these days, just in short: the NonCommercial-restriction is a no-go on Commons, as we require all uploads to be free also for commercial use, at least in regard to copyright. (Commercial use of portraits has additional restrictions, at least for living persons.) The most important questions are: 1) who has originally shot this photo? and 2) where (country) has it been published first? --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8 of the 9 images in this category were uploaded yesterday and have no source upon flickr review. This is not realistic and suggests that they are candidates for speedy deletion. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The uploader now removed the no source tag and added a link to a new flickr account with 9 images. Is this 'own work.'? If you think so, then please flickrpass them. If not, please file a mass DR and request COM:OTRS. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kannst du auch ruhig selbst machen, sofern die Bedingungen (öffentlicher Raum, dauerhafte Installation) erfüllt sind: {{FoP-Germany}} . Dafür braucht man keine Adminrechte ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. All the uploads I've checked from this user so far have been copyright violations (some elaborate as in the compound image). Do you want me to check the rest individually or do you nuke them all? Please advice. Moros y Cristianos15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio!
Heute ist die Freigabe von Frau Hanke-Förster per Brief bei mir eingetroffen! Werde das an commons weiterleiten. Viele Grüße und noch einen schönen Abend. ----Martin1009-the Seeker20:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
kannst du dir mal bitte Gedanken über die Kategorie Category:Eco machen. Da kommen immer Dateien rein, die mit dem geplanten Geld nichts zu tun haben (Difflink) - eigenlich könnte man die Kategorie auch löschen - so lange noch kein Geld gedruckt oder geprägt ist. Vielleicht ist eine "Kategorie-Disk" angesagt..? Wenn alles nicht hilft nehme ich die Category:Money_of_Gambia heraus. --Atamari (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ist auch eine Schnappsidee, eine Währung Eco zu nennen, aber sicher voll politisch korrekt ;-(.Ich denke nicht, dass es da eine Systemlösung gibt. Die Kat.zuordnung erfolgt häufig über automatisierte Skripte, ohne größere Beteiligung des Verstands. Davon ist ja nicht nur diese Kat. betroffen. Sicher könnte man überlegen, eine Wartungskategorie für Kategorien, die in dieser Hinsicht besonders anfällig sind, einzurichten. Am Ende bleibt aber doch nur, dass jemand mit Verstand sich die Kat. anschaut und die falsch-positiven wieder herauswirft. --Túrelio (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Die Ecobank hat auch nichts mit der Währung zu tun. Also raus? Und die Wirtschaftszone WAMZ ist auch nicht die Währung... also auch raus? Somit bleibt... nichts... also kann die Kategorie gelöscht werden? ;-) p.s. eine Schnappsidee wie der "Euro"... ;-) Hatte man ihn als "Ecu" gelassen, oder? --Atamari (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ecobank rausgeworfen. Die WAMZ haben ja irgendwie eine Beziehung dazu (wir sind auf Commons mit der Kategorisierung ja etwas weniger pingelig als auf Wikipedia). Die Schnapsidee bezog sich auf den Namen der Währung. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio!
Da das mit den Daten von Ziegler175 zu Anfang nicht geklappt hatte, hatte ich versucht eine Category anzulegen: "Files by Ziegler175"! Dort ist jedoch nur ein Bild gelandet, kannst du diese Datei und das Bild löschen, da die kpl. Gallery jetzt wo anders ist?Danke für deine Mühe! VG. - ----Martin1009-the Seeker16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Martin1009, sorry, ich habe momentan etwas Land-unter im RL. In der 2. Wochenhälfte werde ich versuchen, all diese Dinge abzuarbeiten. --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.I added source information to my file Americanclassic.jpg.
Please check if i did it right and if i didn't please explain me more clearly what should i add then,thank you.
Erikasfasana (talk) 23:42,July 21,2013 (UTC)
Hi Erikasfasana, did you really shoot this photo in 1999? I think that's a legitimate question as your 2 other uploads were also found to be not your own work. --Túrelio (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
My name's Moez. I sent you this message for the explanation regarding the deletion of Mai Badr photo (مي بدر.JPG). If I change the copyright to Nawa3em and put the link, it should be working fine?
Hi Moez, the problem is not only that you are not the author/photographer, but that I am even not sure that it's nawa3em.com. First, you need to find out who is the true photographer. Eventually it might help contacting the management of Mai Badr. Second, when you have found the original photographer, then you could ask him whether he/she is willing to release this image under a free license (do not ask "for Wikipedia", as this is not enough). --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Mai is my manager. And She assure me that this photo is the property of our company SRPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo2013 (talk • contribs)
"Miss Mai is my manager"? I thought she is an artist, singer or something. Anyway, when a company is involved, please send a statement of authorship/copyright and of releasing the image under a free license of your choice from the official business address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I left you this message (in my discussion page), with no reply:
Hello, I got these photos from Yoav Simchoni, the son of Asaf Simchoni who is the subject of this article. The son Yoav told me that the family owned the photos, and he gave me permission to use them on Wikipedia. I sent a request to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I havean't heard from them... Is this the right procedure? Thanks! Avneref (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was busy in RL. Yes, this is the correct procedure. As OTRS is manned only by volunteers, it may take some time. In the meantime, you might tag all image covered by the family permission with {{OTRS-pending}}. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nearly, just omit the "tl|". 2) Well, it was deleted due to be a suspected copyvio from http://www.atzuma.co.il/kzradio. If you have permission from the legitimate rights holder, please forward this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . If you have done so, contact me or any other admin again, so that we can temporarily restore the image (needs admin-rights). --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio!
Weisst du wie lange so eine Vergabe der OTSR-Nr. dauert? Inzwischen habe ich die Quelle noch etwas korrigiert. Viele Grüsse und noch ein schönes WE - ----Martin1009-the Seeker20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Martin, kann wegen der Urlaubszeit vielleicht etwas längern dauern als sonst. Frag ggf. mal direkt auf COM:ON nach. Aufgrund des OTRS-pending ist die Datei aber nicht gefährdet. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just used your image of Mother Theresa on a powerpoint for a high school class for a discussion about monasticism and vows of poverty. Thanks very much.
Hello Turelio, i was doing some image reviews for FA-nominations and came across [[62]] which was uploaded by User:DenesFeri on behalf of their sister. Checking their talkpage at [[63]] i noticed, that you already raised that point about unclear permission. Do you have any news about this question or perhaps a general OTRS-number for all of those images? It looks like a mere formality, but should be cleaned up. Thanks for any info, you can provide. GermanJoe (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GermanJoe, quite some time ago he had promised to ask his sister for feedback about sending a blanket permission to OTRS and about how she wants to be attributed. If I remember right, this hasn't happened so far. However, I consider it as a formality. I do trust him to have the permission of his sister. Currently I am on holiday (with a suboptimal internet connection) and can't really look into this. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest to keep the image on "AGF" then for now, no problem (we should trust contributors in good standing in relatively clear cases). Would you mind droppping me a note, if something new happens with that aspect? Thank you for the quick response. GermanJoe (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. By the way, you really don't need to address me as "Admin Túrelio", just "Túrelio" is fine; but do as you like. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a ticket (ticket:2013071710009477), but my German is not so great. Can a German volunteer step in please? :) Trijnsteltalk 20:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Martin, eigentlich läuft das von alleine, weil die OTRSler ja sehen, welche Tickets noch nicht bearbeitet sind. Vermutlich sind momentan zu viele Deutschsprachige in Urlaub. Wie schon gesagt, mit dem OTRS-pending-Hinweis ist es unwahrscheinlich, dass jemand das Bild zur Löschung vorschlägt und selbst im schlimmsten Fall ließe es sich leicht wieder herstellen. Also weiterhin in Geduld üben. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Martin, das passiert offenbar autmatisch, wenn seit dem OTRS-pending-Datum ein bestimmer Zeitraum vergangen ist. Ich habe über den no-permission-Meldung einen Hinweis plaziert. --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lieber Túrelio, Deinen grossen Vertrauensvorschuss wusste ich sehr zu schätzen, als Du meine Benutzerseite auf eigenen Wunsch hin gesperrt hast. Vor einigen Minuten hat User:Russavia den Seitenschutz aufgehoben, nachdem ich einmal mehr den 'Fehler' machte, seine Flickr-transfers bezüglich Kategorisierung und Einhaltung der Persönlichkeitsrechte auf seiner Benutzerseite zu monieren resp für drei Uploads von Kleinkindern nach bereits vorgängig erfolgten Re-Kategorisierungen einen Löschantrag zu stellen.
Details habe ich versucht im o.e. Antrag zusammenzufassen und bitte Dich um Mediation des neuerlichen - aus meiner Sicht persönlichen Konflikts und nicht aufgrund von 'Fehlverhaltens' von meiner Seite ausgelöst worden scheint.
Wie auch immer Du vorgehst oder es vielleicht in Deiner Funktion auch nicht tun kannst, danke ich Dir ganz herzlich für das bisherige Entgegenkommen. Liebe Grüsse, Roland zh 23:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Tùrelio... here in Montella we are in the time of the summer celebration, many emigrants are coming back to praying the saint, so I added some pictures: here is the whole structure of the Church of Santissimo Salvatore I took some days ago. Plenty of people are going to the Church in these days. In addition, I added also the following pictures.
- -
Here we have also the column, situated at a little distance from the Santissimo Salvatore Church, with the Mary statue on the top. Note the background of green Montella mountains: the mount Celica, 1660 m s.l.m.
- -
Here only the west side of the structure, where is the bell, that I will display in future in other pictures. Note: All these pictures are originally mine, intended to be used freely in the public domain, so they are not to be processed nor any work for you: they are provided just in the spirit of collaboration :) ciao Antonio g60 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) duplicate Pozzo with better res; (2) other duplicates[edit]
Hello Túrelio I took the original picture of the Pozzo dei Miracoli in Santissimo Salvatore (the first one in the list below) : this picture (original) is 3264 x 1840pixel whereas the Decio one is 2725 x 1536 so I put here the original one in public domain :) Could you please process the following duplicates? Ciao Antonio g60 (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I am currently uploading pictures, which I have taken during our recent holiday in the French Alps.
When doing it I have corrected one misidentified Rhaponticum species (R. centauroides instead of R. heleniifolium). For Rhaponticum centauroides (Syn. R. cynaroides) there was only a picture of the upper part of the capitule. I remembered that I had collected this plant 30 years ago in the Catalan Pyrenees. I have photographed this herbarium sample and uploaded it to Commons.
I also remembered that I had collected in 1952 (I was then 7 years old!) two samples of Jacobaea uniflora - an endemic plant of the Central Alps, for which there was no picture on Commons. I have also uploaded a picture of this old herbarium sample.
Do you think I would photographed some other samples of my former herbarium, of plants for which there is no material available yet on Commons? Please let me know.
I am also in holiday, though not in the alps, only in the Eifel region of Germany.
Yes, I think it would be valuable to upload photographies of your old herbarium samples, especially if they are of species for which we have nothing else. Besides, such photos would also be of interest as they are of historic material, more than 60 years old. Au revoir. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am now realising that the samples of Jacobaea uniflora cannot be of 1952 (We went then in holiday to the Harz, where this plant is not growing). I checked it again, it was 1959, when I was 14 and I was for the first time in the Swiss Alps... It is well still a more the 50 year old herbarium sample. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Francesco Barberini image in National Gallery of Art[edit]
New better resolution campanile image - some duplicates[edit]
Better Resolution picture!
Hello Túrelio also this time I get this image that is far better resolution of the previous one; I submit it as the first one in the following list of duplicates:
Almost all this person's August 10 and 11 uploads seem to come from private or government websites and there is no evidence that the images are free. There is one from flickr here and I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately to confirm the license. (There is one flickr account named torrecaro but it has no images on it) Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Túrelio,
I just received a deletion notice of File:Kosuth chair.jpg, and I think there might be some mistake, and want to make sure.
Indeed there are many Kosuth's chair photos with reserved copyrights, especially the original one shot in 1965. But this one I uploaded is different, and the difference from the one shot in 1965 is quite subtle.
First, the chair is red, and secondly the text of the chair is in another language (Spainish or Portuguese I'm not sure). This might be someone shot from a later version of One And Three Chairs, and uploaded to flickr under Creative Commons 2.0.
Hope you could double check on that, thank you!
Sincerely,
Quinhonk (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Quinhonk[reply]
Hi Quinhonk, I didn't even consider the possible derivative problem with the photo on the wall, as the Flickr image itself it not free enough (restricted to no commercial use; see license-icons below the image) for Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio, in relation to Commons:Village_pump#I_cant_get_details_of_why_my_image_was_deleted._Except_that_it_says_copy_right_violation_.5Bwhat_violation_.3F.5D as you speak German, might you be able to talk to Rolandzh, and ask him only to mark images as a speedy delete for being a copyvio when he has a link or further information saying why it should be speedy deleted as a copyvio. It might also be useful to ask him to use VisualFileChange so that situations like User talk:Eshwar.om do not occur, and all like images can be grouped together for a DR discussion. Whilst we obviously value the work that our editors do, it might be beneficial to both them and to the project in general, if tools such as VFC are utilised to nominate files for a DR. Any help with that would be appreciated. Cheers, russavia (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Russavia, I have explained it to him in detail, as I too had stumbled over his default copyvio-rationale. However, I'm not sure what you mean by the "VisualFileChange" hint. Do you suggest that he should activate "AjaxQuickDelete" in his user settings? --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turelio, Help:VisualFileChange.js. This will allow him to "Perform a batch task", and to be able to selectively choose files to nominate for deletion. This is especially useful is the files are being nominated with the same rationale. russavia (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with that, hopefully Roland will use VFC, it will definitely streamline his work as well as making it easier for files to be dealt with in bulk. russavia (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly better Campanile picture - some duplicates[edit]
Another Better Resolution picture!!
Hello Túrelio I got also this image, as usual it is fairly better in pixel resolution of the previous one. It is the first one in the list of some other duplicates:
Good evening and Hi Turelio, in relation to speedtest [64] of the shared about 4 to 5 computers, internet I use, Ping is 153 to 351, Download speed is from 0.52 to 1.62 Mbps, utterly slow 2 days now, Upload speed is 0.29 to 0.53 Mbps; weeks ago, I could upload about 30-60 of my large file images 4608 x 3456 7.0 MB photos per computer in about 3 hours; thus, I would finish uploading in 3 days, about 12 continuous hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; thus when I waited for months to photograph 1 town with full sun, I suddenly found myself in this stress-laden situation of the state of Philippine internet slowdown; upon beginning to upload, instead of green, there would appear red "unknown error" so I would repeat the red ones until I could upload; yesterday I uploaded 7 images in 3 hours; then I transferred to distant Malolos and nearby towns only to find out that I could only upload very very few of my hard-earned photos yesterday and today; may I ask therefore, if there is something wrong with Commons server uploading, or our slow internet is the problem these 2 days? sincerely --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ramon, though I didn't upload anything myself over the last days, I am not aware of any general problems. Wikimedia-status seems to be fine and I haven't heard of problems from other users. So, may be, it's indeed a local problem. If you have enough camera memory, just go on taking shots and wait with uploading until the connection is better. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I believe you are correct, it is our local problem. When the weather permits, I keep on taking pictures and put them in my memory and USB backup and do wait for faster internet. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images 18-04-1933-CCM.jpg and InformacionsCCM.jpg[edit]
Good morning Túrelio,
i am the webmaster and publisher of most written material of "Cercle Català de Marsella". Our web site is cercle-catala-marsella.flog.cat. In this web site, permission is given to use material mentioning its source as "Cercle Català de Marsella" ("Avis legal" section, link at the bottom of the page).
I suppose that you can check that the email address of my userid "ccatmarsella" is the same as appears in the page "Contactar" of the above mentioned web site.
I have created recently a Wikipedia article about our society "Cercle Català de Marsella", thus, I have uploaded to Commons some historical images made by and property of "Cercle Català de Marsella", but you warned about missing permissions of files 18-04-1933-CCM.jpg and InformacionsCCM.jpg
Both images have been published before in the above mentioned web page, see section "El Cercle en imatges" for 18-04-1933-CCM.jpg and section "Conegueu el Cercle" for both 18-04-1933-CCM.jpg and InformacionsCCM.jpg.
In addition, in my understanding, 18-04-1933-CCM.jpg falls into the category of photos of public persons, taken in a public act.
I have made a new section in the Wikipedia article "Cercle Català de Marsella" mentioning that all images published in it are under permission granted by "Cercle Català de Marsella" in its web page.
So, I believe I am well into legal bounds regarding permissions to use these images but as I am a total newbie to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, please, let me know about any other action I should take to guarantee the permanence of these published images and also of eventual new images to be included in future in that article.
my main problem is with File:18-04-1933-CCM.jpg. It is said to have been shot in 1933. As far as I know, already at that time Spain had an extremely long duration of copyright protection, 95 years after death of the photographer. So, per se this photo is still copyrighted. The only person who can release it under a free license or can give you (or anybody) permission, is the photographer or, if he/she is already dead, his/her legal heir. As I cannot read Catalan, I don't understand the terms on your website. To legitimately upload the image under a free license to Commons, you need to verify whether you really received the photo from the legal rights holder. If true, you need to check whether the terms of permission for your website legally equal any of the free licenses that are allowed on Commons. And, of course, as you are surely not the photographer, you cannot write "Ccatmarsella" into the author entry. It is reserved for the original photographer.
As for File:InformacionsCCM.jpg, you first need to check who is the author of the 2 larger text parts (middle and right column). If you are the writer/author, then everything is fine (and you can remove the no-permission tag). If you are not the writer/author, you need to verify whether the terms of permission for your website legally equal the choosen CC-BY-SA license. If yes, you should mention the main author names in the image description and add "(screenshot)" behind your username. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestion. Unfortunate i have no much idea about pic (species ). some of my friends promised help to find ID. so the image name will fixed in next days. this set of photos are Bulk uploading as a part of Malayalam Loves Wikimedia event. It's not my images. Got from some photographers. Need to process OTRS mail from each one. i can't help in the case of watermark. will find some time in future to crop the image. now struggling with low resources #time #bandwidth :)--മനോജ്.കെ|Manoj. K (Talk) 15:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, you have removed or at least nominated a photo I uploaded last night [65]. I suppose you did the right thing, however I would like to have some clarification on what is possible so that this won't happen again in the future. I found the image by using Google looking for free to use images. Then when uploading the photo to here it asks you to select the icons that are mentioned on Flickr. The two options were (only the icon that looks like a little man) and the other one (the little man + some other logo). The little man appears on the licence on Flickr, so I selected just the little man. FvSBG (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm sorry but I see now the non-commercial tag. This wasn't there before when I uploaded the picture, or I was blind and did not notice it. Anyway, strange and my apologies for the inconvenience. FvSBG (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I made a long story to reduce the argumentation of English speaking users heared before. Main thing is that prefixes are not part of the name. That's all. By the way: I didn't copy user Docu, as I have seen no activity for a long time from him. Do you know why? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that you are mentioning him I become aware that I didn't read anything from him for months. However, he has edited on August 15th. --Túrelio (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratz on your 7th wikibirthday today (that is many years), and thanks for being the first to support my no "grave dancing" post! Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Túrelio I worked on this image, and I removed carefully a disturb on the up-right angle of the second Roman head, I mean the head on the right in the pic. The old pic is the first one in the list:
Hi, I didn't delete them, I just tagged them for suspicion of copyvio. Both images were obviously album covers. Album covers are usually copyrighted by the group or the record company. --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Herzlichen Dank und gleich schon wieder eine Frage[edit]
Herzlichen Dank!
Hallo Túrelio, zunächst einmal vielen Dank für den prompten Account-Schutz!
Und gleich habe ich eine Frage - ich versuche nun seit Monaten das erste Mal wieder Bilder hochzuladen - und bin über die technische Änderung der Hochlademaske gleich wieder etwas frustriert. Noch im April konnte ich Bildbeschreibungen, Datumseingabe etc. mit c+p einfügen und habe mir damit auch beim Verlinken zu ähnlichen Bildern viel Zeit und Arbeit gespart. Wenn ich jetzt hierüber gehe, funktioniert das alles nicht mehr - gibt es da einen Trick, die "alte Maske" wieder zu bekommen? Außerdem scheine ich bei den Traktorenbildern unter "andere Versionen" zudem einen Fehler gemacht zu haben - verlinkt wird da nämlich nix. Weißt Du, woran das liegt? Herzliche Grüße, --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo 4028mdk09,
schön dass du wieder da bist. Versuch vielleicht mal das. Dahin komme ich via "Datei hochladen", dann unter "(B) Formular – bisherige Hochladeart" Abschnitt "Für erfahrene Benutzer" auf Standardformular klicken. Ich habe in letzter Zeit kaum etwas hochgeladen, weshalb mir zwischenzeitliche Änderungen nicht aufgefallen sind. Zu den Traktorenbildern kann ich so nicht sagen, da müsstest du mal eins hier verlinken. --Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die blitzschnellen Antworten! :-)
Danke für den Link - da bin ich nicht wirklich weiter gekommen - im Moment probiere ich aus den ganzen "Krempel" einschließlich Lizenz und Cats in die Bildbeschreibung zu kopieren - bin mal gespannt wie lange es dauert, bis sich die Software an mir verschluckt. ;-)
Ich Schaf! Herzlichen Dank! --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) PS: Ich hab´s - unter Einstellungen - Helferlein den Haken bei "Verbessertes Hochladeformular: "Auf Special:Upload ein übersichtlicheres Formular verwenden und Hilfe erhalten" entfernt - und "meine alte" Maske ist wieder da![reply]
Hello Tùrelio, I have delinked some duplicates, could you please process it? - In most of the files I added the English description, which most of the time was missing.
This discussion contains a link to view the license of picasa images--that cannot easily be seen. Mr. choppers mentioned the link once. So I clicked on it. Then I go back to the skiing image and suddenly I can see its picasa license. Just for your notice. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you want to say. There are 2 problems with your uploads: 1) copyright, 2) COM:SCOPE. To avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, please contact my colleague User:Kwj2772, who speaks Korean. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of this image is continuously uploading this copyrighted image despite this DR where the image was deleted and also despite the fact that you previously tagged this image for discussion on this uploader's talkpage. This is an abuse of the uploader's activity.
I think it is appropriate if 1. this image is deleted for the third or fourth time and 2. that the uploader be temporarily banned for 1 week or 2 weeks in order to get his attention....that uploading copyrighted images to Wikicommons is not permitted. He has done this too many times already from his talkpage--and clearly he doesn't care about Deletion Request discusions or copyright taggings--to just let this new image upload activity to be ignored. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Leoboudv, sorry for not replying to your message at the moment. But today I was mostly hit and run-like on Commons. Will try tomorrow. --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The uploaded uploaded the same image Again today after it was deleted despite all your notices and a DR. Will someone ban him for perhaps 2 weeks? This is unbelievable behaviour. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he does not resume his behaviour after the ban or just create a new account and upload this image as 'own work.' This uploader just ignores Common's policies sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ebraminio, thanks for notifying me. Would you mind to have a look on Moonstarturk activity (or eventually mentor him a bit)? --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any skill on Turkish unfortunately. From unblock request as you said and instruct her/him afterward, I don't think she/he will not violate copyrights again but I will watch her/him contributions. Anyway, thank you :) −ebraminiotalk09:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nö; hab mich damals vermutlich selbst von anderen Vorlagen anregen lassen. Nur ein paar der Übersetzungen habe ich selbst beschafft. --Túrelio (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Racism, editing with no source, sock puppeting, and accusing me of doing Taliban fundamentalism[edit]
Can you please take a look on this [66], he accuses me of doing Taliban fundamentalism and use racist words like Pashtun-Tajik ideas have no place in Wikipedia. Even though i am not a Pashtun nor a Tajik it is still racist, every ethnic group is allowed to be here. I have already showed him a source, but he keeps removing the edit. He also does the same here: [67] and here [68]. And he has also been told that he should not edit war but he continues, i have stopped doing it and are waiting for someone to check this. I also think that he using sock puppet as his other account. [69] He recently also said this to me: Please stop Talibanism in wikipedia. Please respect other people, you must know that here is not Kandahar. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, ich versuche im Telegrammstil ein Problem aufzuzeigen:
Heute wurde folgendes Bild hochgeladen: File:Lan phích việt nam-Flickingeria fimbriata.jpg.
Erfreut über die gute Bildqualität schaute ich nach weiteren lizenzfreien Bildern auf der Benutzerseite in Flickr.
Ich lud folgendes Bild mit dem CommonsUploader hoch: File:Lan san hô môi túi-1url (9311188707).jpg.
Zur Bestimmungskontrolle rief ich www.orchidspecies auf [70]] und musste feststellen, dass das Flickr - Bild offensichtlich nicht aus eigner Herstellung des Flickr Kontos "VanLap Hoàng" stammt.
(Eric Hunt stellte schon hervorrangende Bilder in der WP zu Verfügung)
Das von mir als Bild Nr. 1 erwähnte Photo ist identisch mit diesem Bild: [71].
Was ist zu tun? Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
while it may not be written policy that 1-file cats can be deleted, it is common practise on Commons. As this does not equate to has-to, we can accept such cats, if there is a good reason. So, I have no problem to restore this cat. However, as others might tag it again for deletion, you should think about putting a sort of rationale or note into the cat header to prevent that. --Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring, though I wanted to let it be after Motopark's reaction. Now I see you restored it at 13:41 UTC, I totally overlooked it... Have a nice evening. --Harold (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the upload form could really use some field where you could mark that the permission has been sent to the OTRS, so the well-informed uploaders wouldn't have to be bombed with a large and ugly template automatically for every bloody image someone asked them to upload. Maybe you can forward this thought to someone dealing with these matters. I don't have time to start looking up someone who could bypass the everlasting list of useless bug reports. Cheers. --Oop (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine named Dru Onyx has asked me to update his wikipedia English page with some more info and pictures, he sent me the pictures himself by e-mail for me to use them on his wikipedia page so, I don't know why they could be deleted, I just want to use them for his profile and I'm kinda lost as to how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatTiger89 (talk • contribs)
Hi, all these images are rather evidently (watermarks) copied from a website. Provided the website owner did personally shoot these images, you need their written permission to upload them under a free license, which allows commercial use and derivatives, to Commons. If you have such a permission, forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). If the website owner isn't the copyright holder, he can't give such a permission. --Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can get permission for the NCW pictures, no problem, I just need to write them an e-mail and they'll answer me soon. The other picture I just removed the IWS watermark since the company folded years ago and there is no way to know who took that particular picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatTiger89 (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your help Túrelio as I learn the ways Wikimedia Commons operate. The images are now labeled commercial-share-alike, is this acceptable? Thanks again for all your assistance! Harvey the rabbit (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harvey the rabbit, indeed images with a NC (no commercial use) and/or ND (no derivatives) restriction are not allowed on Commons, even if they are also CC-BY-SA. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've marked some photos for potential deletion as there is no evidence of the copyright status I am marking. The copyright status for the photos are at the bottom of the page (http://klti.or.kr/ke_04_03_011.do) with a 3.0 license and a link to the Creative Commons definition of that license. What I missed, as I put these pictures up, is where I would indicate that this is the authority by which they can be posted here?
I'm just about to post another one, and will check to see if I can figure it out, but an exact procedure to follow would be a brilliant thing.^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccmontgom (talk • contribs)
Hi Ccmontgom,
the problem is that this license CC-BY-SA-NC on that site[74] is not allowed on Commons as it does not allow for commercial use. CC license with either NC or ND restriction are not allowed on Commons, if they are the only license. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you remind me what these photos actually contained? I can make an educated guess from "Copyright violation:Derivative work", but that's about it. Ultra7 (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. One day I'll get around to asking the community if it knows of a single case of a copyright holder complaining about one of these sort of works being photographed and freely distributed. Enforcing DW for such uses of 2D works seems entirely pointless to me. Ultra7 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've marked S A Medu.jpg validation of copyright. But It is of my own picture. Please Let me know what to do next? For your wise acknowledgement, it was previously published by me on my Facebook, Google free Blog means; google by my own-self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufidisciple (talk • contribs)
Hi Sufidisciple,
would you mind to send an informal email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS), just confirming that image had been shot by yourself and published by yourself on Google? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please undo the deletion of File:Klasblog screenshot.png? Het6e.TK and the blog are all made by me. I already explained that the site is fully my design. Wolf Lambert (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, all the copyrightable elements in that screenshot (i.e., the column to the right border, the comic-figure below left and the figure in the upper middle) are originally your own work? --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image above is not made by me, but the creator gave me the right to use it. I only don't know if she the images used in it were made by her; but before the screenshot was taken, the image wasn't there. I can erase that from the image. And the comic figure is not my work, i hadn't noticed that already. But I can also erase that one, it wasn't there the whole period the blog was online. What do you mean with "the column to the right border"? Wolf Lambert (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your last question first: I meant the vertical graphic element at the right border of the image.
If you will erase all those elements from the screenshot which are original enough to be copyrightable and which are not your own work or for which you don't have permission from its creator, I could restore the file.
OK. Dann muss noch das "Quality Image Promotion"-Siegel korrigiert warden. Dies darf dann bei erneuten Upload aber formlos wieder gegeben warden. --Atamari (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio, user Vahram Mekhitarian uploads pictures with falsifying data, he puts templates that it's his own work or public domain, thus hiding the copyright. In previous times when some of his pictures were nominated for deletion, he removed templates and you didnt pay attention to it. I have already nominated some of that files for deletion due to copivio, please pay attention to it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, stop falsifying the facts, if you do not know the rules of this project its your problem. Nominating file for deletion is not vandalism, but revoving templates from copvio files its real vandalism, and if you revert my edits again, I will ask to block you.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you seems to have deleted above mentioned file. Might due to copyright issue. Now want to upload that file again with permission Share-A-Like. How to do? as already tried once (Kanwardeep Singh - An Indian Politician.jpg)Anonymous 2108 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ferdinando, this is a common misunderstanding. I know that the Flickr user claims that his photos of these telephone cards are released under a CC license. However, we can safely assume that the Flickr user did not create the telephone cards itself respectively the artwork on the front side of these cards. The telephone cards were likely created by a telephone company who got a license from a photographer to put his photos on their cards. So, the shown front sides of the telephone cards are copyrighted by the telephone company and/or the original photographer. If somebody takes a photo of such a card, he has created a derivative which violates the copyright of the original rights holder. He simply cannot validly release it under a free license without first getting a permission from the original rights holder. In addition, the card containing an image of the Atomium is also a derivative of the Atomium, which is still copyrighted. So, the CC license for these images on Flickr is simply invalid. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's true, but I believe that the responsibility of both the 'issuing the permit in this case, the author of the images that issued the authorization, or not ?--Ferdinando Castaldo (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2013
In theory, yes. Fact is that the Flickr platform doesn't care, until somebody complains. I have found a lot of my own images from Commons uploaded to Flickr by other people who claimed them as own work. At Commons we pursue a different way. In order to protect our re-users from litigation for copyright infringement, we require from our uploaders evidence that their uploads are either their own or really under a free license. So, if you are interested in these card images, you should directly contact the Flickr user and ask him 1) whether the photos on (not only of) these cards are his own work, and 2) if he really got a permission from the Atomium authority itself to distribute a photo of the Atomium under a free license. If he replies positively, you should forward his emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Уважаемый Túrelio, подскажите какая лицензия должна быть установлена на размещённые мною изображения скульптур в Петрозаводске, которые могут быть удалены. --Semenov.m7 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Уважаемый Túrelio!
На файл: Актриса Евгения Ветлова.1971.jpg (файл), а так же на другие загруженные файлы, сегодня, 17.09,2013 года, Ветловой Евгенией Александровной будет выслано разрешение на публикацию. О чем я Вас отдельно извещу, сообщив детали. Файлы ранее нигде не были опубликованы, и загружались для того, что бы сделать ссылку. Прошу не удалять файл.
С уважением, --Sergey761 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted this image without prior or subsequent communication. Congratulations: You are a great person and the perfect companion. THANKS--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need for sarcasm. You had uploaded an image that was clear marked in the image metadata as 'All Rights Reserved' and 'Todos os dereitos reservados'. While a notification should have been performed, this is primarily the duty of the nominator, which happens not to be me. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a coyvio, there were only a problem with the metadata. It could have been solved. Dismal performance and abusive--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the image from my computer. Not going back to work it (it was an enhanced image). If you decide to undelete it, let me know and I solve the problem of metadata and upload the image with another name. Then it should be deleted.--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not respectful behavior of a administrator: You -2[edit]
The image is a transformed and improved image. There is not copyvio. Please, I can't understad you. It's a derivated image and I appear as an author I can (although I do not want that). Sorry, It's a derivated image, I'll complain until you block me. I have been a bureaucrat in Commons and I know what I mean. --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make a few facts clear. While you are free to complain about my (or any admin's actions) actions, you are not free to insult or slander other users, including me and other admins. Admins are not your slaves. We are unpaid volunteers doing in our spare time the unavoidable, unpleasant dirty work to keep Commons from being closed down by the WMF for hosting too many copyvios, among other things.
As you like to complain so much, care to explain how in the image you had uploaded,
1) you were named as the artist in the meta data, when in fact it was another photographer, and
2) why it was declared as (C) All rights reserved in the meta data, when in fact the original image is CC-BY[77]. Are you even aware that both things you did violate and thereby make void the original license?
На файл: Владимир Лисунов. Отрадное. 1998.jpg (файл) и других файлов, Правовладельцем - Ириной Сарапуловой, направлено письмо с разрешением на использование изовражения 11.09.2013 года. Прошу не удалять файл. Проверьте пожалуйста, так как она еще не получила оттуда ответ.
С уважением, --Sergey761 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Movement has a policy against personal attacks. These sorts of personal comments about editors [78] are not appropriate and may result in you lossing your editing privilages. James Heilman, MD (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap threat. As you are fully aware, I commented on your behaviour, not on your person. Being myself a PhD and admin, I am still convinced that from an educated person as yourself one can expect a more mature level of argumentation than you have shown in the related DR discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Türelio, could you please directly delete said photograph? I mistakenly thought it was an old painting (I wasn't claiming FoP) but after some research, it seems that it's a work by Gerhard Richter and therefore not free. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards --Stromare (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, in relation to JW's talk page, I have removed that section entirely, as the IP is currently blocked on enwp for harassment of an editor, and they are continuing the same behaviour here and on Meta. Peter Damian posted at User_talk:Russavia#Replacing_edit, and I have again reverted it and made it clear that we don't tolerate harassment of editors here on this project, and it is directly related to this by Peter Damian. Frankly, if these people have solid proof of wrong-doing by any editor in the vein they are talking, this is something that the WMF needs to deal with directly, our projects shouldn't be used for the continuation of a vindictive campaign against any editor which has no basis. I'm just giving you a heads up here in case you were wondering why comments were removed from his talk page. russavia (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have secured permission from the artist to use the image, but I can't find the place where I should forward on the email. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! --Briancua (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was in April 2012. After visually comparing both versions in full resolution, I doubt that the remaining one is legally a derivative, it is just minimally retouched. I have no problem with undeletion, if you insist, but I see no sense in it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Túrelio,
I uploaded pictures of Volodymyr Kunanec, which I got from my wifes and her cousin's family archive and scanned especially for the article I published in Wikipedia. My question: how can I attribute them that they were legal in Commons? Thank you for your help, Mykola Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mykola, if you (or your wife and her cousin) are sure that these photo were originally shot by family member, then you might write "family archive" into the source-entry and "unknown" into the author-entry. However, If they know the name of the photographer, this name should go into the author-entry. It would be also important to know the date (year) when the original photos were shot. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt advice. Please take a look did my corrections resolve the problem. Pictures are really valuable, and in Ukraine couple of years ago it was dangerous even to store them. Most of persons depicted on them were killed or sent to Siberia. The question "who took them?" would sound "stupid" than, and now rare old people can recognize anybody.Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand these problems and the value of the images, but as Commons can only host material with a clear copyright status, we need all available information. We still need a date (year) for File:Volodymyr Kunanec Choir.jpg, File:Kunanec Volodymyr1.jpg, File:Kunanec Volodymyr2.jpg and File:Volodymyr Kunanec3.jpg. The dates of creation are important not only for the encyclopedic value of the images, but also for finding an appropriate license. If you don't have an exact date, make a guess (concluding from the depicted persons or the circumstances) and write "likely 19xx"; only if you have no idea at all, write "unknown". As these photo might be PD-Ukraine (for terms see: Category:PD-Ukraine) or the rules for anonymous works[79] might be applicable, it is also important to know when (year) the photos were first published, if they ever were. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Túrelio, as I researched, in Poland there was no copyright concerning photographs until 1994, unless it was clearly indicated. All that pictures were taken before 1939 on the Polish, at that time, territory. I can assume, that according to the Polish law they can belong to the public domain. Now, the article and pictures have importance for the history of Ukraine and are in Ukrainian Wiki. What PD I have to indicate? Concerning dates etc. - we plan to visit my wifes cousine in 2 or 3 weeks. She will find to that time all documents concerning her late father. Can the exact attribution wait to that time or pictures will be deleted? Thanks!Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, none of my correction were taken in consideration. Pictures are deleted today. Author: Unknown photographer, Source: Kunanec family archive, Licence: Polish PD, dates more or less exact - did any of those data could be acceptable or not - who can explain that? Is it possible to have any feedback? Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am too busy with urgent tasks at the moment. Even though images have been deleted (not by me), they can easily be restored, provided the copyright status is o.k. Will try to look into at the weekend. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:020613 Interior of Drucki-Lubecki Palace in Teresin - 15.jpg[edit]
These are all my photos. I am very glad that you have noticed them! Long life ahead of me. So it will take some time, I have a lot of plans. I'm a woman. I love you too.Yours sincerely. :) --Jolanya Dyr (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but certainly misunderstood the question. Prince John Drucki Lubecki died 8/12/1990 age 92 y (see File:020613 Interior of Drucki-Lubecki Palace in Teresin - 17.jpg). The photograph shows a man aged about 50 years, so the photo comes certainly from 50 years ago about 1940 to 1950. Prince was a public figure - he offered his property at a monastery in Niepokalanów. I can not give names of the photographer, because I do not know him, and the picture was not of such information. Sorry. --Jolanya Dyr (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know of course and I had already fixed it: I mixed up one tab with the other where I was fixing an indentation. :) --Nemo16:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who has created that drawing originally? Is he/she still living[edit]
Hi Turelio,
Thank You for your email.I don't know anything more about this picture.I founded this inside this 17"th century church,
I remember I took the picture inside not as a book cover so now I don,t remember anything more about it.I have to go and look one more time..Thank You ..Ula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usia999 (talk • contribs)
O.k. I will then convert the no-permission-tag, which may result in automatic deletion within a few days, to a regular deletion request (DR). The intention of my DR is not to have the image deleted, but to attract input from other users, who might know the painter or who can offer information that might allow us to keep the image. --Túrelio (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Es gibt Bilder von identifizierten Vögeln, die zusätzlich nach der geografischen Zugehörigkeit kategorisiert sind. Also nach bzw. als Unterkategorie von category:Birds of Gambia...
Jetzt gibt es ein Benutzer der entfernt kommentarlos diese geografische Zuordnung. Ich empfinde das als einen massiven Vandalismus. Beispiel hier. Wenn man seine Edits sieht, dann sieht man mehrere solche Entfernungen - die das aufgebaute System stören bzw. zerstören. Warum wird von dem Benutzer Birds of country xy nicht geduldet. Bei anderen Tierguppen geht es doch auch, dass die Aufnahmen nach dem Staat, in dem sie entstanden sind, kategorisiert sind. --Atamari (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Puh, über diese Thematik gibt es immer mal wieder Streit. Ich rätsele auch öfter mal, ob Kat. der Art "Birds of country xy" sinnvoll sind, wenn nicht ein innerer Bezug zwischen dem betreffenden Piepmatz und dem Land besteht, also z.B. weil er nur dort vorkommt. Ich würde solche Kat. aber eher nicht entfernen, weil sie ja nicht schaden. MPF ist ein Adminkollege, mit dem ich aber bislang kaum Schnittmengen hatte. Ich denke er hat das gemacht, weil "Category:Quelea quelea in Gambia" leer war (auch Category:Quelea quelea hat nur 20 Bilder). Hinzu kommt, dass die Datei File:Quelea quelea 0001.jpg immer noch in Category:2007 in Gambia ist, womit der Gambia-Bezug zumindest nicht verloren ist. Hast du ihn schon mal direkt darauf angesprochen? --Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mal angenommen ich schreibe einen Länderartikel (egal ob Wiki oder außerhalb der Wiki, Commons ist ein globaler Bilderpool), also ich interessiere mich dann für die Vogelwelt in dem einem Land. Dann sollten möglichst auch die Bilder der Vögel aus dem Land stammen. Die category:Birds of Gambia ist dabei der Ausgangspunkt. Ich werde als Autor aber nie im Leben sehen, ob irgendwo im Kategoriesystem von Gambia auch noch Vögel stehen; die Möglichkeit ist genommen. Es weiss kein Mensch, dass irgendein Vogelbild 2007 aufgenommen ist; die Category:2007 in Gambia ist alleine eine zeitliche Zuordnung, keine Zuordnung nach Subjet. Du brauchst zu jedem Lebewesen auch den Bezug wo es lebte. Der Haussperling lebt nicht nur in Mitteleuropa, sondern auch in Westafrika. Umgekehrt möchte ich auch kein Bild eines Sperlings in der Beschreibung der mitteleuropäischen Vogelwelt sehen, wenn das Bild in der Savanne Westafrikas entstanden ist. Um dies klar abzugrenzen, ja auch klar zu kategorisieren - dazu gehört das Kategoriesystem. Von einer Überkategorisierung kann man nicht sprechen. Kirchen kategorisieren wir auch nach Glaubensrichtung, Erbauungsjahr, Standort usw. So ist das Bei Lebewesenfotos ja auch möglich: Subjekt (was ist fotografiert?), Zeit (Wann wurde es fotografiert? Jahreszeit!) Standort (Wo wurde es fotografiert?) MPF leert erst auf fragliche Weise Kategorien und löscht dann ohne Disk die Kategorien. Das ist Fachblindheit. Ihn ansprechen? Dafür reichen meine engl. Kenntnisse nicht oder weist du die Übersetzung von Fachblindheit? Kannst du ihn bitte ansprechen, Bitte... --Atamari (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*ungefragt einmisch* @Atamari: nach meiner Erfahrung kann man mit MPF reden - in meinen Augen wäre das einfachste und erst einmal wichtigste, ihn sachlich zu fragen, warum er die besagten Kategorien löscht. Abhängig von seiner Antwort wäre der nächste Schritt, ihm zu sagen, warum die Kategorien in Deinen Augen wichtig sind (und bitte dabei auf solche Begriffe wie "massiven Vandalismus" und "Fachblindheit" verzichten). Und danach sieht man weiter. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC) PS. meine aktiven Englischkenntnisse sind übrigens saumäßig [reply]
Danke, 4028mdk09. @Atamari, ich werde MPF mal kontaktieren, was aber etwas dauern kann, da ich für heute erstmal offline bin. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@4028mdk09: die Begriffe, die ich hier benutzt habe sind Polemik um meine Unverständnis auszudrücken - sie sind nicht als Ansprache gemeint. Dies kann man annähernd nur in der Muttersprache machen - nicht in einer Übersetzung. Zu den Kategorien noch: ich halte es wichtig und interessant, bei den Lebewesen auf das Habitat, also wie es vorher war Category:Quelea quelea in Gambia (was in Category:Quelea quelea und Category:Birds of Gambia einsortiert war). Habitat ist ein Schlüsselwort, das auch einen Biologen zur Kategorisierung überzeugen kann. Schließlich hoffen wir darauf, dass wir in zehn Jahren immer noch die Commons zur Verfügung haben und bis dahin vielleicht 100 Mio. Dateien. Diese gilt es von Heute an sinnvoll zu kategorisieren. --Atamari (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The info I have is only from Lonely Planet; "Nothing in the capital is as poignant a reminder of the country's painful communist rule as the towering Derg Monument. Topped by a massive red star and emblazoned with a golden hammer and sickle, the cement obelisklike structure climbs skyward in front of Black Lion Hospital." I do recall having heard that it was constructed by North Koreans, but I have no source at the moment. --Soman (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've add cat:Tiglachin monument to all these uploads. However, none of the articles says anything about the sculptor(s). So, if you ever find any additional information, please put it on the category talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to change the license of the images of sculptures in Andorra, and keep the files somewhere, so that copyright laws are respected? It is a pity to loose the work of classifying and categorizing those images, etc. --Jordiferrer (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully with you and it was a pain for me to nominate all these fine images (and there are more). The only valid solution I see would be to ask the respective sculptor (or his heirs) for permission. If you want to try that, I would recommend that we open a special page for coordination, as we may have more than 1 image per sculpture/sculptor. Such a "page" could be a subpage to your talkpage or just a thread on your talkpage or a thread on Commons:La taverna, whatever might be more suitable. --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Could you open such a thread and start with a short explaination of the problem, eventually in spanish and catalan. It might be best to start a listing per artist/sculptor, then a sub-division per sculpture which should include (list) all available images of the respective sculpture. An additional task for anybody, especially for the uploaders: all images in Category:Sculptures in Andorra should be checked whether the sculptor/original artist is mentioned by name. --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring the page with the image of Frederick Souterelle. You put a template: OTRS and it says: (Please provide the title of the work), An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS.
Note to uploaders:
Please copy the URL of this file in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it.
Do not send emails containing only the text "OTRS pending", as this is not of any use.
If an email cannot be found in the OTRS system, this file may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information. However, I do not understand, Is that it means that email is already sent ?
Hi. I noticed that you took care of deleting most of my user categories that I recently flagged for deletion. I know it's not much, but I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your work as an admin, and for doing all that you do around here. Have a great day! —Willscrlt( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta )18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oxana Odaynik has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Hi Wildcursive, I can understand your sentiment, but I can't following the reasoning. The image of the 2 people, shown on the screen, has originally been taken by another person than the photographer of "our" image. For me, there is no doubt that the content on the screen is copyrighted, either by the camera-man or a rights holder. His permission is needed. --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Túrelio, now I notice the difference between you and me. Yes, the photographer is different from the host party and its team for the event. So your logic is a picture of Chancellor Merkel's campaign event in front of a simple wall is ok. But if CDU set a synchronized screen on her background for participants' convenience, then the picture is not ok. Strictly, I realize you see the recording video as a independent work from the event itself. However, according to Article 10 of TAIWAN's Copyright Act: "The author of a work shall enjoy copyright upon completion of the work." There is no doubt that when the event ends, the video (with post-production or not) can be seen as completion. But I do not think we can say at that moment the picture was taken, the video is a done work, which is a legal premise. The video has two functions: reflecting for the event at the same time and recording for history after the end of the event. As the work has not been completed, I don't think a screen simply reflects the stage at almost the same time can make a legal picture become illegal. I got a degree in law and had some legal experience in Taiwan. I wish to know your response. Thank you! --Wildcursive (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wildcursive, IMO the screen-section of the disputed overview-photo represents one frame of the total video. As it is represented in the current overview-shot, it is complete, IMO. Though as an admin I'm just an amateur lawyer, my reasoning is surely in accordance with European and US law understanding. But, other countries may have a different understanding of this matter. So, if you are rather sure about your reasoning, I would ask you to open a discussion thread on COM:VP, for 2 reasons: 1) to allow other users to voice their opinion and 2) if this is found to be correct, it is important to get well-known. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Túrelio, I am glad we have opportunity to exchange views on this issues. I will open a discussion after I check some more information and ask for your advice again. As I am quite busy for something else beyond Wiki projects, I will try to do so in two weeks. I wish the second picture can be kept before we have a conclusion on this issue. Talk to you later! --Wildcursive (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Das war ja schon ein Krampf die ueber 70 speedies zu Loeschen, aber Du hast Dur ja auch die Muehe gemacht fuer jedes Bild die URV mit Quellenlink nachzuweisen. Alle Achtung und Danke! --Dschwen (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich war zwischenzeitlich auch versucht, einfach zu Nuken. Da ich bei 6 Dateien aber keine copyvio nachweisen konnte, habe ich es gelassen. --Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took this photo myself and uploaded for use in a Wikipedia article. The first edit asks me to provide source info. I added my name as the author, but I don't think that is all the edit is asking for. Can you help me? I've read a ton of stuff and still don't understand what I should do. Thanks!
Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcoffey (talk • contribs)
Hi Dennis, all or most of your uploads do look not to be original photographies, but reproductions of older photos/prints. If my strong assumption is true, you need to provide information what was the original source and who was the original photographer. Then, those for you had provided a source, such as File:BleacherCreatureGoodHumorManNeighbor1979.jpg, you need to provide evidence as to why this image is in the PD or under a free license. --Túrelio (talk)
Hello again! Please forgive my ignorance, but I am having a difficult time understanding how things work here. I emailed the newspaper originally carrying this story and photo, they have emailed me permission to use the photo as long as I reference the newspaper and original photographer. How do I go about getting that information to you so that my photo can stay on? thanks for your help!! Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcoffey (talk • contribs)
Hi Dennis, if you have obtained permission, then please forward the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) und don't forget to clearly state to which file(s) the permission refers. Somebody from OTRS will then check the permission and either confirm it or ask you for more information. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm Christiane Wyler and I'm the artist holding the copyrights of my own work. I have uploaded the pictures to include it in my Wikipedia profile. How can I send you the permission for my work? What format do you need?
schicken Sie bitte von ihrer geschäftl. Emailadresse aus eine formlose Bestätigung an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org (OTRS), dass 1) das Benutzerkonto Lifestyle11 unter Ihrer Kontrolle ist, 2) Sie die hochgeladenen Reproduktionen (Fotos Ihrer Werke) selbst erstellt haben und 3) Sie als Urheber der Kunstwerke die Genehmigung zur Nutzung der davon erstellten Reproduktionen unter der gewählten Lzenz erteilen. Wenn Sie die Fotos nicht selbst geschossen haben, müssen Sie auch eine Genehmigung des Fotografen vorlegen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besten Danke. Habe ich soeben gemacht. Wie lange dauert es bis die Fotos freigeschlatet siind und ich sie in meinem Wikipedia Profil verwednen kann? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifestyle11 (talk • contribs)
"Freischalten" gibt es im eigentlichen Sinne nicht. Sie können im Prinzip jetzt schon auf Wikipedia verwendet werden. Es könnte lediglich passieren, dass andere Wikipedia-Benutzer die Bilder wieder "herauswerfen" mit dem Argument, dass noch keine Genehmigung vorliege. Ich werde deshalb den no-permission-Baustein durch OTRS-pending ersetzen, was auf Dritte weniger dramatisch wirkt. Die Bestätigung Ihrer Genehmigung durch OTRS kann 1 Tag oder 3 Wochen dauern; das ist so unbestimmt, weil es eben auch ehrenamtliche Freiwillige sind, die das machen.
Falls "Lifestyle11" nicht Ihr Künstlername ist, sollten Sie erwägen 1) in die Beschreibung auf jeder Bildseite hineinzuschreiben, dass es ein Werk von Christiane Wyler oder <Künstlername> ist, und 2) erwägen, ob Sie bei der Namensangabe im Author-Eintrag der Bildbeschreibung nicht besser eine Weiterleitung von Lifestyle11 auf Christiane Wyler setzen wollen. Dann würde im Author-Eintrag Christiane Wyler erscheinen. Das geht so, dass Sie [[User:Lifestyle11]] ersetzen durch [[User:Lifestyle11|Christiane Wyler]]. Der einzige mögliche "Nachteil" wäre, dass dann jeder weiß, dass User:Lifestyle11 eben Christiane Wyler ist. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had seen your first reply already and then tagged all images which contained a possibly copyrighted photography with FOP-Chile. --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded this picture today on commons has been suppressed under the motive : possible copyright violation.
This isn't the case, there is no copyright issue on this picture, I have both the consent of the photographer and of the person subject of the article.
Please indicate me how to put the picture back, and if any proof is required, let me know!
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchlightgoes (talk • contribs)
Hi Torchlightgoes,
you had stated that this photo is your own work and that it had been created on October 10. However, I've found the same image at this Facebook page, to where it had been uploaded already on October 7. In addition, this is your only upload and the image is rather a professional promo shot. So, there were 2 alarms ringing at the same time.
Now, if you really are the original photographer who has shot this photo, then please send an informal permission stating your authorship and confirming the choosen license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). Also mention the filename File:Kayane.jpg and your affiliation. The content of your email to OTRS will not be published, but handled only by our OTRS-volunteers (I am none). After you have done this, drop me a note here, so that I can temporarily restore the file.
If you are not really the photographer, please do not upload the work of others under a invalid free license, as this not only infringes the artists copyright, but also exposes our re-users to costly litigation. --Túrelio (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you I'll do this. I had not understood the date was the date of creation, sorry I'm still new to all this. I'll be sending you the email shortly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchlightgoes (talk • contribs)
Of course. It's done, thank you!
Me again, sorry, but do you have an idea of how long the validation can take ( I've sent the email to the given email address on Friday) ? I clearly understand how much work all this is and do not want to seem impatient, but would just like to know if I will receive a notification by email when the question will be settled or not in order for me to take another option, should it last. Sorry to call on to you again and thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchlightgoes (talk • contribs)
Well, as this is done by volunteers it may take any time between days and weeks, not joking. I have now temporarily undeleted the image, so you can place it into an article. --Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio,
danke für Deine Nachricht. Mir war die Reihenfolge nicht klar -ich hatte die Freigabe von der Inhaberin der Urheberrechte als erstes zur Permissions-Abteilung geschickt - wenn der Artikel dann bald fertig sein wird, liegen die Bilder schon bereit :) Ich dachte, das wär eine gute Reihnefolge...
Liebe Grüße,
--Hippolini (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist eigentlich auch ein gutes Vorgehen, sofern du die dann später hochgeladenen Bilder in der Genehmigung eindeutig benannt hast. Hast du schon eine Rückmeldung von OTRS erhalten? Bei den Bildern, für die du eine Genehmigung geschickt bzw. veranlasst hast, kannst du diesen Code {{OTRS pending}} einsetzen, was löschverzögernd wirkt. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio!
Wieder mal eine Frage - sowohl in eigener, wie auch in Sachen Ziegler175!
Wie bekommt man am Einfachsten Bilder, die zuerst auf WP hochgeladen wurden auf die Commons-Seite?
Geht das überhaupt???
I get this material via a private mailing list, which I'm not supposed to post information about. However, I'm told that a large bundle of the material, including a complete SWS run, should show up at archive.org by year's end, maybe even before the US holidays. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tengo permiso del autor. El caso es que ahora mismo la foto no está publicada y que el autor indicó muy claramente que quería permanecer anónimo. De hecho he tenido que resubir la imagen pues en los metadatos originales figuraba su nombre.
I mistakenly thought your native language was Spanish to see the "ú" in your Túrelio. Sorry for my bad English language proficiency. I try to improve.
The link you indicate is perfect. It cleared up me any doubt. I'll talk to the author and if, as I believe, does not accept sending a "permission statement" in a few days (he is a bit weird) i will eliminate the image.
Thank you very much again for your patience and for your efficiency.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png[edit]
You did fairly well in that discussion, but blew it at the end. Regarding these closing comments and archiving. It is not acceptable to abuse your powers as admin to have the "final word" when closing a discussion. Commons admin guideline states "administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor". You should take special care that your ability to close deletion discussions isn't used to give your opinion higher weight than anyone else's, or to score points that cannot be responded to. Your opinion that this was a "basic discussion" is quite extraordinary given uncertainties brought up in the discussion. Your opinion that it was "unnecessarily inflammatory" is a matter that should have been raised on a person's talk page and not as the closing comments in a DR -- I suspect we differ in our views as to what went wrong there. Regardless, you should not chastise people and then allow no opportunity for response, nor is the DR the place to do it.
I would like to hope such a deletion discussion never again arises, where ignorance of the law is used as a reason for deletion and commons users play games with Google rather than seeking professional guidance from the start. All quite unnecessary and unprofessional and insulting to content producers. -- Colin (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either you see that a note below the image or on the website says something like "content under a Creative-Commons license" (or other free license) or you contact the photographer directly and ask him/her to release the image under a free license. However, there are "free licenses" which forbid commercial use (CC-NC). Such licenses are not allowed on Commons. A good place to look for images under free licenses is Flickr.com . An example of a Commons-compatible licensed image is http://www.flickr.com/photos/33991563@N00/4154543904 . --Túrelio (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This singer died in 1983 so he cannot appear for a photo shoot in 1994. His picture was taken in 1962 in Baari studio which closed in 1974. Since then this image has been used as a cover photo for many released musical albums. The year you are referring is just another year in which deceased singer's album was released under the title of Golden Memories Of Ahmed Rushdi. So kindly, take your nomination back. Regards Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., but for PD-Pakistan to be valid, you must provide information about the first publication of this image. Also, a proper source is needed, as it is surely ot your own work. --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I shall try to find the details of first publication by Baari studio. Here it is important to mention that this studio was demolished forty years back. Thank you Ezaid Fabber (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
F Gaspar.jpg and other photos from Metaforica[edit]
Hello!
My name is Fernando Gaspar and I'm the owner of all photos uploaded by the nick name Metaforica.
It's the first time that I dedicate some precious hours here in wiki and probably i'm doing some mistakes. I'm an artist and i'm trying to upload some photos from my artwork files and i really hope for your permission to do that!! It's very important to the visibility of my artwork and career! This photo F Gaspar.jpg in fact is a pic from myself in a tv interview as artist, posted in one of my two Facebook pages: https://www.facebook.com/artfernandogaspar or https://www.facebook.com/fernandogaspar.ac
As I told you it's my really first time in a uncomfortable field for me.
Some time ago I tried to edit a photo and I signed an account with my true name Fernando Gaspar; unfortunately I forgot completely the password of this account. today I made a new account and as my name is already used I had to change and choose another name. I hope that strange name Metaforica does not be the reason of suspicious...!!!
So, how can I prove that i am the owner of all the stuff that I uploaded? Please tell me how I can help you in your job!
I am sorry that you got a bit of a hard start here on Commons. The problem is that too many people here upload images that are not their own work and thereby expose re-users to litigation for copyright violation. We try to protect artists/creators from their work being abused and re-users from getting legal problems, which sometimes may appear to be unfriendly to new users.
Now about your uploads:
1) I understand that File:F Gaspar.jpg shows you. But who had shot this photo originally? You need his/her permission.
2) Thanks for uploading your works. Have the reproductions (the photos of them) of your paintings been shot by yourself? If yes, then please go to OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries, copy the boxed declaration text to your computer, add the filenames of the uploaded reproductions of your paintings, add the name of the choosen license, fill-in the other fields and mail it all to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . After you have done this, drop me a note, so that I can remove the problem-tags from your files.
Hi Túrelio
Done!
As you recommend me, I already send a "owner Statement" to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org about my File:Fernando Gaspar.jpg.
If I need to upload more pics I may do it or I must send always a doc like this to which one?
Should I create a User to Metaforica or is not necessary?
Thank you for help! (and to have removed my mail)
Fernando Gaspar (Metaforica)
Hi Fernando,
1) you should ask that to the OTRS agent, which replied to your permission-email. When uploading more reproductions of your own works of art, it would probably be enough to send an email to OTRS, stating to add the new files to your first OTRS-ticket (number).
Hallo Túrelio, aus einem mir unverständlichen Grund kann ich einzelne Kategorien nicht bearbeiten. Aufgefallen ist mir das bei den kürzlich von mir angelegten
Beim Versuch, die oberen drei Kategorien zu editieren, erhalte ich immer die Meldung:
"There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.
This category currently contains no pages or media."
Also, ich konnte für alle 3 das Editfenster öffnen und habe bei einer einen Nulledit gemacht. Könnte es vielleicht mit den massive Serverproblemen (Umleitung auf wikimediafoundation.org) von gestern zusammenhängen? --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bei mir trat das Problem gestern am späteren Nachmittag auf. Da ich gestern auch die Main Page nicht mehr erreichen konnte, wären immer noch verbliebene Serverprobleme eine gute Erklärung. Außerdem wurde ja zu Spenden aufgerufen, was auch für Serverprobleme spricht. (Ist auch Dir aufgefallen, dass in den letzten Jahren immer dann Serverprobleme auftreten, wenn zu Spenden aufgerufen wird? Die Zeitgleichheit ist schon verblüffend.) Nun, ich werde einfach mal ein paar Tage abwarten bis alles wieder rund läuft und die Änderungen dann durchführen. -- Ies (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,thanks for the answers. If I ask at a flickr user the permission tu use an image, 'under his copyright', on commons (this image) must I or He write to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ? and what, and how, must be the permission write?--Russf (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If an image on Flickr has a Commons-compatible license (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-Zero, PD), you don't need an individual permission. Just, when uploading it, take the path "Upload from Flickr". An individual permission is only required, if the image is not under a Commons-compatible license on Flickr. The permission process is explained at OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's really a task ;-). The last one is fine, IMO. The 2nd one should be public-domain already, not CC-BY-SA, but it's no problem anyway. The 1st one is formally (per the license on Flickr) o.k., but it shows a work of art, which may be copyrighted for itself by the artist. And it was taken in a museum in the U.S. , which has no freedom-of-panorama for such works. So, you should try to find out who is the original artist, who made this "thing", and when (year) it was created. --Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see why are you tagging dozens of images of Fallingwater with a post-1990 FOP tag? This is a building from 1935. --ELEKHHT11:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, creator Frank Lloyd Wright died only in 1959, whereby his works are copyrighted in most countries til end of 2029 (70 pma). It's surely legal to take these photos in the U.S., their use might however be restricted in some countries, depending on their FOP provisions. The 1990-breakpoint in the U.S. law is likely relevant only for the U.S., not for other countries. (You might remember the Oldenbourg case, where the WMF was forced to take down images that had been totally legitimately taken in their country of origin, but the original rights holder claimed U.S. law, which didn't cover them.) The purpose of the FOP-tag is to notify re-users about that potential risk, it's not a deletion tag. --Túrelio (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the US-FOP tag only refers to US law, and provides no advice to non-US users. It states: "The architectural work depicted in this photograph may be covered under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that architectural works completed after December 1, 1990 are protected. However, architectural copyright in the United States does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work." So it only states that the work is not copyright protected in the US because it was built before 1990. It does not actually say anything about use in other countries. It is very different from the Oldenburg case (enforcing US copyright for pictures of sculptures of an US artist stored on a US server), while this case is about pictures taken in the US to which US copyright does not apply, of an US building by an US architect, stored on a US server. So I think in this case this particular tag should be removed as confusing and superfluous. --ELEKHHT13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not my fault that the FOP-US-tag is so bad. 2) But, IMO it's better to offer some warning than nothing and thereby expose re-users to egal risks. 3) I know quite well that the Oldenbourg case was the other way round, but I mentioned it to demonstrate that it may be legal to take a shot (and to host it on Commons), even though re-using the shot in other countries may violate the copyright law and expose re-users to litigation. --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But (1) doesn't matter who created the tag, it matters what it states; (2) it doesn't really offer any warning, just confusion; (3) the Oldenburg case is not simply the other way around, is very different as it is about a US citizen enforcing US-law upon a US based company. That is not the same as applying non-US law upon US territory. --ELEKHHT14:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upon US territory - seems you didn't get the message. Anybody using these photos in France, just as an example country, may find himself cited to court by the heirs of Frank Lloyd Wright, as France does not acknowledge freedom-of-panorama exemption. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're sure that current French copyright law applies to a US building from 1935, than put up a tag that states that. The current one doesn't. --ELEKHHT14:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Turelio, thank you very much for fixing that issue with a cropped submarine image, I really appreciate it! Can an old file name be restored, too? Regards, --Photojunkie (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Turelio. Im Februar 2011 hast du dieses File gelöscht. Es war zwar eine sehr gute Foto, viel besser als die verblasste mit der du sie ersetzt hast. Es ging eigentlich um eine totale falsche interpretation des Fresko. Also es ging viel mehr um ein rename. Wäre es möglich die löschung dieser foto wieder rückgängig zu machen? Herzlichen Dank ! Best --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)--DenghiùComm (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Problem. Aber: das gelöschte Bild hatte nur 407 × 420 Pixel und war nur 28 kB groß. Würde es sich nicht eher lohnen, das vorhandene Foto (2024 × 2322 Pixel) zu retouchieren? Ich habe die Datei jetzt mal zu Testzwecken als neue Version von File:Pompejanischer Maler um 80 v. Chr. 001.jpg hochgeladen und gleich wieder auf die ursprüngliche zurückgesetzt. Das gibt dir die Möglichkeit beide direkt zu vergleichen. Wenn du die gelöschte Datei trotzdem wiederhergestellt haben möchtest, dann bestätige mir das nur noch mal kurz. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich verstehe: mindere qualität duplicate sollten eher gelöscht und nicht hinzugefügt werden. Warum ich dieses File nie vergessen habe, das ist weil es absolut korrekt in den Farben ist. Das Fresko ist CinaberRot und nicht RosenRot. Ich reg mich jedes mal auf wenn ich dieses rosenrote Fresko sehe...! : -) Leider habe ich gar keine kenntnisse ein Bild zu bearbeiten, sonst hätte ich es schon lange gemacht. Du kannst die Sache so oder so lösen. Es ist mir auch recht was du unternommen hast: so ist es wenigstens vorhanden. Nochmals herzlichen Dank für alles was du tust und tun kannst! Herzlichst, --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)PS: ich vermisse so sehr Foroa![reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Secret order of libertines.png[edit]
While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!" – JKadavoorJee06:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio,
I wanted to delete the image of Allosaurus europaeus following a request from my supervisor, the author of this species, but thought that I could keep the image and just replace/update it by another one. Unfortunately, it seems that it didn't work. Therefore, would it be possible to delete permanently the photo of the original specimen of A. europaeus by any chance? I'll upload the other one separately.
Many thanks!
--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Christophe,
I assume this is about publication priority, right? I can fully understand the problem and I am prepared to help. However, we should follow our procedures. That was my rationale to open a regular DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allosaurus europaeus def.jpg. Your removal of the DR note from the file page does not remove or close the ongoing DR request. Instead of removing, you should participate in the DR discussion. By overwriting the original image with the drawing you have for now made the original image "invisible" from the articles where it is linked, though the overwriting clearly violated our policy. Anyway, please leave a statement (explain the problem) in the above linked DR discussion, as only this will allow the true removal of the image in question. You should also state for how long the original image needs to be removed/hidden. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio,
Yes it is about publication priority indeed. I will leave a statement in the DR discussion in order to solve the problem. I really thought it would be easier to delete an image I uploaded myself but obviously there were procedure I was not aware of. Thanks for your advice and I'll hope this will be solved as soon as possible.
Regards,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi Túrelio, could you please help with this image here File:Map Galicia central Europe.png, for some reason my updated version is just not showing. I have waited 9 hours and uploaded it again, to no avail. Is there something wrong with the cache, could you help? The one version can be deleted since they are the same. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and browser-cache emptying didn't help. However, per what was shown in the versions table, your 3rd upload was identical to the 1st one. I have therefore reset to your 2nd upload, which now is also shown on the image page. I hope that was what you finally intended. --Túrelio (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes the second and third versions are identical. You can therefore delete the ones that are identical, otherwise there are too many versions of the same thing here. Gryffindor (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai bien reçu votre message d'avertissement concernant la violation des droits d'auteur de l'image que j'essaie de mettre sur le lien Wikipédia de mon ami Yannis TAFERE.
Pouvez-vous, s'il vous plaît, m'indiquer la marche à suive car j'ai consulter bon nombre de fichier d'aide et j'ai vraiment du mal à comprendre la bonne marche à suivre.
if you have the permission from the photographer to distribute these photos under a free license, please forward this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i taught that Gunnex deleted it, but you forgot to reply to me when its deleted, but it is okay. i does not wanted to commit copy right vio... plis reply to this... to know that i does not want to commit copyright violation. Jiawhein (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you can provide a valid permission from the photographer/creator, the image can be undeleted. However, be aware that material on Wikia is often not reliably licensed. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but why were the pics from the Thor 2 premiere of Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings deleted? I uploaded 4 other pictures from the same source and they are perfectly fine and are reviewed by another editor as having been fine. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - I noticed that the source of the pictures was changed, when it originally came from [86] which in turn is uploaded by the author of the pictures with a license to share-a-like and to modify, as in crop. There is no reason the source should have been changed and then in turn the pics deleted. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had another editor change the source but I was the one who cropped the photos and I got them from this source not the single pictures of each actor. Please review and let me know. I would never upload a picture with ARR, I know better but this picture (uploaded by the author of the pictures) has given it a sharealike license. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Noor Hossain Stamp 3.jpg and File:Noor Hossain Stamp.jpg may be copyright violation and should be deleted quickly.
But help me to license these files in Category:Noor Hossain. The author has provided me permission to upload them under a free license. But How could i provide the evidence of permission through OTRS? I have forwarded the mail containing permission of the author to the OTRS mail. But what to do now? The author have also provided permission to upload these photos on my wiki talk page here - Ctg4Rahat (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ctg4Rahat,
I am not sure I understand the role of Dinu Alam. But anyway, if you have a written permission from the original author/photographer or the rights holder, please forward it to OTRSand state so on the image page by inserting {{OTRS pending}}. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me any viable reason as to why was this non-commercial, private photograph deleted for "copyright violation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izviiskra (talk • contribs)
It IS my own work. It's a personal photograph that I took of the writer in the picture, the same picture he uses in his FB account, and somehow I find out some journalistic site took it and put it on their own site. How is it my fault that someone uploaded MY photograph on the internet before me?--109.121.20.17108:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you should ask yourself how it is possible that somebody else publishes your work before you publsihed it by yourself. How could someone else get hold on your image file? --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weil das Foto der Vorderseite der Münze höchstwahrscheinlich eine Urheberrechtsverletzung am Künstler, der das Reliefportrait geschaffen hat, darstellte; urheberrechtlich ist das Foto eine Bearbeitung. --Túrelio (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woraus leitest du dir das Recht ab, ein Bild von dem du nicht weisst, ob es eine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellt oder nicht, einfach ohne jede Rückfrage, Klärung und Diskussion zu löschen? --Hofphotograph (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mit Leuten, die mich mal eben so verleumden ("He didn't check proberly all the subjects."[87]), wenn ich meinen unbezahlten Job tue, führe ich keine Grundsatzdiskussion.
Nur so viel: es ist der Hochlader, der uns (d.h., die Commons-community, vertreten z.B. durch admins wie mich) überzeugen muss, dass die von ihm hochgeladene Datei nicht das Urheberrecht anderer verletzt, nicht umgekehrt. Laut de:Johann-Christian-Reinhart-Plakette wurde die Plakette erst ab 1989 verliehen und dürfte dementsprechend kaum im 18. Jahrhundert geschaffen worden sein. Selbst wenn der Künstler ein altes Portrait von Johann Christian Reinhart als Vorlage benutzt haben sollte, hat er mit dem Relief ein eigenes Werk geschaffen, das bis 70 Jahre nach seinem Tod geschützt ist, was Abbildungen des Reliefs einschließt. Es ist schon erbärmlich genug, dass der Künstler, der das Relief geschaffen hat, im :de-Artikel nicht einmal erwähnt wird. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nun komm' mal runter ... Ich hab' dich nicht "verleumdet". So wie du hier reagierst, da hab' ich eher ins Schwarze getroffen - und du spielst nun die beleidigte Leberwurst.
Ich bitte dich, dazu beizutragen, dass aus Wiki Commons nicht unnötigerweise Bilder gelöscht werden, die andere kostenlos in ihrer Freizeit erstellt haben. Nicht nur du opferst (freiwillig) deine Zeit. Also:
Was muss beschafft werden, damit das Bild wiederhergestellt werden kann?
Die Stadt Hof ist Rechsträger. Der Kulturreferent ist zuständig, gibt gerne Auskunft und erteilt die schriftliche Freigabe: <censored for spam prevention> LG--T. E. Ryen (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist nicht weiter tragisch, da sie mit 2x2 Klicks wiederhergestellt werden könnten. Ich habe Freitagabend vom Kulturreferenten endlich Antwort erhalten, durchaus positiv, er hat sogar 2 eigene Fotos geschickt; allerdings rechtlich noch unvollständig, weil er halt nur den Blick auf Wikipedia hatte. Wir benötigen aber eine Freigabe unter einer freien Lizenz, so wie wir bzw. die WMF das versteht, also einschl. Freigabe für kommerzielle Nachnutzung. D.h., ich muss ihm nun das komplette Freigabeformular schicken und auf seine Rückmeldung warten. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...bleiben wir genau, Freitag, 14:33 Uhr - so'n Chef der Kulturbehörde hat ja auch was zu tun. Wir haben über dich gesprochen, was du noch benötigst, wirst du bekommen - frag halt präzise. --Prof.Dr.Dr.T. E. Ryen (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., jetzt reicht es mir. Meine Nachfrage bzgl. Genehmigung war eh schon raus und kann vom Supportteam bearbeitet werden. Ich ziehe mich aus dieser Angelegenheit komplett zurück.
Nur so viel als final reply: ich werde für die Drecksarbeit hier nicht bezahlt und habe auch einen anstrengenden RL-Job, so daß ich am Freitag erst am späten Abend online gehen[88] und die Email abrufen konnte, weshalb meine Bemerkung bzgl. Antwort erhalten durchaus korrekt ist. EOD. --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diese Reaktion enttäuscht mich jetzt aber - besser gesagt: holt mich auf den normalen Wikipedia-Boden zurück.
Naja, wir werden sehen, ob die Reinhart-Medaille hier wieder auftaucht:
Thanks. Accordingly I've tagged it with FOP-Hungary. Oops, now I see it's in Romania. I was mislead by the Hungarian description. Sorry, but Romania has no freedom-of-panorama exemption. I fear it needs to be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks old friend. I'm no longer able to do all the admin and cleanup work, but I still want to do some uploads and other easier stuff. INeverCry22:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is regarding a deletion request reportedly been uploaded through copyright. This discussion was also sent to another user's talk page also reported my files as a deletion request or a copyright image.
File names(images):
File:Scroto ng Negro.jpg
File:Bayag ng Negro.png
File:Bayag ng Aetas.jpg
File:Ang pag ihi ng titi.jpg
File:Bayag ng Pilipino.jpg
File:Ejaculasion ng Negro.png
File:Dambuhalang titi ng Negro na hindi tuli at lubasan naka tayo.jpg
File:Erectong Titi ng Aetas.jpg
File:Pag Subo ng Dambuhalang Titi.png
File:Titi ng Espanol.jpg
File:Pag Subo ng Bayag.jpg
In my defense, the images are not uploaded contradicting to copyright due to the file was of my own works for educational and health purposes. But, the image was taken from the internet from a personal reliable source which some of my works are contributed to. However, some viewers or users may find the images displays inappropriate files which undoubtedly does contain a graphic image or a file uncommonly portrayed and used. Therefore, I will accept the deletion request if the file is partly reported stated above. If the file is requested through its file name, then I will simply rename the file.
I would greatly like to see the proof of the reported copyrighted for items 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 the complete media file of item 10 and deletion requests for items 9 and 11 through the reports you submitted. My conclusion of the file is not copyrighted or taken from other sources according to any whatsoever degree of illegal licensing.
I WOULD STRONGLY WANT A FEEDBACK.
Regards,
Parker Phy
Hi, I've pasted the source links for several of your uploads below the notifications on your talkpage. Of course, you could try to request undeletion at COM:UR, provided you have strong evidence that you are the original photographer. However, in addition to the copyright issue (which is more important), all these uploads are clearly out of scope of Commons. For the rest of the day I'm busy in RL. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcação da imagem File:APEL Foto oficial.JPG[edit]
Esta fotografia é de minha propriedade. Trata-se de foto que mandei fazer (incluindo versão digital e ampliação) na 'casa de fotografias' com que habitualmente trabalho, tendo em vista a oferta da ampliação para a galeria de fotos oficiais dos ex-presidentes da APEL (onde efectivamente se encontra).
Rui Beja (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Túrelio,
Many thanks for your contact. I have already sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org informing that I am the owner of the photo, that I have taken (and got the digital and amplificated versions) in my usual photographer (this is the reason why it's a a high professional quality image), in order to offer the amplification to APEL (Portuguese Publishers and Booksellers Association) to be included in the ex-presidents gallery, where it stays already (I can send to your e-mail - address? - a photo that has been taken to the gallery I'm mentioning). I woul be very grateful whenever you can undelete the image, as I'm using it in an biographic article in Wikipedia, which is under discussion. Best regards
85.240.233.31 11:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for missing signatureRui Beja (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am sorry not to have written before, as you did on November 16th: this is the first time I upload images in Wikimedia and still don't know exactly how it works.
All the images about William Girometti's works reproduce painting of my father, who died 15 years ago. I am his only heir, after my mother's death, so I have the ownership of all the paintings whose pictures I uploaded. My father's name can be found in books about Italian painters and since I wish people could enjoy his paintings, I thought I could try to create a page on Wikipedia about him. For this reason I uploaded the images, but probably choosing the wrong licence. As you suggested, I wrote to permission-commons@wikimedia.org and hope that the images will be restored. Could you please tell me how long will it take before getting an answer or any information about it? Please excuse me for bothering you. Thank you very much and best regards, Silvia Girometti
Hi Silvia,
to several of your uploads a so-called OTRS-ticket (approval of permission) has already been added by our OTRS-volunteers. I have added the template OTRS-pending to the "rest" of your uploads to prevent them from becoming deleted. In addition, I've put all your uploads into category Category:William Girometti; so you can view them there all at once. --Túrelio (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio est en train de les remettre en place. Túrelio is putting back in place them. --Chatsam (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2013[edit]
Hello, thank you very much indeed for restoring the files. Kind regards, Silvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia Girometti (talk • contribs)
Hi Túrelio. I left an autopatrolled request for my alternate accounts on COM:RFR 4 days ago. No administrator has done my request. I also saw that there are other requests were still pending for quite a long time. Can you please take a look? Thanks. Jianhui67talk★contribs07:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are doing a big effort to find external reuses, but those files are and will be there on my Flickr account. The issue is that I don't want so-called unidentified organisms under my name here. Thanks. B.p.13:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao Túrelio, te hablo en español porque he visto en la tu utenza que lo sabes hablar... y tú eres alemán yo italiana... con el inglés no nos comprendemos... he preferido el idioma español porque un poco, poco lo hablo^^
Pues, por el problema de la foto "File:Carnevale di Palazzolo.JPG" te digo que la puedes sacar. Me siente que fue irregular, pero siendo que la he hecha yo no creí de violar ningun copyright... por lo tanto si tu sabes como se saca, sácala, de otro manier dime que hacer, ciao.--Mikystar (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the copyright owner of the film image, and a representative of the film. How do I prove this? and re-instate the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avamax (talk • contribs)
Hi, I believe you have accidentially deleted my deletions request. (A bit ironic :P) I see as reason qulinair excused for the error. Qulinair made a highly promotional wikipediapagina at the Dutch Wikipedia with some copyrighted pictures. This picture mentioned in the deletions request is one of them. Could you please undelete my deletionsreuqest since I was not the person who requested deletion of the deletionsrequest of File:Baloujak etiket.jpg? Natuur12 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding copyrights and license tags to uploaded pictures[edit]
Hi Túrelio!
I have questions about uploading files from Facebook.com. I read the terms of use, https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms. I was wondering if that means any picture found on Facebook has a free license. If such uploads are permited on Wikipedia, can you give a tutorial on how to complete the uploads, mostly about the copyrights and license tags. How can I insert these informations for the pictures? A step by step guide would be useful. I already uploaded some pictures and wouldn't want them deleted, if I can legally use them. Feel free to complete the edition for the copyrights and license tags so that my pictures won't be deleted.
Hi Proonk, material from Facebook has 2 mayor problems: 1) there is no evidence that the poster of a image is the author or rights holder; 2) Facebook's terms of use IMO imply that a legal poster of material onto Facebook gives only to Facebook a license of use, not to external thirds parties. However, I am not a lawyer. Just to remember, photo agency Getty Images was recently ordered to pay 1.2 mio $ to a photographer because they had used the photos he had posted to Twitter: Commons:Village_pump#Next_time_you_copy_an_image_from_Twitter_to_Commons.2C_think_again. --Túrelio (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you undelete this DR? I think that failed DRs are a useful record which should be referenced as a closed DR, and deleting them seems to just make our processes opaque, unless something about a nomination were defamatory or revealed unnecessary personal information about a living person. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason for the deletion was 1) that the original nominator had placed a speedy-tag on the DR page (which also led to the whole DRs-of-that-day-page being speedy-tagged) and 2) that the nominator User:The Photographer had both retracted the DR and speedy-tagged the DR-page after he realized that he had - likely inadvertently - misjudged the file. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of the context. I believe it is more useful to be able to openly and transparently see any issue or pattern of issues with DR creation, rather than make it impossible for any non-admin to look at these after the event. Compare with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Roman Maria Jakub Próchniewski.jpg. There is no community agreed guideline to encourage speedy deletion of DRs once created and I believe the normal process for closure of DRs would be sufficient rather than suppression. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die Info. Anscheinend wurde der |Note=-Eintrag aus dem description-Baustein entfernt, denn die Datei war seit >1Jahr unbearbeitet. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das trifft auf viele Dateien in dieser Wartungskategorie zu. Wahrscheinlich wurde der Inhalt früher (bevor es diese Wartungskategorie gab) einfach nicht angezeigt. --Leyo20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not "other projects", it's just :en Wikipedia. This template has been developed only for fair-use on :en. 2) What is "fair-use" in the U.S., would be copyvio in many other countries. 3) As the image was in use on :en, it was reasonable to notify :en about its impending deletion in order to allow them to check it for fair-use. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato(talk)14:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Anandamath - a translation by S. R. Ramaswamy.jpg[edit]
Hi Turelio.
The source of the above image has been questioned. I assure you that the picture is my own and does not infringe on anybody's copyrights. In fact all images on S. R. Ramaswamy page are my own and their use both at (www.srikanta-sastri.org) and (www.itihasa.in) are subject to my condition that they be licensed under CC by SA 3.0 which the respective website owners have complied with. So I assure you, with regard to S. R. Ramaswamy page, there is absolutely no copyright infringement and therefore merits no deletions.
With affectionate regards
Rkkrupa (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio,
Analog zu den guten und geeigneten, schon länger existierenden templates unter Category:Plant navigation templates habe ich begonnen, unter Category:Orchids navigation templates für die Orchideengattungen mit großer Anzahl von Arten- , Hybriden- und Synonymbezeichnungen eine alphabetische Sortierung der Gattungskategorie einzurichten. Z.B. vollzogen bei der Gattung Epipactis (über 650 Namen) und in Arbeit bei der Gattung Ophrys (über 1900 Namen).
Alle die von mir eingerichteten Seiten (Muster: Category:Oncidium und Category:Oncidium a führten jeweils mit einem Link zum Hauptartikel der Gattung und zu den alphabetischen Aufstellungen in der Artenliste von Commons und Wikispecies.
User:Stemonitis hat mit 99 Änderungen bei Epipactis und Ophrys diese Seiten ungültig gemacht.
Ich möchte Dich bitten, alle diese Änderungen rückgängig zu machen. Gegen alle Gepflogenheiten in Commons und Wissenschaft unterscheidet User:Stemonitis bei seinen Änderungen nicht zwischen Arten und Naturhybriden. Nothospecies werden nicht dem Buchstaben des Epitheton zugeordnet, sondern dem Hybridenzeichen × (Multiplikationszeichen). Seine Änderungen sind für mich in keinster Weise richtig , noch eine Verbesserung. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, ich sehe gerade, Du bist an Bord. Ich bin in dieser Angelegenheit noch in einer persönlichen Entscheidungsklärung für mich. Bitte gib mir noch etwas Zeit. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you are really the depicted Miss Maria Isabella Castillo Diaz and if you have acquired the full copyright for each of these shots from the respective photographers, then please send a written confirmation/permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no doubts at all. I am the owner of the original photo. I uploaded that photo in www.panoramio.com on May 2008. I was active panoramio.com uploader/user till April 2011, when I decided to erase almost all my 10,000+ photos collection there. A greek wikipedia user stored/downloaded 2 of these photos and used them as his own. Greek wikipedia admins were notified on September 2012, when I found it out and requested these photos to be deleted. Only one was deleted after all. 15 months later I visit this place (wikimedia commons) and set the same request, after greek wikipedia admins advised me to do so. I uploaded again the original photo in www.panoramio.com in order to be examed the size of the original photo and the size of the stolen one, so I can prove by this way my claim. In few days I will delete this photo again from that site. Few metadata can be seen in that site, but I can assure everyone that I was the one who stood on the edge of that field and took a photo of that temple. Thank you all. --Enpatrais (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi Student.m91, I have reverted your last edit at Commons:Freedom of panorama, because your description suggests that FOP is only valid or legal for "educational or non-commercial use". However, Wikimedia and Commons' policy requires that all media are free also for commercial use. Therefore, the provisions for FOP in copyright law of Italy are of no use for us. --Túrelio (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)"
The italian law says "no-profit" and not "non-commercial". That's not the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student.m91 (talk • contribs)
Nigerian 419 scams - Picture of malignant LinkedIn invitation[edit]
Thanks Túrelio for your helpful comment. I'm afraid I'm one of those people who tries to do the right thing and use transparency to battle these malignant actions, but now is running into rules and regulations that seem to protect the scammers. I followed your kind advice but am now bombarded by messages that my original screen print being "illegal" and due for removal. Being absolutely not knowledgeable on Wiki operation or these copyright matters particularly it looks like a regulatory jungle that seriously diminishes my intention "to do the right thing". If you can help, I would appreciate it immensely. JohnPhillipBrown (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ähem, "bombarded" ? As far as I can see, you got just 1 (one) problem-message, to which I added a personal explaination. While I can understand your motivation to upload such a screenshot, we still have to respect rights, even if those people don't do it. I am not sure whether the pixelating of the portrait is enough, though I understand that completely removing the portrait would make the screenshot rather useless. So, in order to invite other opinions about the copyright aspect, I can offer you to open a deletion-discussion. Formally that means to request the image for deletion, though without the real intent to get it deleted, but to modify it sufficiently for being useful and legal. --Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Túrelio, and please don't take my wording earlier the wrong way, there was absolutely no harm or offence intended. I meant the "bombarding" comment in relation to the rather intimidating notices and references to rules, regulations, and policies. If my comment suggested something else, I sincerely apologise. Concerning the image, and without wanting to sound disrespectful, it is all good with me. I feel absolutely comfortable following your clearly knowledgeable advice here, but also realise that I have the feeling that I put my 10 cents in. Should the added information that the screenprint could provide not be deemed useful, so be it, and I'd not mourn its removal. After all, I know what it looks like ;-) JohnPhillipBrown (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Closing this topic I just took a quick last look at the Wiki page that this concerns. Indeed, the picture of the screenprint is now removed, but the section text now carries a [citation needed] tag. Would this perhaps refer to an example of such an invitation from a well known person? Like the screenprint that was removed? Good luck with resolving this clearly labourious issue. JohnPhillipBrown (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just back from lunch. While I don't know where the image was linked before, I would understand the "citation needed" tag that you should add a source (internet URL) of the LinkedIn-Website from where you took the screenshot. Is that possible or does one need to be logged-in into LinkedIn? --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Túrelio, hope you had a good lunch. Regarding your remark concerning a citation/ link to a website: as you perhaps know LinkedIn invitations requests are send as a message to the personal email address of the profile holder. Hence, the image I submitted was a screenprint of the original email I received from/ via LinkedIn. I hope you don't mind me putting this subject to rest now, diverting my attention now to my dayjob. Thank you again for your help and concern in this. JohnPhillipBrown (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi don´t delet my photos becauste i have permission: {{PermissionOTRS|id=2013120910013968}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelperfecto (talk • contribs)
We have exchanged messages before and you have always been helpful.
I seem to have got myself in trouble again.
I am currently compiling a listing for wikipedia of the works of Jean Antoine Injalbert a French sculptor.
At present the listing sits in my sandbox whilst I build it up.
I have reached the point where I want to add a few more images. I came across an image in the Flickr photstream of "Annie in Beziers" but the licence did not allow me to use it. I contacted "Annie in Beziers" and said that I would like to use the image quoted in the heading above and she said that she would be delighted for me to use the image and she changed the licence but said that when I had done so she would change the licence back to its original form.
Yesterday she changed the licence and I uploaded the image to wikicommons and then put it in my wiki sandbox listing. All was well but I guess "Annie" then changed the licence back and ergo it has now been deleted.
I suspect then that once a licence is changed back to "all rights reserved" then the image is deleted even though when uploaded the licence had been freed up.
Is there any way around this? I guess "Annie" was happy for me to use the image but then wanted to block others doing so. Is there such a thing as a "once only" freeing of a licence?
Hope this make sense and that there is some solution.
Could I also ask when uploading ones own files which licence must one choose to allow the image to then go on wikipedia?
Hi Weblinde, when I stumbled upon File:Injalbert 12.jpg, I found a FlickrReview-failed tag and the image (C)ARR on Flickr. The reason may be because the free licensing on Flickr was too short or because you had cropped or modified the original image (should always be done after the o.k. by the FR-bot). So, I recommend you to contact the photographer again and if she/he is willing to change the license again, you should in advance contact 1 or more admins to undelete the image, when the Flickr-license is o.k., and to re-run the FlickrReview-bot. However, you should make it clear to the photographer that the free license is valid not only for Wikipedia, but for everybody, as the image will then be hosted on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you deleted Category:Salone Sistino in august. [90]. Now I was not involved there before, so let me ask, why was that? I believe The Sale Sistine are two rooms distinct from the Salone. Commons has a lot of images that can be indexed into either of the three, and so surpass other sites that confuse them, like [91]. Danny lost (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted, as User:Robert Laymont had speedy-tagged it for being empty, after the files in it had been moved to Category:Sale Sistine. If you think the cat is of use, you can easily recreate it. --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you deleted this file File:Go pictogram.png per my own request and thanks for that, I uploaded a SVG version of that, Go pictogram.svg it worked but now I have another problem, the files exists but I can't edit it ! and it says "The revision #0 of the page named "Go pictogram.svg" does not exist." is it fixable ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh oh. Looks very bad. I've seen such pages earlier, associated to serious MediaWiki bugs. As you had uploaded the file only today, I would recommend to re-upload it, using a slightly different filename. Thereafter I will deleted the first one. Hope that works. --Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dziękuję Panu za uwagi na temat mych niedociągnięć związanych z umeieszczaniem grafiki w wikimedia commons. Postaram się wyjaśnić związame z tym powody i naprawić popełnione błędy. Mam już 94 rok i jestem początkującym wikipedystą. Man więc już pewne trudności w sprostaniu wszystkim wymogom wikimedii commons. Chciałbym w związku z Pana uwagami wyjaśnić co następuje:
Jeśli chodzi o "plik:PREZENTACJA KW W OPK GAUDEMATER,jpg", to jestem nie tylko autorem i właścicielem grafiki widniejącej na CD, ale także wszystkich treści mej ksiązki Kartoteka Wspomnień oraz ilustrację użytych w promocji tej książki w OPK Gaude Mater w Częstochowie.
Jeśli chodzi natomiast o "plik:Wał Pomorski,jpg",i "plik:Bitwa o Wal Pomorski.jpg", to faktycznie nie jestem autorem tej grafiki i znalazłem ją w internecie. Prawdopodobnym autorem jest Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej, bo to na jego stronach ją znalazłem. Figuruje ona też w mej cytowanej wyżj książce. Pragnę jednak podkreślić, że brałem udzial w walkach o ten wał w 1945 r. w Wojsku Polskim i opisując swój udział w tej wojnie na stronach wikipedii sądziłem, że mam szczególne prawo wykorzystać tą grafikę. Ponadto ten pierwszy identyczny plik był źle opisany i nie wiedziałem jak nazwę jego poprawić, więc powtórzyłem go jeszcze raz poprawiając nazwę. Należy zatem ten pierwszy usunąć, a drugi pozostawić.
"Plik:PREZENTACJA. WUROBÓW PWA PoliArt.jpg" zamieściłem dlatego, aby udokumentować, że jestem zarówno twórcą tej Pracowni Wyrobów Konwisarskich jak i właśccielem galerii tych wyrobów, które na tej dyskietce są eksponowane oraz grafiki figurującej na niej. Nazywając ten plik popełniłem znów bład pisząc słowo "WUROBÓW" zamiast "WYROBÓW". Postaram się to naprawić jeśli znajdę taką możliwość lub przesłac ten plik jeszcze raz poprawnie opisując, a wówczas ten poprzedni można będzie usunąć. Chciałbym tzkże zaznaczyć, że nie chodzi tu wcale o reklamę wyrobów tej pracowni.
Postaram się ponadto sklasyfikować w najbliższym czasie, do jakich kategorii zaliczyć należłoby wszystkie zaproponowane przeze mnie grafiki i dokumenty jeśli zajdzie taka potrzeba. Proszę tylko dać mi trochę czasu.
I am able to write in English so I will translate what I have written in polish;
Thank you Mr. Túrelio for the remarks about my shortcomings related to my graphics I have placed in Wikimedia Commons. I shell tray to explain the grounds and fix mistakes I have made. I am already 94 years old and I am a beginner user of Wikipedia. I have therefore some difficulties in meeting all the requirements of Wikimedia. In this connection I wish to explain that:
As far as the “File: PREZENTACJA KW W OPK GAUDEMATER,jpg" is concerned I am not only the author and owner of the graphics shown on the CD, bat also the writer of my book named “Kartoteka Wspomnień” and owner of all the illustrations it contains and in addition these which were used during promotion of this book in kulture promotion center ”OPK Gaude Mater” in Czestochowa.
In the case of “File: Bitwa o Wal Pomorski.jpg", I am really not the author of this graphic as I found it in the internet. Probably it was created by the Polish Ministry of Defense, because I found it on its page. This graphic is also placed in my above cited book. I also wish strongly emphasize that I participated in the havy battles of these fortification during II World War in 1945 as a soldier of Polish Army and I think that describing my participation in these battles on the Wikipedia page I have special rights to use this graphic. I also like to explain that the first “File: Wal Pomorski.jpg", identical as the second one, was wrongly described and I did not know how to correct it, so that I repeat it improving its name. Therefore the first “File: Wal Pomorski.jpg", should be removed, but the second “File: Bitwa o Wal Pomorski.jpg", must be stored for.
The “File: PREZENTACJA. WUROBÓW PWA PoliArt.jpg" I have used In order to document, that I created the Pewter Studio “PoliArt s.c. and I am the owner of the pictures gallery of pewter wares, which are exposed on this CD, as well as owner of the graphic placed on this CD. Naming this file I have made a typo mistake writing the word “WUROBÓW” instead "WYROBÓW". I'll try to fix it if I find such possibility or I'll replace this file correctly describing it and then the former one could be removed. I would like also to point out that it is not at all about advertising products of this studio.
Moreover, I will try to classify in the near future, to which category should be classified reported by me graphics and documents if I find how to do it. Give me please some time because it is not so easy to do at my age.
Thanks for the link, though a bit late, as the file was deleted in June. However, my concerns as voiced in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dlr-sar-ships.jpg are still valid. The caption of the linked image just says "Credit: DLR", not "Credit: DLR (CC-BY-..)", as it does here. So, we still have to assume that this is only a press image and not under a free license. Of course, you could try to contact DLR directly and ask them to release this image under a CC-BY-SA license. --Túrelio (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tagging the photo I uploaded. Will forward by email written permission (with appropriate license) from the owner of photo. -- WellardW — Preceding unsigned comment added by WellardW (talk • contribs)
Hi WellardW, please don't forget that Mr. Pentti Väänänen cannot be the photographer himself as he is shown in the image. So, the permission needs to mention the true photographer and needs to clarify that he transferred the full rights. Otherwise a direct permission frm the photographer is required. --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already 4 times someone anonymous (twice via IP 94.158.107.76 and twice via IP 109.225.208.152) is replacing the link "Category:Eriophorum|vaginatum'" by a text in Cyrillics. Vandalism?
Per Google-translation all these edits were splendid nonsense, i.e. vandalism. I've semi-protected the cat and deleted the talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Es tut mir zwar leid, wenn du dich durch irgendetwas von mir „verarscht“ fühlst, da es nicht meiner Art entspricht andere zu verarschen. Tatsächlich habe ich aber keine Ahnung was du damit meinst. --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Genau. Ein anderes Beispiel ist dieses. Beim ersten Beispiel hätte mich deine Antwort im Abschnitt Flickr-Bilder interessiert, da ich selbst nichts dazu beitragen konnte. Der unpassende (automatische) Bearbeitungskommentar hatte mich glauben lassen, dass du darauf geantwortet hättest. Wenn ich via langsames mobiles Internet verbunden bin, dann ist sowas ein bisschen nervig. ;-) --Leyo18:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio,
vielen Dank für Deine hervorragende Arbeit und stetige Hilfsbereitschaft. Ich wünsche Dir ein besinnlich, ruhiges Weihnachtsfest und für das neue Jahr 2014 alles erdenklich Gute. Möge Dich Deine Besonnenheit in allen Lagen nicht verlassen.
Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{User:Russavia/Christmas|G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. [[User:Russavia|russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)}}
Hi, Ich wünsche dir ein frohes Fest und eine erholsame Zeit. Ebenso will ich mich für deine Mitarbeit bedanken: Ich finde es schön, dass du dich auch um unsere neuen Benutzer kümmerst. Insbesondere, aber nicht beschränkt auf: Urheberrechtsfragen und Freigaben. Deine Beiträge sind immer freundlich und hilfreich gestaltet, in einer Form, dass es auch neue Nutzer verstehen können und nicht durch Textbausteine abgeschreckt werden. Vielen Dank dafür! Desweiteren wünsche ich dir einen erfolgreichen Start ins neue Jahr! --McZusatz (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio,
1. Könntest du bitte folgende Dateiweiterleitung löschen: File:Dendrobium Dearei.jpg. Die Originaldatei wurde aus mir unerklärlichen Gründen umbenannt und die Weiterleitung ist überflüssig.
2. Könntest Du bitte diese richtige Umbenennung vornehmen, die vor über 14 Tage beantragt wurde: Category:Phalaenopses by color
Danke und viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio,
Thank you your advice to use Flickr upload bot to upload pictures from Flickr. I requested a change in the rights to the photo you removed and have now a new upload validated by Flickr upload bot.
Cheers,
--MEContreras (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not your fault. Regrettably, there are users on Flickr who are betraying other users by claiming as own work what actually is not their own work. In case of images from Getty Images agency this is also very dangerous for re-users, as the agency may sue them for copyright infringement. --Túrelio (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BONJOUR !! Túrelio,Je ne comprend pas pourquoi mes fichiers ne respecte pas les droits d'auteur puisque que c'est moi qui est pris ces photos et l'auteur de l'image (Hergé) est mort.
ALORS J'EXIGE QUE VOUS RESTAURIEZ IMMEDIATTEMENT MES PHOTOS !!!!!
Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
und 
sehen jetzt jedenfalls besser aus! 
Comment: Its OK. Thanks anyway. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, objections/disagree, all so-called "Rules" is appropriate remains to be established.
Bild 2
Thank you. for updating info that the file is still on Commons with a new name. But I guess in renaming somebody have violated the norms by using English name for a Turkish filename. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
Info de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen#Benutzer:Overberg. Gruß.jpg)
Original
Centpacrr's version
JBarta's version
JBarta's version cropped
JBarta, another attempt from scratch
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Kirchraum.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Fisch_mit_Beine.jpg){kind=link}
,_using_non-free_promotional_license?){kind=link}
_-_Norway_national_under-21_football_team_(01)_crop.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![327 File:"Die Spinnerin".jpg](#File:"Die_Spinnerin".jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![338 File File:"Die Spinnerin".jpg](#File_File:"Die_Spinnerin".jpg){kind=link}
,_25_July_2008.jpg_&_File:Stagecoach_in_Manchester_bus_17659_(V159_DFT),_25_July_2008.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![461 "Ignatz Every Day.jpg"](#"Ignatz_Every_Day.jpg"){kind=link}
_finalene.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Kirchraum.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kirchraum.JPG){kind=link}
_Kirchraum.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arms_of_the_House_of_Savoy.svg&oldid=89891134){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arms_of_the_House_of_Savoy.svg&action=history){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File+talk%3AEduardo+Lopes.jpg×tamp=20130210234345){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adam_and_Eve-_Brauner-euresponsive_4.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kawit,Cavitejf1448_03.JPG){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sony_Xperia_U_%28ST25i%29_front_side_20130321_103546.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Fisch_mit_Beine.jpg){kind=link}
_Fisch_mit_Beine.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pAD6aRGu6j0/SwtJj1PoZfI/AAAAAAAAAAg/yXQH48z5tOg/s1600/Diapositiva1.JPG){kind=link}
![[40]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tTFdYezGXMQ/S0POeIIBfoI/AAAAAAAAITo/zgaWe02qNMQ/s320/mapa-azteca.gif){kind=link}
![[41]](http://www.xenciclopedia.com/upload/03-08/mapa_mesoamerica665.gif){kind=link}
![[42]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Aztecempirelocation.png/300px-Aztecempirelocation.png){kind=link}
![[43]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AvudZolKzMQ/UCMD3auKixI/AAAAAAAACfI/o6fYn-DCasU/s1600/LA+CULTURA+AZTECA.jpg){kind=link}
![[44]](http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/bernaldiaz/dibujo/mesoam.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/bernaldiaz/dibujo/arte1.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aztecexpansion.png){kind=link}
![[47]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Provincias_tributarias_de_la_Triple_Alianza_(s._XVI).svg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKossenblatt12.jpg&diff=96599020&oldid=96598181){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_resize.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Norway_national_under-21_football_team_(01)_crop.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stra%C5%BEnjica.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rathaus-Muelheim-Bauplanung-1911.jpg){kind=link}
_in_12_Bl%C3%A4ttern_I_Nauen.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![20:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio/Archive8#c-Martin1009-2013-07-16T20:44:00.000Z-File:"Die_Spinnerin".jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio/Archive8#c-Martin1009-2013-07-26T20:30:00.000Z-File_File:"Die_Spinnerin".jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Em_-_Equus_quagga_quagga_-_GMZ_1.jpg){kind=link}
Support alles gut --Itti (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
![[66]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-Ethnicity-2004.PNG){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shomalgharb-Iran.png){kind=link}
![[68]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerilanguage.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[71]](http://titiorchids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Flickingeria_fimbriata.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_25_July_2008.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_25_July_2008.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[82]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duchamp_-_bicycle_wheel.png){kind=link}
![[83]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ready_made_-_advertising_cards.png){kind=link}
![[84]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_monster_ready_made_%26_bespoke_clothing.png){kind=link}
![17:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio/Archive8#c-Jdcrutch-2013-11-16T17:14:00.000Z-"Ignatz_Every_Day.jpg"){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[89]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Baloujak_etiket.jpg&oldid=110631032){kind=link}
