User talk:TadejM/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

File:Slak lojze.jpg

I notice that you tagged it as "missing permission", while the uploader has marked it as his or her own work. Assuming you've found it on another website, dated before the upload, wouldn't it be easier to just use the copyvio template? If you haven't found any evidence of previous publication, how could the uploader provide any further evidence of permission?Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a personal work of the uploader. Andrejj's name (see [1]) is not 'Marko Pirc'. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, that makes sense. Perhaps a note below the template, so that the deleting admin can know the reasoning as well?Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Video posnetki

Kaj je z video posnetki objavljenimi pred letom 1970, verjetno je to delo uporabne umetnosti? Kar nekaj jih je na euscreen.eu od RTVSLO npr. [2]. --Sporti (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Videoposnetki so avdiovizualna dela (po jugoslovanskem zakonu kinematografska in kinematografskim podobna dela). Po prejšnjem zakonu so bila zaščitena 50 let po avtorjevi smrti, kar pomeni, da so prosta, če je avtor umrl pred 1. januarjem 1945. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Patrolling copyvios

Hello,

As it seems that you are interested by patrolling copyvios, some help would be welcomed on Category:Media uploaded without a license. There are currently more than 1600 files to review. Best regards, Yann (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Works of applied art

Hi! You added this to COM:CRT#Croatia:

An exception applies to the photographic and similarly-made works, and the works of applied art, which are public domain in Croatia and in the United States if published in 1970 or earlier.

Did works of applied art have a copyright term of 25 years in all parts of Yugoslavia, and do buildings, bridges and the like count as works of applied art? That is, are all buildings and bridges in the former Yugoslavia in the public domain if they were completed at least 25 years before the copyright law was changed, thereby eliminating any FOP issues concerning those works? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this did apply in all parts of Yugoslavia. For buildings, bridges and the like, the works of architecture were treated separately (see [3], Article 3: "djela s podrućja slikarstva, kiparstva, arhitekture i grafike...te ostala djela likovnih umjetnosti") and were protected for 50 years p.m.a. (Article 82). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. Too bad, then. Could you check User talk:Stefan4#NDH navy officers and say whether you think that the image should be restored, given the new information about the copyright law? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arhivi

Kar se tice fari use; na straneh kot je [4], nameravam slike zamenjati s predlogo, ki opozori uporabnika, da datoteka sicer se obstaja vendar se jo zaradi zakonskih omejitev sme uporabljati samo pod dolocenimi pogoji (nekomericalnost in navedba avtorja), znotraj WP pa samo pod pogoji postene uporabe. Glede na to, da pa Wikimedija dovoljuje, da vsaka skupnost izoblikuje svoja pravila pa bom pod lipo predlagal, da se na sl.wiki dopusti nalaganje datotek pod licenco CC-BY-NC. --Miha (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Architectural pics

Sem uploadal novo sliko Ljudskega vrta na angleško Wiki ([5]) pa me zanima ali je vse v najlepšem redu oz. ali ustreza vsem kriterijem? Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Pozdravljen, slike arhitekture lahko na angleško Wikipedijo nalagaš kot proste z uporabo predloge en:Template:FoP-USonly. Si naredil pravilno, čeprav predloga za non-free content ni potrebna. Za zgled glej sliko v en:Cock Bridge (Ljubljana). Lp, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Slovene for Template:Closed cap

Hi, Eleassar!

Are you interested in adding Slovene to Template:Closed cap? It does not yet have Slovene

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons

Zašto masovno obeležavaš slike koje imaju veze sa Slovenijom za brisanje? --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

These images are not free for Commons. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Armenian Presidential Palace.jpg

Note: This image was restored because Armenia now has full Freedom of Panorama due to a recent change in this country's laws. A pity the rest of the former Soviet Union's states don't. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a great news for the wikimovement. Congratulations! I hope we will have the full FOP in our country someday too. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi. Regarding your SCOPE DRs, might I suggest you use visual file change (perform batch task in toolbox) for multiple similar DRs which can be combined? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I usually use this tool, but have decided not to use it this time, because the user who has uploaded these images has been deceased for some time, so posting messages about the proposals at his talk page seems redundant. Thank you anyway. Best regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello Eleassar, I have posted a question about a nominated file of mine at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SloveneWikipediaMainpageScreenshot1October2012.png. Could you take a look at it? Thanks in advance, Wiki13 _talk 08:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at the cited page. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

razlogi za brisanje fotografij

Zdravo Eleassar! Nekaj časa nisem bil na straneh WMC, zdaj pa vidim, da si mi pobrisal celo serijo fotografij, ki sem jih objavil tam, čeprav sem za večino jasno napisal, da so moje delo in da jih dajem v javno last. Prosim, če daš slike nazaj na Wikimedijo, oz. da mi svetuješ, kaj je treba še storiti, da slike pridejo nazaj. Lepo se imej, --Podmejc (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pozdravljen. Za fotografije, ki so bile izbrisane, posreduj dovoljenje za objavo, kot je opisano na strani COM:OTRS oz. COM:OTRS/sl. Če bo izjava ustrezala oz. bo odgovor pozitiven, lahko na COM:UDR predlagaš obnovo slik oz. jih ponovno naložiš z ustrezno oznako. Slika File:VE v NEP Primorska & Dolenjska.jpg za Zbirko ni sprejemljiva, ker temelji na avtorsko zaščitenem zemljevidu. Podobno tudi File:Line transect.jpg (avtorsko zavarovan ortofoto posnetek). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Ireland (bordered).svg

File:Flag of Ireland (bordered).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Metrónomo (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Orebic coat of arms.gif

The linked page doesn't discuss this file at all, which means that your deletion nomination is bogus and invalid. Unless you fix this, I will be reverting very shortly... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My deletion nomination states that an OTRS-confirmed permission by Heimer is missing for this file. Please provide the missing permission. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

When I posted the above, your alleged "deletion nomination"[sic] didn't state anything whatsoever, since you didn't have a valid deletion nomination at all, but merely an invalid and bogus mess... AnonMoos (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it's still invalid, because File:Orebic coat of arms.gif needs to link directly to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Croatia, not to the other one. Please clean up your own mess, because if other people have to clean up after you, then it will be more annoying for all concerned.... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, you should reread the text of the tag instead of posting here, because File:Orebic coat of arms.gif does link both to the nomination page and the page that has been given as a similar example. "Deletion nomination" is a completely valid term,[6] so can you please find another user to teach him English and go off this page? I'm thinking about removing this section altogether, because it seems a mess to me. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Monuments of cultural heritage in Slovenia

pozdravljen Eleassar, angleščina mi ne gre preveč dobro, lahko rečem da zelo slabo, zato ti pišem v slovenščini. Če sem dobro razumel bi ti lahko naredil predlogo podobno kot jo imajo v nemški različici za avstrijske zaščitene spomenike, bil bi vesel če boš naredil predlogo da jo lahko vljučimo k slikam. Glede brisanja slik pa ne razumen kriterijev za prosto licenco, kdaj mora biti zgrajena zgradba da ima prosto licenco.lp.--KocmutD (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pozdravljen, bom pogledal. Letnica zgradbe ni pomembna, bistveno je, da je avtor umrl pred letom 1945 oz. kadar letnica arhitektove smrti ni znana, da o tem tudi ne obstaja večji dvom (npr. slike arhitekture, zgrajene pred letom 1900). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Cultural heritage

These are not temporary installations. These are flags hoisted on the Feast of the Saint Vitus, the patron of Rijeka. The feast is not necessarily celebrated solely one day, it can take a week. And so every year.
Further, the picture shows the flag with the Saint Vitus on it. Very likely the figure of the Saint Vitus is from some old cultural monument. Are You sure that the Church flags are the copyright problem? This is the flag of the Saint Vitus. [7] (blagoslovljena zastava sv. Vida)
There are some other problems with the pictures on the Commons. Persons, that are not Wikipedians, photographed and uploaded on Commons. Kubura (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did you got the information that this [8] is "temporary installation"? Kubura (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If the flag is permanently exhibited there or it depicts a figure from some old cultural monument, this should be demonstrated with a source. In my opinion, it is a still-copyrighted derived work of this stained glass, but you are welcome to prove that the copyright has expired. One-day exhibition of the flag does not mean that the work is "permanently located" in the street in my view, even if it happens every year. If you think that the "Uobičajeni šetači" is permanently on display in Rijeka, you should provide an evidence about this (like another photograph from some later date). The two nominated images are both dated to July 2008, as is also written on the pavement. In any case, this should be discussed on the relevant DR pages, not here. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dela uporabne umetnosti

V {{PD-Slovenia}} je "c) fotografija ali delo uporabne umetnosti, objavljeno pred 1. januarjem 1970". A ni arhitektura v veliko primerov tudi delo uporabne umetnosti?--Sporti (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2013 (

Arhitektura se obravnava v jugoslovanskem in v slovenskem zakonu ločeno. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Brisanje

Če kasneje boš kaj brisal izmed mojih slik, prosim samo o tistih pošlji sporočilo, ki jih verjetno morem obdržati. Ker vidiš, da tiste slike (Kranjčeva zgodba) ne bom mogel, saj kot si pisal Kranjec je avtor in je umrl samo pred tridesetimi leti. Moja pogovorna stran je polna samo teh sporočil. Vem kaj je tukaj pravilo, ampak jaz nočem takih sporočil. Doncsecz (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ta sporočila se dodajo samodejno in jih lahko odstraniš, kadar želiš. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ni res, orodje lahko prilagodis tako, da uporabnika o brisanju ne obvesti. --Miha (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A res?! Če tako meniš, potem povej, kje vidiš to možnost. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Gre za navaden JavaScript: MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js, prilagojeno verzijo si vkljucis v svoj vector.js. Zakomentirati je treba vrstico "this.addTask('notifyUploaders');" Lahko pa nardis tudi nek seznam uporabnikov, kjer se ta ukaz ne izvede in to implementiras s pomocjo if-else sintakse. --Miha (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, če se da narediti seznam uporabnikov, mi lahko prosim napišeš sintakso, da si jo prilepim v vector.js? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Arhiviral sem stran, ker drugače ne bom verjetno videl drugih sporočil zaradi teh opozoril. Doncsecz (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Rijeka Korzo Dani Sv Vida 090610 2.jpg

Hi Eleassar, since you originally nominated File:Rijeka Korzo Dani Sv Vida 090610 2.jpg for deletion, I thought you might be interested to know that someone has made a UD request here. For reference: [9], [10] -FASTILY 22:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Translated street names

Hi. I think, street names should be used in category names in their official, original form and should not be translated to some explaining English names. Nowadays, street names are used rather as a fixed text identificator than as a mere dedication. Translated names are not searchable in maps, address databases etc., even by English-language user. --ŠJů (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the name 'Poljanska street' is not the original form. I've therefore moved the content from this category to 'Poljane Street', in accordance with the general convention that names of categories should be in English. If they should be in the original language, no problem, then the category should be named 'Poljanska cesta'. Translated names have been used in reliable sources, like [11][12]. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The general rule applies primarily to common names (ie. plural names and abstract terms), not generally to propria. Just as we don't translate "Einstein" to "Onestone". English equivalents of local names are used only in cases that they are widespread and stabilized, we should not create ad hoc translations. Sources you links use the translated name just as ad hoc translation, associated with the original name, because separately would be unusable. "Poljane Street" give no response even on English-language Google maps.Category:Poljanska cesta should be the right category name, if it would be unique. However, we should use Category:Poljanska cesta (Ljubljana) to distinguish from Category:Poljanska cesta (Škofja Loka) and Category:Poljanska cesta (Opatija). --ŠJů (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is consensus that the original Slovene names should be used, it's ok for me, but I'm not willing to use them just of the discussion here. Has this been discussed somewhere before? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think, we can presume a consensus that category names should be as much usable and practical as possible. I'm convinced, the identifying function of proprial names should be strongly preferred to the explaining or narrative function. In case of Czech streets, we reached an unified form years ago without any controversy (in case of Slovakia, English translations prevail in bilingual city of Komárno, category of Veľký Meder use even Hungarian-English names) but I understand, you (Slovenes) need to discover your own consensus. I hope, Slovenia is not burdet by some language or national tension? --ŠJů (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with both options: Poljane Street and Poljanska cesta, but not half-English half-Slovene names. The consensus as far as I can see from the current names has been to use the English form, but of course, this may change. This question does not concern just you and me, but a wider community, so it should be held somewhere else. I'm not willing though to invest my time into persuading people about this or that option. Just tell me when the discussion is over. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I can see in the category of Streets in Ljubljana, the current consensus is not unified but the prevalent form are names you called "half-English half-Slovene". You became a participant of the discussion with me because you invested your time to be active in renaming the categories from one of the consensual forms to another one and I consider such change as controversial, maybe even counterproductive. To keep the specific (own) part of street names in the original adjective form and replace the common substantive with English equivalent is one of usual ways how to deal with similar names. Just the conversion from adjective form to substantive form makes the name unusable. You should abstain such changes as long as you have not clear support for them. Maybe, you should consult creators of the affected categories before such changes. --ŠJů (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The current non-unified state does not seem satisfiable to me and I don't see any consensus to use the original adjective form. Why should then I keep it as the original creators have done, particularly because there has been no opposition from them?... I somehow can't see what makes you think that using fully translated names makes them unusable. On the other hand, not using them seems sloppy. Of course, if my actions are counterproductive, you should take me to COM:AN/U... --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rižana

Hi Eleassar, just wanted to say thanks for your help. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate my work. Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Azamara from the streets of Koper.jpg

Dear Eleassar,

you proposed the deletion of a long line of images about Slovenia. Among them was this picture, with old houses and a detail of a ship, about which you said you were not sure, but maybe the this infringes the rights of the ship's creators. You also said, the community will decide. Somebody reacted, that you yourself proposed this picture earlier for the Picture of the day on the Slovenian wiki or something like that.

There was no other discussion, support for the deletion, but the image was deleted in a semi-automatic mood a couple of days later because "there is no FOP in Slovenia".

Do you think your behaviour is consequent and useful for the wiki? I feel deeply disturbed in my feelings after a twenty-odd year old acquaintance and intense sympathy with your country.

Of course the picture in itself is not that important for me, it is the principles of your activity which I don't understand. I would appreciate an answer.

Regards--Szilas (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about this image and have brought it up at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright on naval architecture. It is currently unclear whether the photograph does or does not violate the copyright of the designer. However, the rough consensus seems to be that deletion without a precedent case has been premature. I'm therefore willing to propose its undeletion at COM:UDR. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reaction. There is a rich selfstanding category about that ship [13], many of the images are made in Koper by me. I suppose they deserve the same treatment. Not to speak about the miriads of other ship photos... --Szilas (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've posted an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Azamara from the streets of Koper.jpg. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it.--Szilas (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kapela Žalostna Matere Božje

Nedavno si izbrisal sliko o budinski kapeli, ker si rekel, da je čisto nova zgradba. Nedeljo sem bil tam in sem pogledal informacijsko tablo. Kapela je postavljena leta 1855, obnovili so jo leta 2001. Zato sem jo spet postavil na commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kapejla_Zalosne_Materi_Boze,_Budinci.JPG Doncsecz (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kapelica je očitno res iz leta 1855. Kdaj pa je bilo postavljeno razpelo? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ni bil na raspelu datum postavljenja, niti nič niso pisali na tabli. Zaradi rezanja po mojem je staro to raspelo. Pri nas so tudi taki leseni križi, ki so verjetno zelo stari, ampak ne poznamo leta postavljanja, ker ni napisano. Tiste križe smo že vidli na starih zemljevidih iz 19. stoletja. Tradicija lesenih križev se vrni do 16.-17. stoletja. Videl sem, da so nekaj starih zemljevidov prekmurskih vasi postavili na internet. Če bi našel zemljevid o Budincih, tam lahko bi pogledal, če je že tam bil ta križ. Doncsecz (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Predloga

Zdravo, a bi tole: in Slovenia the publication right applies only to works published on 29 April 1995 or later. That is, if a photograph was created before 1 January 1970 and published before 29 April 1995, it is free, lahko dodal v predlogo za Slovenijo. Ipos 06:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sem dopolnil predlogo in smernico. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dovoljenje

Ampak kako misliš, da prosim od brata dovoljenje? Mi je dovolil, da slikam fotografije o prireditvi v naselju, ni pisal pisnega dovoljenja. To je tudi pustil, da tak postavim slike na commons, če bi bile moje. Drugače pa midva sva skupaj tvorila te kupe, torej jaz sem tudi avtor, ne samo moj brat. Doncsecz (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Če je tudi tvoj brat oblikoval te pokale, kot praviš, potem mora poslati pisno dovoljenje, kot je opisano na COM:OTRS. Za podoben primer glej npr. [14], [15]. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Imam že to dovoljenje: napisala sva, brat ga je podpisal in pečatil. Poskusim ga odposlati. Doncsecz (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Odposlal sem dovoljenje ORTS-u. Upam, da bodo dobili. Doncsecz (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Apology

It appears I have misunderstood the "neighbouring rights" section and far from being irrelevant is actually quite relevant to this non-artistic photograph-like image. My confidence that I was right and you were wrong was misplaced. I have made a fool of myself. I am sorry for insulting you with this and with my, at times, unnecessarily blunt language. I do appreciate that copyright enforcement is one of the most stressful yet necessary activities one can perform here, and I haven't made your job any easier. Please accept my apologies. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have reconsidered your opinion as well as your apology. Thank you. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Pogovori

Prosim, da svoja sporocila puscas v za to namenjenem prostoru. Hvala. --Miha (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hvala --Miha (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi mate, I am very familiar with your work here on Commons and you do have a very good grasp of copyright issues, and you are always ready to help others, and I believe you would make a good admin. Is this something you would consider? I'd be happy to nominate you, or you are free to nom yourself; either way I would like to see an COM:RFA from you. Cheers, russavia (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Russavia. Thank you for your trust and positive assessment. I already held the adminship for some time, but have then lost it due to inactivity. I would be willing to accept it again, primarily so that I could review and transfer the deleted files from this project to other projects (in accordance with their EDPs), as well as translate and edit the user interface. In my opinion, I could contribute a lot to the project in this regard. In addition, the Slovene Wikimedians currently have only one administrator in Commons, who has been revoked of his adminship in the Slovene Wikipedia and has no contact with the community at large. I could also help here.

On the other hand, at times I have been heavily criticised by a number of users in the Slovene Wikipedia as too pedantic and causing damage (and frankly, at times I have also been impolite to them, which is not ok even though I've suffered much more impoliteness from their side). There are also other users who for different reasons feel resentment towards me. They would certainly be happy to vote against me and discredit me.

In short, I will accept the nomination if you decide to nominate me. However, as the adminship is a political game and a game of numbers, I'm not sure it would pass at the moment, and I also won't have time for so much work next year. It would probably be better to postpone this for some time. As an alternative, I could recommend User:Yerpo. He has a good grasp of copyright, and as he stays out of controversies, he could more easily gain enough support. However, I'm not sure he would be willing/have time for this currently. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to say that I would happily support a nomination, whether it occurs now or some time in the future. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and encouragement. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Eleassar,

just for your inforamtion, User:Pava reuploaded the files that were deleted by Fastily after this discussion. Best regards.--FAEP (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've notified Fastily. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not received concrete answers and really related to the problem but only general practice of the Rules of commons, not applicable to my case. Instead of arguing answer my request for information was stored. Congratulations anyway for not having the slightest notified of this discussion, not for correctness, you collaborate on commons together and communicate, as the name itself. --Pava (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: The user is FAEP for years that focuses in discrediting my actions and make me look bad, and I pursued with continuous roll back on my contributions, I have already notified the admin User:King of Hearts but it will be fed up with this thing after several blocks to childish nonsense stew that everyone, myself for months --Pava (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

if the file you want to delete, please its cancellation must be discussed in a decent way, and with valid arguments in a coherent and rational, the cancellation did not occur in an optimal way, and my doubts were not given answers --Pava (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

about this: User_talk:Fastily#Files_reuploaded_by_Pava Before taking measures, it would be appreciated (and correct) to participate in this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:" 12 - ITALY - Manichino carrozzeria Bertone per Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint - wood tecnical model.JPG and deal with the problem again because some issues are not resolved. Please if you do it I would be very grateful. Tank you :) --Pava (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Plaques in Vilnius

Hi! Could you do me a favor and check Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/12#Files in Category:Plaques in Vilnius? I think i got all the keepers but would appreciate if you could double check? Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. We've discussed File:Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius Plaque in Vilnius.JPG and have agreed to keep it, because it was created in the 19th century. In addition, File:Juliusz Slowacki Wilno1.JPG is in the public domain, because the author died in 1935. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed and DR closed. Thanks for having a peek! :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cropped images from Slovenia

Hi! I cropped five images from Slovenia. Feel free to look at Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/26#File:Balcony (2309312831).jpg and down from there and comment. Also I need help in categorizing (Category:Ljubljana is not enough). Taivo (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the crops. I've reviewed them and commented on them, and recategorised the images. Please let me know if anything else is needed. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't find it in the CNG database?

What do you mean "You can't find it in the CNG database?" CNG database includes coins "for sale". Once coins are sold, they are normally taken out of the Classical Numismatic Group database. The coin you proposed for deletion was in the CNG database some 6 years ago and it's probably sold by now. The licence does not restrict to ONLY coins on sale, but includes all other coins displayed in the past and now already sold. --Odysses (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The license is unverifiable; if you at least could provide the original url, perhaps the image could be found using the WaybackMachine.[16] I suggest that in the future you specify the exact url and use {{LicenseReview}} when uploading images. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How can I provide a url I came up 6 years ago? As I mentioned above they keep on updating the list by adding/removing items so not all items are verifiable. Do you mean that all these coins listed under Category:CNG coins provide the exact url? Most of them provide the main "CNG coins (http://www.cngcoins.com)" url. I don't think it's possible to always verify the original url. At this point I can only add the main "CNG coins (http://www.cngcoins.com)" url. --Odysses (talk)

I'm not quite sure how this goes. There are images of coins that have been sold years ago, e.g. [17]. Of course, not all of these images provide the exact url, but many of them do. I think it will be best if you voice your opinion at the linked discussion page, and let the community decide. Don't forget to write the sale number, the lot number, and other details when uploading images from the CNG (e.g. Sale: CNG 61, Lot: 2149). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Take these random coins for example, listed in the Media in category "CNG coins" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 to name but a few. They don't provide any url or it's unverifiable, and frankly I cannot see any such instructions asking them to do so.

In which page should I let the community decide? --Odysses (talk)

Here. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the original URL for File:Stymphalian bird.jpg. This file has a "verifiable source" and should not be deleted. --Odysses (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, same for me. I suddenly find many coins I uploaed on nomination for deletion. Over the last years, I am uploaded many coins from the CNG database. Evidently these images disappear from the database after they are sold. So far as I can see most of the images are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Items_with_OTRS_permission_confirmed (example File:Zamarzp.jpg, so somebody checked the permission, when the coins were still on the database. -- Udimu (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, see [18]. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Median Empire.JPG defense for retention.

1. 01:04, 12 March 2005 1,306 × 735 (145 KB)Crux Median Empire about 600 B.C. PCL Map Collection - "Used by permission of the University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin." Template:PD­-US

2. The original work appears to be hand colored, a process predating 1905 lithography, and 1923 printing presses, and therefore exempt. If you will provide the publishers name and phone number, I will call and get the clearance.

3. There appears to be no complaint by the Copyright holder. Why should the public wealth be diminished without a complaint from the owner? Perhaps bulk works from Encyclopedias should wait for a stakeholder complaint.

I found the work very useful, in my own case I wondered "Where was ancient Susa located, as mentioned from the books of Esther, Daniel, and Jeremiah?" The answer is Iran, 32.191417,48.24598.

It is a significant amount of work. About 34,000 entries, over 3,089 calendar days, about 2,206 working days, at 8 hours each means about every 30 minutes, less breaks.

Please, post your scruples at the linked DR page. As the date of the publication is 1923 per the information on the description page and also stated here, it evidently does not pass the Template:PD-1923 criteria. As to the complaint of the copyright holder, this is per COM:PRP an irrelevant argument. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

missing artist information

Hi Eleassar, your last DR reminded me again of a problem I had stumbled upon rather often. Photos of sculptures, old or new, and photos of (old) paintings, without any information about the sculptor/painter/artist. Are you aware whether we have any template "original sculptor/artist missing"? I didn't find anything in Category:Problem tags. We do have {{Photographer missing}} (totally unused) and {{Author missing}}, but the latter is just "to show when the author field in {{Information}} is empty". --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please link to the DR that you're discussing? As far as I have checked, the nominated files all depict work that has been created less than 70 years ago or at least it is very probable that the sculptor was still living less than 70 years ago, even if he is unknown. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. This has absolutely nothing to do with you. The files in your DR were just a reminder for me, I had thought about this missing template already earlier. See, for example: File:Saint Francis of Assisi Church, Tepeaca, Puebla state, Mexico .jpg,File:0058 Igreja Sagrada Família em Porto Alegre .jpg,File:Andre da Rocha 65.JPG, File:Carlos Thompson Flores.JPG. All are missing information about the original artist, even though some may be o.k. per FOP. So, again, I am just looking for a fitting template. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for having clarified this. Unfortunately, I don't know of any such template, but it would be very useful. Please, let me know if you create one. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

All this drive for deleting images

Can you please make me understand why are you spending so much energy deleting images and severely impacting the Wikipedia articles using the affected images? I am not saying that cleanup is not necessary or that some images have incomplete information, but if you want to do something positive, why don't you spend the time to find sources for the images that lack them. Simply creating hundreds for deletion requests seems very negative and nonconstructive. Even better, how about finding places in articles for images less utilized? Or even taking pictures and contributing here. That would be a positive contribution. Have you considered that many users who posted images here are not active for months. If they don't answer to your deletion requests, some of which are not really warranted, the images are gone. Gone from articles. Gone from Commons. How about attempting communication with those users and give them time to respond or add missing information. Sorry to say it, from my point of view, your activity is creating more damage than solving problems. And that defeats the purpose of it. Honest feedback. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Codrinb, I find that Eleassar is productive, and nominating images for deletion that shouldn't be on Commons due to a number of reasons, particularly lack of FOP, isn't destructive but is in fact productive and is saving the project from dealing with problematic images down the track. We need to accept these policies, and we should simply be taking such deletions on the chin. Of course, there is more that editors can do, in that they are able to lobby governments to change their laws to be more open to issues such as FOP. All in all, Eleassar does a great job here on Commons, and for that they should be commended, not attacked. russavia (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all but "productive" at "deleting", is as far as possible from the intended meaning of the word "productive". "Deleting" goes better with "destructive", not matter how well intended might seem to be the work. Don't you think that "productive" and "creating" go much better together? You can always pick the way you contribute to WP as a volunteer. I simply don't understand why some people use their time to run the delete drives. Cleaning up and adding missing information, in good faith and friendly dialogue with the contributors is something completely different than nominating hundreds of files for deletion, some warranted but some with the most ridiculous reasons. It is the difference between positive and negative, day and night.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Say that User:AFakePersonForUseInAnalogies goes to Amazon, saves a picture of Miley Cyrus's new album cover, and uploads it here. That is a clear copyright violation, and it needs to be deleted. Unfortunately, stupid as it seems, the same needs to be applied to photos of the Milau viaduct, public information boards in the UK, the bull on Wall Street... They're all copyright violations, and so they need to be deleted. That we feel one law is stupid is neither here nor there, we are bound to obey them. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of two images

Hy, I Understand the COM:FOP#Romania, but what can i do, to save my images from deletion? (File:I. Apafi Mihály szobra Nagyernyében 1.jpg, File:I. Apafi Mihály szobra Nagyernyében 2.jpg) Is there any way to keep them? They aren't uploaded for commercial purposes.

Yours sincerely, --Fmvh (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to find out the sculptor and ask him, if he is still living, for permission. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Tanzania

In case you didn't notice: I changed your wording of COM:FOP#Tanzania because the quoted article in the copyright law doesn't list photography as one of the permitted methods of reproduction. This might mean that the situation in Tanzania is similar to that in South Africa in that we allow video recordings but not photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Per Part I, Preliminary provisions, ""audiovisual work" means a work that consists of a series of related images which impart the impression of motion, with or without accompanying sounds, susceptible of beIng made visible, and where accompanied by sounds, susceptible of being made audible." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is very strange to have FOP for films but not for photos, so maybe we are missing something in the law. As I see it, you could go to the building with a film camera, make a short film (say five seconds) and upload that film, but you can't take a photo of it, which would serve the same purpose. I guess that this prevents various paper products, but that's about it. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Endoscopic images by Hellerhoff

Hi Eleassar, IMO it would be more appropriate to file 1 regular DR instead of the speedy-like no-perms for File:Riesenfaltengastritis Endoskopie 003.jpg, File:Riesenfaltengastritis Endoskopie 001.jpg, File:Riesenfaltengastritis Endoskopie 002.jpg, as a permission was expressedly mentioned already at upload and as in User_talk:Hellerhoff#Mentioned_you Hellerhoff has stated that he will ask the hospital's legal dep. So, a DR would give him more time. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

After the discussion, it is clear that there is significant doubt medical images are free in Germany, so I have begun to search and tag/remove those that are not own work. These three are the first ones that I stumbled upon, but I think that there may be others that also need a permission by the copyright holder. I can convert the tags to a regular DR, however due to his statement that he will get a permission perhaps {{OTRS pending}} would be better (DRs are often closed after 7-14 days, whereas OTRS pending stays open longer). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that might even be better and seems to be fully justified, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Ljubljana

Hi Eleassar, I was reading Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Ljubljana, and honestly, I'm not sure what is still nominated for deletion and what isn't (e.g. withdrawn). When you have a moment, do you think you could make me a list of the files still nominated for deletion? Thanks, FASTILY 09:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged those that I think are free with {{Withdraw}} in the "Fæ's contact sheet". --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I kindly aks you to explain this diff. It's strange for you to withdraw from the withdrawal of 30 images with no explanation. Especially because Fastily's message posted above clearly indicates it's only your opinion that counts in Slovenia related DRs. Thank U.  ℳ₪Zaplotnik  09:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The explanation has been given in the DR.[19] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read all discussion but honestly I just can't see any connection with kept images. Some photos of non-figurative graffiti with fancy and "creative" letters were kept (for example File:Graffiti Ljubljana 44.JPG or File:Graffiti Ljubljana 30.jpg) as well as some photos of figurative graffiti like File:Grafit_Gregorčičeva.JPG or File:Ljubljana (4972684677).jpg. I see no logic in the result of this DR.  ℳ₪Zaplotnik  11:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have another look and nominate for deletion those that should be deleted but were not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How about those that were deleted but shoud not be? --Sporti (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about any of these (the ones cited above have been left out because I have been too lenient and have considered them too simple or de minimis, but MZaplotnik is correct, these should be deleted too), but if you do, feel welcome to nominate them for undeletion at COM:UDR. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

AN/U

How about letting someone else have a say. Step away from your watchlist. Go help keep an image rather than delete one. Colin (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How about you going keep an image rather than running around and calling people "destructive problem"? -- Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate deletion nominations for a media that is not a sculptural work

Dear Eleassar. Thank you for your deletion nominations. However, when you are making a nomination for deletion could you please check if such media was already nominated and if the decision was made to keep it? This can also be seen on the page where you have written your notification. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Oleg (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Oleg, I've decided to nominate the image for review despite this older discussion that I'm fully aware of. It has not been brought up at the time that the stone is decorated with an image of two swords and with a symbol, both of which in my opinion surpass the threshold of originality. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Than it makes sense - thanks for your clarification. Oleg (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• If I'll cover (erase) the symbol with a black box (to remove potential work of art) will we be able to use the image? Thanks. Oleg (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Both images are copyrightable, however if you cover both, I have no problem keeping it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I got it. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Delette request

File:Vladivostok distencemonument.JPG it was dicust last year and keeped. See here [20] --Toen96 (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the decision should be reviewed because the entire column is an artwork, not just the eagle at the top that was the focus of the discussion. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

COM:DM#Iceland

I see that you added a section for Iceland to COM:DM, but you missed one thing: "Ákvæði 1. mgr. gilda ekki um tölvuforrit og gagnagrunna." That is, COM:DM#Iceland does not apply to computer programs or databases. I'm not sure exactly what this means. It could mean that you can't include anything incidentally in a computer program or a database, but it could also mean that you can't include computer programs or databases incidentally in other works. If it is the former, then COM:DM#Iceland seems to be unfree as it must be possible to include a Commons photo in a computer program or a database.

Note that article 16 of the law contains a separate de minimis clause for FOP cases which doesn't exclude computer programs or databases, so if the above has the effect that all Icelandic de minimis images need to be deleted, it shall not have the effect that FOP de minimis cases are deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for having pointed this out. I just spotted that Article 10 is related to DM and have added it to the page, but have not researched further, so I can't help much in this regard. I'll appreciate any improvement that you'll make to the section. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting how different countries' DM laws differ. For example, the Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Finnish laws only mention incidental inclusion of artworks, but do not mention incidental inclusion of literary works. I don't know if this means that we need to delete de minimis cases where the included item is a literary work (for example text or a map) or if something else saves those. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking at Commons talk:De minimis about the Icelandic issue, by the way. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DRs

Please try to use common sense and some measure when creating DRs. Don't nominate just everything you see. It might be fun for you but this is creating a lot of unnecessary work for other people and can result in deleting free files as admins don't have time to study each case. --Sporti (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sporti. Please refrain to request a deletion for everything. Beside you have already been told not to do so. Yann (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I do use common sense and measure when creating DRs. I do not request a deletion for everything. You're doing a disservice to the project by closing as 'keep' the nominations of the files that are unfree. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, your requests are way beyond common sense. You really need to stop creating new DRs until you realise that. Yann (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My requests are mostly deleted (except by you). I think you should take this to COM:AN/U. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop bullshit please, see File:Moscow, Rubtsovskaya 4 Aug 2009 02.JPG, the latest among many others. Two experienced editors agreed that your request is wrong. Yann (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My requests are mostly deleted (except by you), and I'm also an experienced editor. As you had a conflict with me in the past, why don't you just let others close the DRs that I create, instead of causing harm to Commons with keeping unfree files as a form of taking a revenge on me? Just one example among the many... --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your requests cause many free files to get deleted because there is often no one interested in arguing with you and admins don't have time to study each case close enough. So free files like these and many others get deleted and you are the one "doing a disservice to the project". --Sporti (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you evidently have the time to study each of my proposals close enough, and you always voice a dissenting opinion. Why do the administrators (except for Yann) then almost always delete the images I propose? They could easily keep them as 'nothing copyrightable here'. I don't think this has to do with the lack of time. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does - an admin closed all these DRs (and countless others) at a rate of 5 or 6 per min. --Sporti (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the closing admin's rationale, you should contact the closing admin. I'm not responsible for his work, and if he doesn't take time to review the DRs carefully, that's not my problem. He had both my and your opinion at disposal. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I disagree with many but I don't intent to dedicate my life only to fixing your cock-ups. Evidently admins just don't have the time[21] (is it not a user problem but a system problem) so just don't toy with DRs. --Sporti (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I never toy with DRs, and anyone who opens a number of DRs makes a cock-up from time to time. In general, my proposals are reasonable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, it is abundantly clear you view DR as a game and where you have a vastly inflated opinion of your own knowledge and usefulness to the project. Your responses above demonstrate again a refusal to listen to anyone who questions what you are up to. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moscow, Rubtsovskaya 4 Aug 2009 02.JPG is a classic example of you once again inventing copyright laws out of your own head. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sirius A and B Hubble photo.jpg shows you nominating for deletion an image that would have taken you less time to fix (the credit and appropriate licence choice). It seems to me you are more interested in playing this game (how many files can I get deleted today) than actually working to fix Commons files so they are appropriately licensed or to work to produce a body of copyright information that might help our uploaders avoid such issues. Shame on you, Eleassar. The sooner you find a different hobby, the better for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh.. What is abundantly clear here is that you fail to assume good faith as long as its about me. Shame on you therefore, Colin. The first case has been concluded incorrectly, without appropriate evidence that the image is indeed free (except for opinions, which by themselves are not evidence of a threshold of originality). For the second case, I've missed that the correct license is CC-BY, so thanks to Mike; I've withdrawn on it (and corrected the licensing). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh I assume good faith on your part. You intend to do well for Commons. And are mystified when people come to your talk page to question your actions -- because you are so full of yourself than you think you can't possibly be doing anything harmful. Do you realise that on the second case you wasted people's time? On the first is yet another example of you re-opening a DR and failing. Again wasting people's time and insulting the creators who took/uploaded the work. And do you not think that perhaps if several people disagree with your opinion on that DR that either they may have a point (and you are wrong) or else a wider discussion is needed to show that those other admins are wrong (and you are right). Continuing to fight people by re-opening DRs is ... wasting people's time. And insulting. Do you see the pattern? You just aren't suited to this and should find something more productive to do on Commons. Colin (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the will to discuss this in detail with you. Take it to AN/U, explain there that I'm doing harm to the project and ask the administrators to block me indefinitely. I don't care anymore. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you carry on this attitude, then I'm sure your block will come. You need to stop with this "take it to AN/U" bullshit and start listening to people. Colin (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This comment states all about your attitude. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

FOP note

You do a lot of fop drs -- you may find this useful:
{{Drfop}}
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.

or
{{drfop|Someplace}}
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Someplace.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Crossnamespacelinkstext/sl and MediaWiki:Crossnamespacelinks/sl

Hi, do you remember what MediaWiki:Crossnamespacelinkstext/sl and MediaWiki:Crossnamespacelinks/sl were for? From what I find out, no MediaWiki code is referring to a system message with this name. I figured to ask you as the only editor who edited the two pages. --whym (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There was or still is a special page listing cross-namespace redirects. These were, I guess, translations for that page. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to delete them? If it is indeed an obsolete feature, deleting the unused messages will slightly reduce confusion. If you are unsure, that's ok, too.--whym (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Older copyright terms for Yugoslavia

I was reading in SOU 1956:25, a preparatory document for the Swedish copyright act, and found a section about copyright terms in other countries as of 1956. On page 339, I find the following:

I Bulgarien varar skyddet under upphovsmannens livstid samt därefter till förmån för hans hustru under hennes livstid och till förmån för hans barn till dess barnen blivit myndiga. Motsvarande princip gäller i Jugoslavien, där skyddet dock åtnjutes även av vissa andra anhöriga.
In Bulgaria, the copyright protection lasts for the lifetime of the author and thereafter for the benefit of his wife during her lifetime and for the benefit of his children until the children have reached the age of majority. The same principle is used in Yugoslavia, although protection also is enjoyed by certain other relatives.

Based on this quote, the copyright term didn't expire at a fixed number of years after the death of the author, but was instead connected to the death of the author and certain relatives and possibly also to the year of birth of his children. Depending on when the other people died and when the children were born, I assume that this sometimes meant that the copyright protection may have expired immediately upon the death of the author, if he was the longest living of all of those people. However, templates such as {{PD-Slovenia}} have a fixed rule demanding death before 1945. Do you know if the copyright was restored at some point or if the works which entered the public domain based on the rules listed in the Swedish document still are in the public domain in the former Yugoslavia? Also, do you know when the law was changed and when the terms in {{PD-Slovenia}} were introduced? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As you may read here (pg. 13), in 1957 a new act was passed and the copyright was retroactively restored for all works, also for those that had already become public domain according to the previous act, to last for 50 years p.m.a. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. So no use for us, then. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Slike Almaty

Spravujem se, zakaj nimate vprai anj za to sliko Ljubljani ?

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Eleassar. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, TadejM. You have new messages at ArildV's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vištica i Ivica photo

Bok! Zakaj si označil mojo fotografijo za brisanje? Public event - Karneval ih Rijeka Se sprdajo na karnevale s tudi.

subject to cancel my subscription

I am looking forward to hearing from me and my account details are incorrect or incomplete transmission error has misdirected this email address and password is closed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.39.185.173 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

E-mail sent to you

Eleassar, I sent you a e-mail a few days ago. If you could be so kind to look for it in inbox and send me a reply. Thanks.--Ma▀▄Ga 16:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reluctant to answer by email. You can just write it here if you wish. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, don't worry, I'm not asking anything illegal. Please, read my e-mail and after thad decide if you want to answer or not. Thank you.--Ma▀▄Ga 05:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Is there a specific reason for you to mass delete (e.g. request from the copyright owner)? Are you paid for this? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No, are you paid for uploading photographs outside the scope of the project? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot interpret your answer. Seems that No should be its own sentence? I'll repeat my question: What is your motivation to delete images for which nobody will ever claim copyright violation (since it also did not happen the last 60 years)? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The motivation is that I care about this project. Its mission is to provide photographs that are free for any use and may be freely reused. The ones that have been proposed for deletion do not meet this criterion. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't get caught in the shop stealing a sandwich because the shop's owner didn't bother to run after you, that does not make your act rightful. The same is here. If you reuse non-free content for commercial purpose without seeking the author's permission, you're infringing their copyright, which is similar to intellectual theft.[22] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we gather information from other sources. We are copying. Because we believe in free knowledge. Imo it is very clear that Wikipedia itself mass violates copyright. In random cases these violations will be brought to courtyard where there will be a random judgement. Therefore I find it rather strange to execute copyright violations in advance. Having images in local Wikipedias instead on commons for everyone is not the Wikipedia spirit.

People who use my photos do very often not correctly follow the terms of the cc-by-sa. But I don't sue them because that's not the mission. I don't do it for money obviously.

http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5123

I just took a look over the Slovenian law. Why is this country actually considered to lack freedom of panorama? There are quite some exceptions for §47. Especially §55 sounds very much like applicable freedom of panorama to me. Also §51.1 seems to allow Encyclopedia use. In those fuzzy cases the upper courtyard decides. I assume you are Slovenian? Did you ever hear of a lawsuit in that context? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we're not violating copyright. At least not deliberately. What makes you think so? On the contrary, the project actively seeks and removes copyright infringements.

If you don't sue them, that doesn't mean they are not acting against the law and depriving you of your rights.

The freedom of panorama in Slovenia is limited to use for non-commercial purposes, which is not free enough for Wikipedia and Commons. So far, there has been no lawsuit, but:

a) This does not abolish our principle to offer as free only that which truly is free (it would be unethical to do otherwise); and

b) The EU legislation is getting ever stricter (and our Office for Intellectual Property just recently reiterated Article 55). It's just a matter of time and we absolutely want to stay out of this. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree to what you say about Wikipedia copyright violations. It is my personal impression because I know the way Wikipedians work. Especially long time contributors are never questioned and only have one source that is actually copyright protected.

Not sure if you got what I'm saying bout §55. You stated The freedom of panorama in Slovenia is limited to use for non-commercial purposes. This seems to be a citation. Can you provide a source (outside Wikipedia)?

Because when I read §51 and §55 I get a different impression. At least the cited lines are wrong and lost their context. The full text is available in English as well http://www.uil-sipo.si/fileadmin/upload_folder/zakonodaja/ZASP_EN_2007.pdf

The statement COM:FOP Slovenia about consensus I cannot find in the original document (imo describes the opposite of extended owner rights under 4. Enabling access and documenting) http://www.arhiv.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/min_eng/legislation/CHPA.pdf .

In best case there should be an official statement from https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/counsel/ it seems to me that Aymatth2 who wrote the article is not part of that group.

Article 55 
Works located in generally accessible premises 
(1)  Works  permanently  placed  in  parks,  streets,  squares,  or  other  generally  accessible premises may be used freely. 
(2)  Works  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  paragraph  may not  be  reproduced  in  a  three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain. 
(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used.

This wording is even more open than the Austrian one (which is considered FOP. There the term public space is used). I really wonder where the conclusions in COM:FOP Slovenia come from. --Thomas Ledl (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This statement is written in Article 55 itself (may not be used for economic gain) and has also been reiterated by the Slovenian Office for Intellectual Property: "za uporabo varovanih del v komercialne namene treba pridobiti soglasje imetnika avtorske pravice. [For the reuse of copyrighted works for commercial purposes, the copyright owner's consent must be sought.]"[23] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how this newspaper article can be a better source than the original ZASP cited above. The blog from jean marie cavada does not even mention Slovenia (and #2 it is a blog and #3 this guy is confusing things).

Article 51 
Quotations 
(1)  It  shall  be  permissible  to  make  quotations  of  parts  of  a  disclosed  work  and  of  single disclosed  photographs,  works  of  fine  arts,  architecture,  applied  art,  industrial  design and cartography, provided it is necessary for the purpose of illustration, argumentation or referral. 
(2) In cases stated in the foregoing paragraph, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used. 

Would you agree to postpone your deletion requests until I can contact Wikimedia counsel? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Article 51 allows for commercial reuse of copyrighted works in public spaces. Certainly, feel welcome to contact the Counsel. These images won't get deleted right away in any case. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Brisanje prve redakcije z zvokom

Pozdravljen, a lahko priskočiš na pomoč pri nekaj Sportijevih posnetkih, naloženih z YouTuba? Spodaj navedenim posnetkom bi bilo treba izbrisati samo prvo različico, ki vsebuje avtorsko zaščiteno glasbeno podlago. Odpreti navaden DR bi bilo preveč zamudno, zato raje prosim za tvojo pomoč. Hvala! MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Rally Velenje (Skorno pri Šoštanju), 30-05- 2015.webm

File:Marš za Muro - Marsch Für Die Mur.webm

File:Trening varne vožnje. B & B.webm

File:Portorož • Slovenia • slovenska obala.webm

File:Struggling on CRAZY roots in Kranjska Gora- Vlog 10- 2018.webm

File:Vojna za Slovenijo-Rožnik 1991.webm

File:In Krvavec Heavens!.webm

File:S kolesom po Ljubljani 15 01 2019 Šiška - Center.webm

File:S kolesom po Ljubljani iz Centra v Fužine.webm

File:Bikepark Maribor Pohorje 2019 Sick Edit ●Goproedit -27.webm

File:Hyperlapse Nova Gorica 1.webm

File:Hyperlapse Nova Gorica 2.webm

File:TECAJ UREJANJA IZLOŽB NA LJUDSKI UNIVERZI KOPER.webm

File:Vaja GZ Cerknica – DS Smith Rakek.webm

File:Sestavljanje dvigala - Timelapse - TŠC Nova Gorica.webm

File:Praznik Češenj Goriška Brda - Festa delle ciliege Dobrovo 2012.webm

Pozdravljen! Velja. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Urejeno. Lp. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hvala za hiter odziv! MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)