Calm down, understand how to correctly license an image for the Commons or continue with your behaviour and you will be banned. --Denniss21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo ALE!. Herzlichen Glückwunsch. Du bist mit 100% Zustimmung und einer (für Commonsverhältnisse) beeindruckenden Unterstützerliste zum Commonsadmin gewählt worden. Ich hoffe du bleibst uns hier noch lange erhalten vor allem angesichts deiner Arbeit mit den Bildrechten und lässt dich nicht von Idioten kirre machen. Falls du gleich mal loslegen magst: Die Anzahl der URV's in Category:Against policy und Category:Unknown müssen wir irgendwie innerhalb der nächsten Tage und Wochen dringend reduzieren. Ansonsten ist es natürlich auch gut noch mehr Admins im IRC in #wikimedia-commons zu haben, weil auch dort viele Benutzer um Hilfe bei Bildrechten suchen, auf Vandalen aufmerksam machen usw... Wenn noch irgendwelche Fragen sind frag mich einfach. ;-) Viele Grüße, Arnomane15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ein ziemlich nerviger Benutzer ... . Bezüglich Deines Kommentars bei der Benutzersperrung ein Hinweis (falls es Dir noch keiner gesagt hat): Bei temporärer Sperrung kann ein Benutzer meines Wissens nach immer noch auf seiner eigenen Benutzerseite schreiben. Ich würde mich nicht weiter aufregen und seine Benutzerseite revertieren (die meisten Bilder sind eh gelöscht). Wenn der nach seiner Sperrung weitermacht wie vorher wird er bald entsorgt (indef). --Denniss18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo ALE!, falls Du es noch nicht bemerkt haben solltest, ich bin jetzt auch in den Commons aktiv, vor allem um meine Bilder international nutzbar zu machen. Als ich gesehen habe, welcher Quatsch in der englischen Wikipedia über Mensur drinsteht, habe ich mich sofort hier und bei den Engländern angemeldet. --Rabe!13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, quería saber si estamos seguros que la licencia PD-AR-Presidency cumple con los requerimientos de commons? es decir, puedo legalmente tomar una imagen del sitio de presidencia y usarla para imprimir un poster y comercializarlo?, puedo usar partes de esas fotografías, editarlas y crear nuevas obras?, el fotógrafo que tomó las fotos no tiene derecho a ningún reclamo sobre esas imágenes?. Me gustaría saber hasta dónde está asegurado todo eso para no tener ningún tipo de problemas en el futuro. Gracias y saludos. --Martin Rizzo22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
They are not panoramas, but close-up photos of the maps. From what I have read (I am not a lawyer), displaying a map in a public place for the public to read does not waive the author's copyright in the US or the UK. There is no mention at Commons:Licensing of the German panorama doctrine applying in the UK or US, so I don't think Commons allows us to mark the images as GFDL.
For clarity, I have tagged the panorama assertion in the image description.
These are good maps and it may be a good idea to contact the rights holders of the original maps to request a release—they may be able to offer us higher quality reproductions for the encyclopedias.
I an wondering if it is right to keep this photo. By saying that the photo is kept, we are saying that Mrs. Akamu does not own the copyright to the statue. This is cleraly wrong, Leonardo da Vinci never completed his horse. Mrs. Akamu had to remodel it from the bottom, as stated on leonardoshorse.org. The site also claims that Sculpture & Website Contents Copyright & Trademark 1997-2002, Leonardo da Vinci's Horse, Inc. All rights reserved.
I aslo notice that a similar photo on en.wikipedia has a fair use tag. Maybe you should reconsider the keeping of Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg? You can not compare a newly made statue based upon a long lost work with a photo of an old PD photo, as you did in the deletion request.
I have a problem with the restitution of this page. I put one additional file but not title was generated while edit seems correct. Where is the matter?
Great that you identified the artist, but when you closed the deletion discussion, you didn't fix the problems with the page which is a quite essential thing to do. It's still claiming that it's the uploader's own work, with the wrong license and no mention of the actual author's name. Could you please add the information you found to the image page, so that we get the licensing in order? Cnyborg15:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Sorry. I deleted it while checking my deletion log and I did miss the request. Sorry.
I check my deletion log periodically: I have found that some users insist on upload again and again the same obvious copyvios despite of the warnings they receive about it. :-(
Good news for you. I have saved the same image from the Macanese Governmental website as GIF to my computer. After opening it from my computer, I have saved it as PNG. I have successfully uploaded it to Commons. The PNG takes 29 KB while the GIF takes 32 KB. Is it good enough for now? I cannot make SVG yet.--Jusjih15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting rid of the png version. You mention to use {{duplicate}}. I've been told before that this was not applicable because the new file was larger and had a different extension (png vs. jpg). How should I proceed with other similar cases? I want to upload a series of high res version of now low res png images. Lycaon17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. =) I've sent the email with the request, the owner should answer soon. I've asked him also to send, with the email, the specific names of each photo that have to be restored. --Nyo08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add textlinks to en.wikipedia in some categories because there are an essential tool to check the coherence of Commons categories with the English Wikipedia. Here, the purpose is not to access to pictures in galleries.
Also, I don't usually create links to galleries in category pages, since you already find there, for browsing: pages, subcategories and parent categories. --Juiced lemon22:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yo he subido la imagen image:Junín PNLG Aérea 06.jpg y tú la has eliminado debido a que no especificaba quién la había creado y por lo tanto el estado del copyright no estaba claro. Lo mismo ocurrió con image:Junín UNNOBA Esquema 06.gif, eliminada por otro usuario.
No sé qué estoy haciendo mal, así que quiero saberlo y aprender para futuras contribuciones.
Por favor verificá otras contribuciones mías, por ejemplo:
.
Está correcta? Todas mis contribuciones son dibujos míos, o fotos tomadas por mí, un par que fueron tomadas por la Municipalidad de Junín y me dieron permiso para utilizarlas aquí e incluso en folletos impresos.
I am not sure if the two bills are in the PD --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I took the dollar image from commons and the peso image is mine. I think, the new image is a free image. Tell me if i worng. I'm sorry but my english is poor. --Mandrake33 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Ale!
Thanks a lot for your support with that COA! I´d like just to confirm with you if the number of leaves at each branch is really as the official description, since I´ve seen some versions of the coat at different documents and they seem to vary a lot. If it so, I do the alterations, no problems! Auf wiedersehen! --Tonyjeff02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Ale! Could you please check the new version of the COA? I´ve corrected the number of leaves at each side and the rate of the shield. (let´s just be sure of what is considered inside and the outside of the branches) Thanks! --Tonyjeff14:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ale, I´ve just corrected the COA: improved the leaves, changed the format of the shield as you suggested and the collors according to the German article. Do you think there's anything else? Cheers! --Tonyjeff13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you you've closed a deletion request citing that it is of no importance that the image of Tycho Brahe uses a very misleading name. For my part, I believe it is highly unprofessional not to rename images with misleading file names, and in 1545, he was still in his mother's womb, not a man of 30+. Does your closing of this entry mean that you'll also oppose if I upload the same image using the name that other wikis use (Tycho.jpg), update any affected links and list the malnamed file for deletion, or will that simply result in you deleting the new copy? Regards. Valentinian(talk)20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this image had already been uploaded under a good name, so we have several duplicate images that can be deleted. (Image:Tycho1545.JPG, Image:Tycho.JPG and Image:Tycho.jpg). As you can see, I tried to avoid conflict with an unexpected image at the English Wikipedia which had the same name as the one I planned to use. I've updated all affected links now, so all three can be deleted without problems. There must even have been a fourth version on Commons earlier, since around 10 wikipedias linked to the same non-existing file. Would you mind deleting these three duplicates? Valentinian(talk)21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed. I wonder what's wrong with the database this time. I went through all wikipedias that had a Tycho Brahe article, and updated links whereever necessary. I can't imagine this image being used anywhere else. Valentinian(talk)01:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's a very good way of making sure that people don't vandalize Wikipedia, I wonder what would have happened if you made those changes to an article? I will unblock your account but please make sure that it does not happen again. Roo7220:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is nonsense. It would be a good practise to inform the user first. Then if the user does not react, it is a good thing to block him for a day or so. 'And then, after a couple of times not obeying, you can block him indefintly. So please face it: You overreacted. --ALE! ¿…?08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a SVG version, based on the image I found here. It differs a lot from the PNG uploaded, and seems to be more similar to the COA of Iraq. By the JPG of the site it can be seen that the head of the eagle is black, unlike the PNG file. What do you think? --Tonyjeff18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please don't delete this image yet. The SVG looks the same, but isn't. And in the small version that is used everywhere, this difference is very visible, and the PNG looks a lot better in the small versions. Compare: . Until something is done about this, the PNG shouldn't be deleted – unfortunately, I don't know who should be contacted for something to get done about it. JonHaraldSøby19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALE, I think your procedure deleting File:Jorge López - Recompensa.JPG was not well done. You said it was part of a TV Program, but that's not true, because, as the picture demostrate, it was a public comunication, part of a judicial procedure. Can you precise what was TV program you said it was part of? Regards --Roblespepe13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALE you still only asserting things, but you didn't give any argument to your assertions. Now you used a new argument saying that an image uploaded by me, must be deleted because other images uploaded by me were also deleted. That's unaceptable. What kind of argument is that? I'm not perfect, as everybody, and I have no problem in learning about a hard issue as intelectual property. But is impossible to learn if you don't answer any question and there is no discussion. I suposs my coleges are here to help each other, not to fight as if we were enemies trying to destroy Commons. You mentioned my deleted images, but you don't said a word about all the images I apported to Commons, a lot of them are maps that required a lot of time and work. A lot of them are own pictures taken to improve Commons. So, didn't you ask yourself why this terrible guy is missing time and work to improve Commons? Barcex also explained to you why that image you deleted was not copyrighted, but you also denied answer him as well, and you proceed to deleted it. So, what is happening here? --Roblespepe18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you see to my deleted pictures, most of them are PD-AR, not copyrigthed. The copyrigthed pictures and drawings are from my firsts months in Commons, when I didn`t understand yet the copyright rules. You deleted also some pictures taken by me (see) (???). --Roblespepe18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works to learn a bit more about intelectual property rights. Creo también que debes leer un poco las leyes que regulan las licencias. Te equivocarías menos (hasta ahora, de cada 10 fotos que sostienes que deben ser borradas, solo corresponde una).--Roblespepe02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
It can, but I asked Orgullomoore to place tha restriction because I was worried about rampant replacing of all non-SVG images with SVG images, even when inappropriate. Maybe you remember we have had some trouble with this in the past. I posted to the mailing lists and asked for input about guidelines on this. Virtually no one replied. What do you think about this situation? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that almost nobody is working on the "superseded section" of the deletion requests. Some PNGs (or such) which are to be replaced by mostly SVGs look the same. Guidelines for the bot assited replacement of other files then SVGs with SVGs should mention, that should only be done with "identical" files, looking the same. We had for instance to replace GIF and PNG versions of the olympic rings with SVGs, which looked absolutly the same and have considerable advantages as they are vector files. However this is a very annoying task as some files are used in hundreds of pages. To do change the usages by hand is almost not possible. Especially bearing in mind that almost nobody works on the superseded files. --ALE! ¿…?15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
From what I've seen CommonsDelinker doesn't replace images on user and talk pages. What I did instead was load a list of the IP user talk pages into AWB and started replacing them but apparently didn't finish. Sorry about that. Yonatantalk21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, why that image has been deleted, it is used on it.wikibooks and I can't see any discussion in the superseeded page. The Doc11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, espero que entiendas el castellano. Quisiera comentarte si puedes cambiar la página de MediaWiki:Uploadtext/eu que actualmente está en inglés, al vasco o euskera que el código lo he puesto en la página de discusión: MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/eu. Solo podeís cambiar ese tipo de páginas los sysops y por eso te lo agradeceria. Muchas gracias! Agur! Kabri
Muchas gracias desde la wiki vasca. Agur! Kabri 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi ALE! Please change the way you delete superseded images. If you take a look at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CommonsTicker you see that an image was deleted without enabling us to have an alternative. I suggest you use the universal replacebot, also replacing image use outside articles and create a [[:commons:Image:Imagename.ext]] like link in the deletion message to ensure that enough information is kept in case someone would like to find out what happended why. Thanks. Siebrand18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry about that. I always replaced all usages before deletion. But is seems, that the check usage service now only displays usages in articles by default. I was not aware of that. Concerning the universal replace bot, I think that you refer to Orgullobot. That bot does not replace PNGs with SVGs for the moment. Unfortunately! Sorry for the hassle. I will try that this does not happen again! --ALE! ¿…?08:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing you working on something the user did, care to review their "contributions". Quite a lot of strange stuff, could be young, could be a minor vandal - could warrant a block? Thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme08:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks, I was heading in that direction but a second opinion is good on that sort (most of my experience is with full on vandals not the subtle ones!) - regards --Herbytalk thyme08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi ALE! Yonatanh's bot added a Restriction tag on Image:Marla Glen 0309130720.jpg. Marla Glen is a public well known artist/musician/singer. the photo was taken at a public event. so far it's a person of public interest and allowed to publish (at least in germany). I'm interested if the Restriction Tag is warrantable. could you please check this? hope I expressed the issue correct. thanks. best wishes. --Nomo14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked your bot for three days. Please do not mass tag images in money categories. There are also free images. Like charts created by Commons useres, etc. --ALE! ¿…?11:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd like to say that I was running the bot on the request of User:Cool Cat who is nominating pictures of money and would rather have it done automatically than manually. The deletion requests were incomplete as Cool Cat is in the process of creating the deletion request pages (but hadn't finished at the time).
Secondly, blocks are preventative and not punitive, therefore if the bot had stopped running at 12AM and you go and ban it ten hours later, it doesn't seem like a useful ban nor a preventative one. I don't really care too much about the money deletion requests, I was only doing it automatically to help someone else, if you have an issue with these deletion requests, I welcome you to speak to Cool Cat. Thanks, Yonatantalk02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have spoken with Yonatanh and because the bot is not currently active and because will it continue this activity, I have unblocked it without any prejudice towards ALE!'s judgment. :) Yonatanh, in the future avoid putting yourself in a situation where you need to defend yourself by saying "so and so told me", on commons we are all responsible for our own actions. As far as I know right now, yours were fine, I'm just saying not to think it's okay to just toss the issue to someone else. --Gmaxwell07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I blocked the bot I was not sure whether the bot will continue with mass tagging images. (Some of them were perfectly fine and in line with Commons rules, like exchange rate charts.)
And please do not toss issue to someone else. It was your bot tagging wrongly a lot of images and not Cool Cat. You were "the face to the customer" not Cool Cat. Sorry. But, done with it and let's go to work again. --ALE! ¿…?09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You announced to stop the picture of the flag of the country of Portugal due to license issues. I would advise you to take another look, there are no rights attached to a centuries old flag. No matter who editted the picture in whatever the format. Regards, Jacob.
The bot was working behalf of me. I am 100% responsible, you are welcome to block me instead. I am unblocking it now. -- Catchi?13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the deletion requests, you are welcome to mass tag them manually. I do not want to make some 5000 edits. We have quite a number of money images licensed randomly often with GNU - which is clearly incompatible. -- Catchi?13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. That many are bad is not an excuse to tag all. If you'd listed a more specific criteria (such as being tagged GFDL) I would have gladly tagged them based on that. --Gmaxwell13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And not even that! The bot tagged images by me (exchange rate charts) that are GFDL and CC licensed and therefore totally ok. There is no excuse for such a behaviour and no, you can not mass tag full categories without checking the images in it before that.
Another point: Maybe some money is copyrighted. But 100 years after the creation of its design, they seem safe to keep to me. But also such images have been tagged for deletion. --ALE! ¿…?16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should ask the bot operator to use the bot to undo this tagging. I will be glad to help make a more targeted attempt later. --Gmaxwell17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys I am looking for a way to deal with the overlooked money copyright thing. If you'd like to help with manually tagging them the bot isn't necessary. Right now however I am overwhelmed with the tagging of few countries. There are over a hundred country currency (over a hundred sub cats) I haven't even looked at. It would take me years to process this if I do it alone. -- Catchi?12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see another admin round! Two new user accounts with inappropriate names created (you'll see them in the log). I've request CU to check the underlying IP (guessing it will be the same). Might be the start of something or the end but worth a bit of a watch. Hope you don't mind - regards --Herbytalk thyme10:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of superseded images without linking the other version
Hello, ALE! I've noticed that you are clearing the superseded images backlog. I wanted to note that your deletions do not include the alternate name of the image; I brought this up on the Administrator's Noticeboard earlier and thought I should bring it to your attention in case you hadn't read it. It is a pain for people (especially n00bs and people from other wikis) to have to search for the discussion from a link to COM:DEL/Superseded; and if an image is deleted and has not been replaced - either because the bot didn't do it as it was on a talk page, etc., or because it was missed accidentally - people on other wikis have no way of knowing what image to replace it with. This gets frustrating for them when it happens frequently and we end up getting a lot of complaints.
Dude, why did you delete "Image:Anti eu.jpg" and "Image:No cross.png" with no warning on their image description pages (which I had on my watchlists), after I replaced the "SupersededSVG" templates with "vector version available" templates, and after I went into my objections in great detail at User talk:Siegele Roland, as you could have easily found out for yourself if you had looked at the image description page histories?? Your deletions were completely unjustified, and the way you've now left things, Image:No cross.svg is extremely lousy and low-quality, and is basically unfit to be used for the purposes for which it was intended (it's certainly unworthy of being linked from the Anti logos page...). AnonMoos14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, how am I supposed to know that a discussion is even going on at Deletion requests/Superseded, if you leave no warning on the individual image description pages? Through my powers of psychic clairvoyance?? AnonMoos21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{Superseded}} tag is a good indication that a discussion might be / is going on. The superseded deletion process is a shortcut unbureaucratic speedway. Please do not expect too much information. --ALE! ¿…?08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not the case -- many images have a "SupersededSVG" template on their description pages for many months without any discussion concerning their deletion taking place. And furthermore, since I was the one who quickly replaced the "SupersededSVG" templates with "Vector version available" templates (and gave detailed reasons for doing so on the talk page of the user who had added the "SupersededSVG" templates, User:Siegele Roland), therefore it would have been common sense and common courtesy to inform me of the deletion debates, and give me a chance to express my opinion there -- a courtesy which you chose for some reason to ignore. The fact that the image description pages did not actually have "Superseded" templates on them when you came to delete the images should have told you that there was some ongoing dispute in the matter, but you chose to wilfully ignore this fact. AnonMoos19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are only human and humans make errors. I did not "wilfully ignore" some facts. But there are too few admins working on th superseded images. So there is no much time to ponder to much time on each image. That's why deletion can be undone and that's why there is an undeletion request section now. So please calm down. --ALE! ¿…?21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as calm as I need to be, but I still find the fact that you messed up, but are refusing to accept any responsibility for having messed up, to be at least moderately annoying. If you weren't wilfull, then you were negligent, since there were several things which should have given you a clue, if you had been paying a reasonable degree of attention. AnonMoos22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To get to an end here, because this discussion is going nowhere, just one more point. If I did mess up, I am sorry. So please go ahead and make an undeletion request. I have a different opinion on the subject.
But what really bothers me, when someone assumes that I "wilfully ignore facts" or that I am "negligent" and that I am "not paying a reasonable degree of attention". Did you have a look at the number of open deletion requests for superseded images? Did you see the backlog and have you noticed, how many admins work on these images? Well, maybe you should get involved and present yourself as an admin and help me. You will get my support. --ALE! ¿…?09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may eventually get around to it, but I'm not looking forward to having to get to grips with yet another convoluted Wikipedia/Wikimedia bureaucratic process among all the other convoluted Wikipedia/Wikimedia bureaucratic processes -- and the fact that it was your actions which made it necessary for me to confront yet another convoluted Wikipedia/Wikimedia bureaucratic process doesn't fill me with greatly charitable feelings towards you. Futhermore, if your self-appointed duty is deleting raster images with vector counterparts, then I'm afraid that I don't consider this a very important or valuable function for Wikimedia Commons, because there's no consensus that such images have to be deleted at all (except perhaps in certain special cases), as appears from the current discussion on Commons:Village Pump. Maybe the backlog is so great because relatively few people consider this to be a very important or valuable function for Wikimedia Commons? AnonMoos17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ALE! (nice nick, btw!) You opposed "my" deletion request because the images aren't the same. Ok, I have to admit that. But how do we ge rid of those diagrams that are a) not used and b) scientifically not correct? We are currently cleaning the climate charts and upload new, correct images. The new diagrams are made by the system that two climate-gurus 8) made (Walter & Lieth) Maybe you can have a look in the [[:Category:Climate diagrams system Walter+Lieth] and let me know, how I shall tag those pictures? I thought it might be ok to use supersed/png. Thank you for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed things a little bit to make the 'H' line vertical, take a look at the map. Hope you like it. The reason for not drawing the 'H' vertical was to preserve the relative location of the new line in the combinatorial nodes — 'H' is 'before' Miserere and Pueyrredón (B), but 'after' Pueyrredón (D)—, I think that this new curve between Humberto I and Inclán solves the problem. Regards, Galio05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, Du hast mir eine Nachricht hinterlassen, dass Du das Bild zur Löschung vorgeschlagen hast. Ich habe das Bild am 26. August 2006 hochgeladen mit der GFD-Lizenz und dem Hinweis, dass sich das Logo an der Arena befindet. Am 10. September hat User:AndreasPraefcke "Pulic Domain because of German Panoramafreiheit laws" hinzugefügt. Zur Klarstellung: das Logo befindet sich außen an der Arena auf dem Baustellenbild (leider habe ich hier gerade kein Bild gefunden, dass die Arena aus diesem Winkel nach der Fertigstellung zeigt) neben auf der weißen Wand im rechten Drittel beim blauen Kran. Es ist etwa 3m x 3m groß und für jeden Spaziergänger frei sehbar und fotografierbar. Das hat m.E. mit "closed (public) space" nichts zu tun. Ich wäre Dir dankbar, wenn Du Deinen Löschantrag zurückziehst. Grüße --Frank15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ale, ví que pusiste un cartel de borrar rápido en esta foto. Creo que hay un error, porque se trata del escudo argentino, usado por la CGT en una marcha de 1981. No es un logo de la CGT. ¿No?--Roblespepe14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs,
I am thinking of reusing some content from your website. I have been told that the content is for “public use,”
and I wonder what this means. May I take photos from you website and modify them to my needs,
and then use them commercially?
Yours sincerely,
Kjetil r
Sorry Kjetil r,
nice try. But you will have to find someone else to translate this. Also: it is quite some bad style to ask for that permission without citing the previous e-mail contact. (Just think: The webmaster might have changed.)
?!? Why won't you translate it? I see no reason for you not to translate it, unless you attempt to sabotage the deletion dicussion. And the rules for reuse should be the same, it should not matter who the webmaster is, they should give the same answer. I do not see the need to cite the previous e-mail contact, I am asking as an individual, and he should give everyone the same answer. Kjetil r21:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not participate anymore in this request. My opinion is clear. And you should at least give the webmaster a hint where to look in his archives (approx. date or such or give him a link to the template in Commons.). What you do is bad style. --ALE! ¿…?21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is what I do bad style? If "public use" means what you think it does, he will just answer "yes", right? It shouldn't be a problem then. However, I`ll ask someone else, as you don`t seem ineterested in clarifying this issue. Kjetil r21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You changed this from "PD-because|it was published first in the U.S. in 1900." to template:PD-US. However, PD-US states that it may not be in the public domain in some countries, while it's my understanding that anything published first in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain everywhere. Isn't the first template thus preferable, because it doesn't introduce uncertainty? --NE219:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies that this post on the VP seemed to splash on you as a direct criticism. I have no doubts you were exercising your office in good faith, even the best of faith. Regrettably, in my intent to "send a message to the SVG cabalists", that activity is not progress, your repeated posts on the VP, with the preceding summary I reposted basically fell afoul of poor planning and the slow burn I've experienced on and about SVG's for quite a while now. Which is to say once I started that way, I was into the feelings, and not thinking of you, but thereafter focused pretty much on my own message. Add in that I hate posting these public forums, and well, the long sections, the rush to finish, the need to say something... all added their own bit to my indescretion. Apologies again, but wikitime is too precious to enjoy having to piss it away reading and worse posting in such user unfriendly pages.
I've no interests in imaging arts and software in general, but involved as I am in history and maps, I have unfortunately stumbled across a fair number of problems with SVG's so that the last thing I would do is pick one over a PNG or JPG -- SVG's just haven't any positives in my book yet. When the preceding comments also unveiled that the deletion process wasn't really sanctioned, it also added to my distress. Finally, your repeated posts 'explaining' your actions probably smacked my subconsciousness parental 'bull' detecting senses -- I've two teens all too close in age to many (if not most of our best and most active) wikipedians in age, and the transparent rationalizations of youth wear after a while.
Nonetheless, that emperor and dictator stuff was not meant to be a personal attack, but a rhetoric device to drive home the point the headlong conversion and elimination of images to SVG is not a good idea as things stand now. I've never seen a discussion justifying those over the other technologies, but I have seen a lot of little cliques form and talk themselves into joint action that the community comes to step in and challenge parts of later -- like the deletion process in this one! If you know of such a page, I'd be interested in reading through it. In sum, I was both put upon and rushed, and had I given the matter more time, I'd have started far differently. Best wishes, and again sincere regrets with several layers of apology. // FrankB16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I uploaded a newer version of Israeli COA, with a darker blue to match with the PNG version, but the preview image shows the older version, with the lighter blue. Could you help me with that? Thank you very much! --Tonyjeff17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you close although we do not have a confirmation yet on what status these images have? I will reopen the request again. --ALE! ¿…?10:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's nothing more to discuss. We will just wait for the confirmation to arrive at m:OTRS and act according to it. No matter how much it's discussed, "public use" means "public domain" can't be decided by consensus since it's a legal matter and only a confirmation letter can settle it. This is being handled now at permissions@wikimedia.org -- Drini12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DEAR ALE,
I got a message about re-considering the copyright of Image:Susana019.jpg.
According to argentinian licenses (as I read in Wikipedia), publications older than 25 years, have free license.
This picture is the cover of a magazine published in 1943 (That is , 64 years ago, the magazine doesn't exist anymore since decades ago, and the authors are all dead). Is not already free license? Please let me know how should I consider it and which information is missing about copyright.
Best regards, User:Bergman797
The photo is public domain 25 years after its first publication. However, the {{PD-AR-Photo}} license tag can not be applied to magazine covers as a whole. But you might consider the {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} tag if the designer / creator of this specific magazine cover is unknown or anonymous. Anonymous means, not known to anybody officially. But you should check inside the magazine if the creator of the cover is not mentioned there. --ALE! ¿…?20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me acabas de advertir sobre una posible violación de copyright de un archivo que subi a wikicomons "Logouns.png". Yo creo haberlo licenciado como de Dominio Publico, pues pertenece al logotipo de una universidad pública Argentina. Personalmente he editado este logo para hacerlo más presentable y luego lo he subido, aunque no sé ahora como corregir la licencia y especificar que no se esta violando ningun tipo de copyright. —the preceding unsigned comment is byLordpuppet (talk • contribs)
Tu has usado el template {{PD-AR-Photo}} que se puede usar solamente para fotos. Aparte de eso no creo que un logo de una universidad es automaticamente en el dominio publico. Por favor agrege mas informacion sobre la feche de creacion de este logo o una lay que dice que los logos de una universidad esta libre de derechos. Si no puedes agregar estos datos y una licencia adequada, el imagen sera lamentablemente borrado. --ALE! ¿…?07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ale le puse dos licencias a esta imagen: una para la foto PD-AR-Photo y la otra para el diseño de la publcidad, art.8 ley 11.723. Fijate si te parece bien. Saludos, --Roblespepe22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to start on these four images again. I got into an edit warrish thingie with Limowreck over it, also at nl.wp. After he removed the nsd twice I nominated for deletion. Please be aware that your descision is a deviation from current Commons policy and practice that slapping a self (GFDL/PD) template on an image is not enough to have it kept and that a written claim of own work is required. Siebrand12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you delete duplicate files you need to link to the kept file. Otherwise it is not possible for non-admins who follow old links to find the correct file. Even better would be to redirect the files instead of deleting them, see This discussion. /82.212.68.18310:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ale, podrías decirme si subí correctamente esta imagen. Es la foto de una estatua propiedad del fotógrafo. El permiso está transcripto y también fue enviado a permissions@wikimedia.org. Es la primera vez que lo hago. Saludos, --Roblespepe21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias por preguntarme. El problema es que el derecho del autor es independiente de la posesión del objeto. Eso quiere decire que vos lamentablemente necesitas el permiso del autor (artista) y no del dueño de la estatua. --ALE! ¿…?12:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Por aquí venía mi duda. El artista está muerto. ¿No tiene derecho el propietario a exhibirla públicamente? ¿Y no es acaso un derecho fotografiar estatuas expuestas públicamente? ¿No viene por aquí el tema? --Roblespepe17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seguramente el el propietario tiene el dercho de exhibirla públicamente (por ejemplo en una exposición), pero no tiene necesariamente el dercho de hacer trabajos derivativos (como una foto) y de ceder el derecho de usar este trabajo derivativo libremente (como subirlo aca). Sie el autor esta muerto sus herederos tienen todos los derecho en la obra no el propietario de la obra. --ALE! ¿…?15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Para peor me enteré que en Italia no existe la "freedom of panorama". Mala noticia. Los artistas que la subieron van a desilusionarse mucho.--Roblespepe21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Gracias Ale. La cita jurídica del derecho cubano es precisa (te aclaro que soy abogado). Lo quería saber era si el procedimiento de colocar directamente la plantilla y sacar la de borrado era correcta. Sobre lo otro seguiré investigando. Saludos. --Roblespepe16:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte kläre mich auf, warum die von mir mit einiger Mühe erstellte und lizenzierte Datei Image:Map_LacertaViridis+Bilineata.jpg offenbar irgendwann im März gelöscht wurde, obwohl sie unter anderem in den deutschsprachigen Artikeln Westliche Smaragdeidechse und Östliche Smaragdeidechse verwendet wurde und dort auch dringend gebraucht wird (Verbreitungskarte)! Die scheinbare Begründung auf den Diskussionsseiten der beiden Artikel ("not used in articles") ist doch wohl ein ... Versehen?! Auch finde ich unter der angegebenen Verlinkung keine entsprechende Löschdiskussion. So was nervt! -- Fice16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, da hat sich also offenbar jemand drangesetzt, die Karte nochmal neu generiert und im PNG-Format abgespeichert. Das ist sehr löblich, da das Resultat technisch klar besser ist als mein Original (ich kann mit meiner Primitiv-Software leider kein PNG-Format erzeugen und musste daher auf JPG ausweichen!). Nur wäre es dann auch schlau gewesen, die alte Graphik an allen Stellen, wo diese eingebunden war (Commons und diverse Wikipedias), gegen die neue zu ersetzen. Das hätte einigen Ärger erspart gegenüber dem merkwürdigen Ablauf, der stattdessen passiert ist. Nichts für ungut und Gruß, Fice08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hola. Has escrito en mi página de usuario una parrafada enorme en inglés para explicarme por qué has borrado imágenes de Evita Perón, pero no entiendo absolutamente nada. Un saludo. --Hinzel02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Te he explicado por que hay que bortrar el imagen y
en las plantillas siempre hay una version en espanol.
Hi, you put a deletion warning on this pictures because i didn't specify the source. It's necesary to do this even if the picture is in public domain (this picture was used because, according to argentina law, 25 years have passed from it's publication).--Mariocossio17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially because you were using the template {{PD-AR-Photo}} you have to state the source, were the photo was published more than 25 years ago in Argentina. (Please read again the template text.) Otherwise their is no way to verify the public domain status. In the case of the cited image it is even more different. This is not a photo but a book cover. So you could use {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} if the book was published more than 50 years ago or {{PD-ineligible}} might be applicable. --ALE! ¿…?20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was cheking the argentinian law about copyright, it seems that wikipedia is a bit out of date, because it was modified in 1998. I think you speak spanish so i'll put the new text, and the link to it:
"(obras)... que se hayan incorporado al dominio público sin que haya transcurrido el plazo establecido en el mismo y sin perjuicio de la utilización lícita realizada de las copias durante el período en que aquellas estuvieron incorporadas al dominio público".[3]
Sorry, you were right, i didn't notice that. Well, i'll just follow your recomendation and put this {{PD-ineligible}}, because the book is in public domain, but i don't know the status of the photo. That should make it right?. Please advice.--Mariocossio19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD-ineligible is now the license status of the book cover, which is probably ok. Your photo showing the book cover is hence a derivative work of the not copyrightable book cover (in the PD) which is also in the PD. Case solved. --ALE! ¿…?21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not capable of doing it. Sorry. Otherwise, I would have done it from the start. Furthermore, I am not convinced that mixing all requests together would work. People want to argue on each singular image. What I can do, if I see that no one is voting on these requests, is changing them into copyviol requests. --User:G.dallorto11:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, noté estas imágenes en línea, subidas desde wikipedia en inglés, pero que aparentemente son violaciones de copyright, y como eres la única administradora que conozco, te lo hago saber. Estas imágenes son screenshots del show de tv Family Guy y fueron puestas para ilustrar un episodio, hasta ahí todo bien. El problema surge porque el episodio aún no ha salido al aire, y estas imágenes se tomaron de un video que se tomó de forma ilegal y clandestina en una convención de Star Wars en la que se vió un preview del episodio. El video ha circulado por internet, y fue puesto en YouTube, pero casi inmediatamente, Fox exigió que las bajaran por violar copyright y derechos intelectuales. Eso deja el status de estas imágenes en el aire, ya que no creo que Wikipedia puede subir imágenes obtenidas ilegalmente. Como soy un usuario regular no las puedo borrar sin la mediación de un administrador. Podrías revisarlas y ayudarme?.--Mariocossio03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soy administrador (masc. ;-) ) en Commons pero no lo soy en WP:en donde estan guardados los imagenes mencionados. Tendrias de preguntar algun Admin alli. --ALE! ¿…?07:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, has puesto un aviso de borrado sobre esta imagen que subí. Te cuento que es la primera vez que lo hago. si bien no completé toda la información en el primer momento, ya lo he corregido. El escudo de la Ciudad de San Juan fue creado en 1946, como dice en la página oficial, y ha sido usado de manera contínua como símbolo del municipio. Al haber pasado ya tanto tiempo, la imagen está en el dominio público. Por favor, infórmame que plantilla se puede usar ya que la anterior no se puede. desde ya, muchas gracias. Links [6] | [7] | [8]
La question seria ahora si el artista que ha disenado este escudo esta conocido. Por ejemplo si fue nombrado en el Decreto Nº 99/1946 de la municipalidad de San Juan. Si no esta conocido, podrias usar la plantilla {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. --ALE! ¿…?13:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luego de una consulta telefónica con una persona que conoce mucho de la historia de la provincia, me contó que el escudo es el MISMO que aparece en los documentos de la fundación como que era el del fundador, en 1562 lo que convierte al autor en desconocido. esta versión está corroborada por lo que se informa en el link 3 de mas arriba. Saludos, --Ndemiguel16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ALE!. I'm writing you this message to ask for attention on a backlog. As you are active already on User:CommonsDelinker/commands already, you may be able to help in processing the 300+ category move requests that are waiting for attenion on Category:Requested moves. As always, any help is appreciated. Please let me know if you require any information. Cheers! Siebrand22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Menos mal, hablás español... Esta portada tiene más de 25 años de ser editada en Argentina (sería imagen libre, segun la legislación del pais).
Es, en definitiva, una imagen idéntica a la publicidad que pudieron haber puesto en cualquier medio gráfico, en esa época, por lo que en principio sí que cumpliría el requisito de ser una fotografía (esto te lo comento tomando como referencia lo que dice Dodo en mi página de discusión, el caso es como el de esta revista).
No es und fotografia y por eso no se puede usar la plantilla {{PD-AR-Photo}}. (Como tambien dice la plantilla.) Se podria usar la plantilla {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} si el autor del dibujo no esta conocido y si desda la publicacion pasaron mas de 50 años. (Que no creo.) En caso contrario se puede usar solamente la plantilla {{PD-old}} que serian 70 años despues de la muerte del autor. --ALE! ¿…?08:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acabo de subir una nueva imagen con mas estilo hecha con el nuevo Microsoft Excel.
Si necesitas el archivo .xlsx te lo mando con todo gusto. Mantuve todas las licencias que habia, ya que realmente no me importa que sean atribuidas a mi en este caso.
No entiendo como una imagen puede tener dos licencias, seria mejor simplificarlo. En fin.
En realidid prefiero si subes al imagen con otro nombre por que pueda ser que alguna Wikipedia prefieren el estilo viejo. A mi personalemnte no me molesta.
Con respecto a las licencias: Es siempre mejor de darle las dos licensias o solamente la licencia CC. Por la GNU FDL no es muy buena para imagenes. --ALE! ¿…?12:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to say no for the moment - I am not sure I can commit to spending as much time as I have recently on Commons in the future... it all depends on the circumstances. We'll see what happens, perhaps at some other time. But thank you for thinking of me. Deadstar15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry we were not talking of that image, I found here on commons a famous Italian vandal who has almost 40 sock-puppet. He usually starts with normal and good contributions then put inside those articles false information that only a specialist can discover, in particular he modifies articles regarding history and animals. He has upload about 30 good images but two wrong like Image:Paul Hitler.jpg and others now deleted by Polarlys. He usually get angry and start a broad edit war and moving war. Please check his movements --The Doc10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ALE!, could you please let me know whether there can be other reasons than copyright violation for deleting images. Where can I find information on this? Fransvannes09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion guidelines mighte be a good start. Usually we restrict ourselves to copyright issues when we decide on a deletion request. This is why for instance that we keep also trademarks, when they are under a free copyright license (see: Coca-Cola). --ALE! ¿…?10:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the next question is whether there is a cat for all those pictures which do not depict what there are said to depict. Fransvannes11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was alerting you to the progress that I had made on the images, since you had requested help. I know that you didn't leave a message on my talk page! Royalbroil16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrlich gesagt verstehe ich Deinen Löschantrag nicht. Wie Du selber sagst ist die Münze gemeinfrei (älter als 70 Jahre, außerdem kannte das alte Montenegro kein Urheberrecht). Die Abbildung einer Münze ist nun alles andere als eine kreative Eigenleistung, mithin auch nicht schutzwürdig, egal wer die Abbildung hergestellt hat. --Decius18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ich finde mich hier auch nicht zurecht, so dass Deinem - aus meiner Sicht wenig durchdachten - Löschantrag nicht an offizieller Stelle entsprechend begegnen kann. --Decius18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht darum: Die Münze ansich ist gemeinfrei (public domain). Die Abbildung dieses 3D-Objekts ist aber ein eigenständiges Werk. Wenn Du also nicht selbst die Münze abgelichtet hast, dann gehören die Rechte an dieser Fotografie dem entsprechenden Fotografen und ist also nicht gemeinfrei. ({{PD-Art}} ist übrigens nicht anwendbar.) --ALE! ¿…?21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then put {{move cat|Geography, maps, municipalities, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA|Maps of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania}} on this page: User:CommonsDelinker/commands
Te voy blockear ahora por que no entiendes que solamente decir que tienes un permiso no es suficiente. Necesitamos un permiso por escrito via OTRS. --ALE! ¿…?16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - could you undelete Category:Walloon Region please. It is empty but it is undergoing a deletion vote that I'm monitoring and I am concerned about some of the actions that have been taken. There is some lack of civility and good faith in my opinion. Many thanks --Herbytalk thyme12:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALE!, deleting this category don't resolve the problem, but make it worse and more difficult to deal. More, such brutal conduct would add an extra issue. Thanks for undeletion. --Juiced lemon14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always delete empty categories when I see one. They are totally useless. In this case I didi not know that there was an "issue". --ALE! ¿…?07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the deletion of empty categories. Since you are not the only administrator to do that, I go to begin a general discussion about this issue. Stress this particular deletion because it bothered me was not wise. Sorry. --Juiced lemon08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just learned of the unfortunatelly now deleted images and debate under Commons:Deletion_requests/Luxembourg_COAs. The law in question affects only the national arms and symbols, even then it doesn't prevent creation of new images (which is essentially what Bruno did) but only displaying those coats of arms as one's own or similar situations (like claiming some official support or service). It is really unfortunate that Bruno forgot to contact me over this issue as the only thing that should have been deleted is the irrelevant license tag. All 5 images were essentially under Bruno's copyright and freely licensed to wikipedia with no additional restrictions... I'm not sure the images can be restored, but that is certainly what I would recommend.--Caranorn10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on these COAs was going for ages already. If you have new arguments, why to keep these images showing copyrighted COAs created less than 70 years ago, then please open a undeletion request. --ALE! ¿…?12:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You kept this image. However, I think the uploader en:User:Affierro is not the copyright holder and the copyright holder en:User:Mb.matt expressed that he was unhappy by this upload. en:Image_talk:787rollout.jpg "Affierro, while I don't mind having my photo used on Wikipedia, I do not appreciate other people taking my photos and posting them as their own, without my permission. I'm sure that you found this on Airliners.net or on Flickr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mb.matt 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)""[reply]
You may open a new deletion request if you want. For me this issue is done and there are hundreds to solve still. Don't think I do not mind, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. --ALE! ¿…?20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people took photos of that event from nearly the same vantage point. Unless en:User:Mb.matt can show that he took that picture with all the people in the right places (I didn't see any that matched on Flickr), I don't think he has a case. I'd like to look at the metadata for the Flickr and airliner.net images, but I don't have a free tool for Windows to do that, suggestions? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you delete images, it would be good if you put relevant links in the summaries. Linking only to Commons:Deletion requests is not so good, since the relevant request is archived some time after the deletion, you need to link to the deletion subpage for the request. And when you delete duplicates you need to link to the the duplicated file that is kept, so that it is easy for someone following links to the deleted file to find the file that was kept. /90.229.135.23923:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just takes to much time to link to the correct subpage. Maybe some can solve this in the future. However, usually the correct subpage is something like this: Commons:Deletion requests/Name of the picture.jpg. So I am sure that they are not too hard to find. If not you can always contact me. As for the duplicate the same goes. Sometimes it is just quicker this way and we have a huge backlog in the deletion requests and only a few people helping. Thank you for your understanding. --ALE! ¿…?07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be handy tgo have a script doing that. It just takes too long. Especially if you are deleting tens and hundreds of images. --ALE! ¿…?11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not an expert in english language, so forgive my mistakes.
I'm the owner and maker of Image:Ubicación Coloso.jpg. I have made the map first in autocad for a university project a couple of years ago, and now I have used it to show where the stadium is.
I'm the only and complete owner of the image, and if I have to write something else in the image article fot ir not to be erased, please tell me what to write.
Maybe you could upload another map showing this area and maybe you could also provide the original Autocad file (maybe by E-Mail to my address). So we can verify what you say, otherwise this does not sound very credible.. --ALE! ¿…?07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you doubted, I hoped you have "goog faith", we call it "buena fe". That means that you can truly believe in me, as I can truly believe in you, to make a bigger and faithful wikipedia. Why would I lie for such a small thing?
I can send you the complete file, please write down your email in the deletion request article, and it will be on your computer asap.
No entiendo lo que sucede. Puse la plantilla de PD-AR-Photo porque es un filme que tiene más de 50 años y ahora no aparece. Que más falta? Y no conozco el autor original de las fotografías que se usaban en esa época para promocionar las películas, que salían en los diarios. Me podes explicar QUE es puntualmente lo que necesito? --190.31.31.24415:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Una pelicula de cine entra en el dominio publico despues de 50 anos de la muerte del autor del argumento, del productor y del director de la película (mira la plantilla {{PD-AR-Movie}}). Como las imagenes que vos has subido son tomados directamente de la pelicula, son aplicables estas reglas. --ALE! ¿…?07:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lamentablemente no: "Una pelicula de cine entra en el dominio publico despues de 50 anos de la muerte del autor del argumento, del productor y del director de la película (mira la plantilla {{PD-AR-Movie}})."
Los directores de estas peliculas han muerto en el 89 y en el 77. Por eso, estas peliculas no estan en el dominio publico y tenemos que borrar las imagenes. --ALE! ¿…?12:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning/fr or MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning/de that says something like "all contributions are considered posted under the GFDL licence" (which was the original formulation in english as well). The GFDL licence is always applicable for anything posted on Commons (which is mandatory, since it couldn't be used in the wikipedias otherwise). This is why there is imho no problem in making it explicit: the GFDL licence must always be assumed. On the other hand, a CC licence couldn't be assumed, of course. Michelet-密是力03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
The English text says: "I agree to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License." (emphasis by me) So it considers only text not images which is ok, because otherwise it can not be used in Wikipedias. (The German text says something similar.
The upload box (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork ) does not say anywhere that the default license is GNU FDL. And the license selection box on the same page says by default. "None selected (add a license tag in the summary box above, or this file will be deleted)"
It's only the english version that says so, actually. Maybe this should be clarified, and there is the same problem with the frame at the bottom of pages, that goes "Contenu disponible sous GNU Free Documentation License" in french (can't find the corresponding source, though). Of course, if the site as a whole is not 100% GFDL, then it is incorrect to systematically assume a GFDL licence. Is there an official policy page that states exactly what is under which licence in commons, and what is excluded from the GFDL general policy (imposed by WMF, afaik)? the exact licence situation of images on commons (and images when they are used elsewhere) can be tricky... Michelet-密是力09:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons:General disclaimer page actually states that "Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikimedia Commons media under the GFDL licensing scheme", which means (the other way 'round) "you may use these Wikimedia Commons media under the GFDL licensing scheme". I wonder if this is always correct for CC licenced materials, though... Michelet-密是力09:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, te consulto por la imagen oblea_azul.png que yo había subido a Wikimedia Commons. Vos me dejaste un mensaje en el que se decia que no estaba claro el tema de los derechos de autor de la misma. El tema es el siguiente, la imagen es de dominio público porque corresponde a una etiqueta que por ley deben llevar todos los Autos que funcionen a GNC en Argentina, entonces no supe como clasificarla. El texto de la ley se encuentra en la página del Ente Nacional Regulador Del Gas (ENERGAS), exactamente aca [9]y en la misma se encuentra la imagen original. Te agradezco si me aconsejas sobre el tema porque soy bastante nuevo acá y me resulta un poco confuso el tema. Saludos y gracias --W21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me han puesto una alerta de posible violación de derechos, pero es un administrador que no habla castellano. Querría ver si te puedo consultar a vos qué puedo hacer, porque creo que el archivo está libre.
Es una foto de un escritor español muerto en 1926, por lo que la foto es anterior a esta fecha. ¿Podrías darme una mano? Saludos. Ferbr115:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El autor de la foto tiene que estar muerto por mas de 70 anos para que la imagen este en el dominio publico. En este caso podria ser probable que el fotografo tenia recien 20 anos en el momento que ha tomado la foto. En este caso tendria en este momento 103 anos. Lo mas probable sera que ya ha muerto. Pero no mas de 70 anos atras.
Por eso en Commons se permiten fotos de autores desconocidos si la foto tiene mas de 100 anos. Tu foto entonces, podrias subir en el ano 2025. Lamentablement tienes que esperar asta entonces o tienes que demostrar que el autor esta muerto por mas 70 anos.
Disculpa tengo un problema no se si podrías ayudarme, he subido esta imagen y me dicen que no es suficiente lo que he puesto como derechos de autor o autorización, la persona que tomo la fotografía me autorizo a publicarla y lo hizo por medio de su blog, recientemente me envió mas información a mi correo fotos ineditas y en mejor resolución y documentos para ampliar el articulo de wikipedia, [es el blog del autor donde sale la información y la autorización del dueño de la fotografía], yo pido autorizacion en el comentario No 5 y me autorizan en el comentario 7...[es el articulo en wikipedia] (que sera ampliado por mi con la nueva información e imágenes, ahora como hago para que se sepa que esta imagen esta autorizada y las que pondre en el futuro., me han hablado pero en ingles y no se hablar el idioma me ayudas?...
Tengo contacto con el autor de la imagen, pero sinceramente no se de que forma puedo obtener de el una licencia valida. Si el permiso vía online no sirve, de que otra forma puedo obtenerlo, ya que vivimos lejos, ademas veo muchas imágenes que tienen un permiso mas débil que el mio y son considerados validos.--Juliopb23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Las fotos del Coloso no las tengo mas grandes, la camara no era muy buena.
Por otra parte, no sabia que hablabas castellano, me podrias explicar esto??
Te explique detalladamente (si sabia lo hacia en castellano) que el mapa original es mi proyecto final de la facultad. Ahora vivo de hacerlos y venderlos y es obvio que no te lo puedo mandar por email. No pretenderas que te envie libremente un copyright privado!
Ese mapa me tomo 7 meses y muchisimo trabajo, y ya lo he vendido ya a dos organismos; es obvio que no lo puedo repartir libremente a un desconocido. Te envie dos caps para proteger mi derecho intelectual, mas que suficiente.
Si dudas de mi te invito a conocernos personalmente si te deja mas tranquilo.
Pero vos dices que son tus fotos: "Esta imagen fue tomada por mi, Usuario: The Edge, con una cámara digital en el Estadio "El Coloso del Parque"." Entonces las licencias son incorrectas y vos necesitas permiso para publicar las imagenes. --ALE! ¿…?20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo ALE! Nachdem in den letzten Monaten/Wochen alle noch verbleibenden Dateien nach regulären Löschungen oder vergeblichen Nachfragen von Autor/Freigabe gelöscht wurden, habe ich die Vorlage jetzt gelöscht. Sie wurde mit traumwandlerischer Sicherheit für jene Fälle genutzt, wo andere Vorlagen aus guten Gründen nicht in Frage kamen. Grüße, --Polarlys21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, ich habe ein relativ dringliches Anliegen. Mir wurde mein Benutzerkonto gesperrt, weil ich angeblich Urheberrechtsverletzungen begangen hätte. Ich habe bereits hunderte von freien, Urheberrechtlich absolut unbedenklichen Bildern hochgeladen und würde meine Arbeit gerne fortführen. Leider gibt es hier einen Administrator, der scheinbar ein echter Copyright-Nazi ist der denkt, das Recht für sich gepachtet zu haben (sorry für den Ausdruck, aber ich bin langsam ganz schön sauer).
Er denkt nicht dran, die Blockierung meines Kontos aufzuheben weil er offensichtlich nicht einsehen will, daß ich das Copyright hier wirklich ernst nehme. Ich wäre sehr dankbar, wenn sich jemand finden lassen könnte, der ein Einsehen hat. Wenn nicht, dann muß ich leider ein neues Benutzerkonto eröffnen und das kann nicht im Sinne der Wikimedia-Community sein. Viele andere Benutzer kennen mich unter meinem Namen und schätzen meine Arbeit. Nur, weil ein einzelner Administrator im Glauben ist, sich mit willkürlichen Kontensperrungen im Recht zu befinden soll der Wikimedia-Community ein engangierter Benutzer verloren gehen? 84.57.101.7015:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)aliasRed Rooster[reply]
.
. Until something is done about this, the PNG shouldn't be deleted – unfortunately, I don't know who should be contacted for something to get done about it. Jon Harald Søby 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Lenin_Silhoutte.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FGBlueHarvest2.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FGBlueHarvest1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
