User talk:Martin H./Archive 22

Archives Older archives Jul 2011 – Oct 2011 Nov 2011 – Apr 2012 Apr 2012 – Apr 2013 Apr 2013 – Jan 2015 Current

Archive Note

Page was archived on March 5, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi Martin, You have removed some very old images from Wikipedia that I uploaded. We do not know who the original copyright holder of these photos is as it was taken many years ago. There is no way that I, or anyone can verify ownership. Skyscraper City is also NOT the copyright holder (as you have stated).

You have also damaged the text in the article, and I will have to spend several hours reformatting it. If you are going to work seriously as a moderator, please be fair and ensure that your work does not damage the article itself otherwise I will have no option but to report you for doing substandard work.

Thank you.

You copied images from random websites and declared them your own work. Do you think that this is accetapble? It does not matter if you can find out the copyright holder or not, see COM:PRP. As long as you not have the copyright holders written permission to a free license you are not allowed to upload here (especially not with such false author claims!). If the copyright holder is unknown, well, no upload possible, that's bad luck. --Martin H. (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to tell you, I'm Italian, I have difficulty speaking English. But I wanted to ask why you deleted the file Florencia Bertotti.--TeenAngels1234

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TeenAngels1234?uselang=it . --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File Deletion: Felix_Funke.JPG

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you with regards your flagging of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Felix_Funke.JPG as not being in the Public Domain.

you mention: "Ferdinand Urbahns, who operated the Atelier für künstlerische Photographie in Kiel, died 1944, this photo is not public domain."

I am the direct Grand Niece and Sole descendant of Felix Funke. This photograph has been paid for by my Grand Uncle when he asked for it to be taken. Ferdinand Urbahns was the photographer but holds no rights to this picture, of which I have the original in our family album. I therefore ask for this picture to be reinstated without delay. Many thanks,

A-M Durrenberger-Funke Am-durren (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course he paid for the work and a physical copy was transfered. But not the intelectual property right, there is not transfer of copyrights in Germany. de:German_copyright_law#Copyright_transfer. Owning a copy does not grant you any copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing template

Why have you changed the format on the picture pages that I've uploaded, from what I changed?Evan-Amos (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Information}} is the standard, I dont see why the multilingual support of Commons should give way for individual designs in the File: namespace - a namespace that belongs to the community, not to individual users and their layout preferences. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can accept it on the basis of multilingual support, and will do something different, but making mass changes to a users personally uploaded photos without any notice or real explanation of what you're doing and why is a terrible way to handle a situation.Evan-Amos (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I didnt change your photos. I changed a file description page, similar to editing an article in Wikipedia. There is no ownership in such pages. If you want to tell something about you and your equipment you should use your userpage. That page is intended for exactly that purpose. On the file description pages it is dispensable. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the way that you handled the situation that I think is terrible. If you're going to be making that many changes to a single user, you can at least send a note or tell a user why.Evan-Amos (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Medieval reproductions of ancient documents

User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_21#Medieval reproductions of ancient documents

Hi Martin, sorry to bring this back from the archive, but I didn't get a change to reply. So, if my understanding is correct (and I want to verify this), it is ok to import those Notitia Dignitatum pictures from BSB, similar to Fuggerorum et Fuggerarum imagines. Correct? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio template removed

Hi Martin. File:Paronama del centro de Salta.jpg is a copyvio. The template was removed twice by uploader [1]. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, he removed my advice in his user page [2]. Alakasam (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Image taken from panoramio with a nonsense {{PD-ineligible}} license and a disappointing author information "I have no idea". There is a special case for uploads like this in Commons:Upload (Ignoro el autor o no sé qué licencia corresponde). --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I understand that and I'll do, thank you very much for your help..... Faris knight (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sehr geehrter Herr Martin,

Ich Spiridon Manoliu (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu) lasse Sie wissen, dass ich der Media Commos mitgeteilt habe, dass mein Erbschein gerade übersetzt wird. Sobald mir die Übersetzung vorliegt, werde ich sie an Sie weiterleiten. Inzwischen sind die Bilder meiner Mutter Ioana Oltes (Cornelia Olteanu) rausgenommen worden, obwohl ich der einzige Erbe und Besitzer dieser Bilder bin.

Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, mir zu erklären, warum ich nicht das Recht habe, die Bilder in Commos zu zeigen, auch ohne Erbschein. Ich bitte Sie, Ihre Antwort in deutscher Sprache meiner Bekannten, Frau Matilda Pfeiffer via e-Mail (<matilda.pfeiffer@arcor.de>) zu senden, da ich nicht genug in der englischen Sprache bewandert bin, um Einzelheiten zu verstehen.

Mit freundlichem Gruss,--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Erstens, es muss Nichts übersetzt werden. Commons ist ein multilinguales Projekt, Freigaben können auch auf Französisch oder Rumänisch an OTRS übermittelt werden. Des weiteren sagt niemand, du habest nicht das Recht Bilder zu zeigen. Du wurdest gebeten, eine schriftliche Freigabe an besagtes OTRS zu schicken, den Instruktionen zum OTRS und auf deiner Benutzerdiskussion folgend. Zuletzt noch der Hinweis, dass beim Upload auf die Richtigkeit der Angaben geachtet werden muss. Die Bilder wurden nicht selbst erstellt, auf der Seite Commons:Upload verwenden wir in solchen Fällen nicht die Option "œuvre personnelle", wie hier geschehen, sondern "œuvre d'une autre provenance". Mfg, --Martin H. (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Note pour la traduction / Anmerkung für die Übersetzerin: OTRS ist eine Referenz auf http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS, Commons:Upload ist eine Referenz auf http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:T%C3%A9l%C3%A9verser&uselang=fr.

Images to delete

Hi Martin, for images File:Lascito-brancusi.jpg and File:Lascito-duchamp.jpg you can remove them without waiting for the 7 days expiration . I made a mistake choosing a license, so...thanks in advance --Brancusi (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand. You uploaded a duplicate of the files, but the problem is still the same, the photographer information is conflicting, the license must not come from someone who owns the photos but from the copyright holder, thats the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand. But the problem should not exist because I am the artist, I am the photographer, the photo is mine and the public domain. So, what do we do? --Brancusi (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First correct the author information, not (I write in source code) |author=[[User:Brancusi|Eredi Brancusi]] because not that group is the photographer but |author=[[User:Brancusi|Walter Battistessa]] if you are that photogapher as you explained above. The second step will be to make sure that the photogrphs are free of third party copyrights, described in Commons:Derivative works. To me most objects in this photo are just utility articles and not artwork, if they are artworks and copyrighted byt he artist then you should also mention the artist. The third step will be to provide a written permission following the instructions in Commons:OTRS from both, you the photographer and copyright holder of the photographic work and, in case there are third party copyrights on the photographed objects, from the artists. This can happen in one written permission for a group of uploaded images. --Martin H. (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I do now. --Brancusi (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CU

User page cigarette spammers appear active again - it may be that there is something to mention to the cu list or alternate accounts etc. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It takes me some hours now to recall what you mean: You mean the electronic cigarette spam. Yeah, looks so. I'll look what I can find out. --Martin H. (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. Spam comes from a large ISP, differently to the spam case in November 2010, and I will not check ranges, its too easy to find. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Direktor and overwriting

File:Franz-Joseph-Österreich-1885.jpg :(( --Roberta F. (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Please do not delete images which I have uploaded.

I work as a Press Officer for Sinn Féin and those photographs are my own work.

Go raibh maith agat. --Baldeadly (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Didnt know that people in Ireland work so late at night in their press offices. File:Caoighmhín Ó Caoláin.jpg was created by a photographer Rory Geary, File:PToibin.jpg was created by Peter Gallagher Photography, File:SMcLellan.jpg is from Ronan McLaughlin. Your claim "those photographs are my own work" is untrue. A press officer will name the true authors and provide evidence that the authors and copyright holders agreed to what he is doing. I deny to belive your second claim that you serve in any such function and that you have any right to do anything with this photos. A press officer will never make such false claims at a public place. Thats something that only people do who believe that the anonymity of the internet protects them. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:MapSlide.jpg

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

Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding copyrighted but free-to-use images

Hi there - I had tried to upload an image that belongs to the company Swiss Re but is given free use by Swiss Re. I had checked other content and found, e.g., Bill Gates where it also says the image is copyrighted by the World Economic Forum - but they've given it free use.

Could you tell me what I can do to get this image into Wikimedia Commons? Thanks for your input.

The images from the World Economic Forum (wef) in question are indeed published by the world economic forum under the given license, a free license that allows anyone to reuse and redistribute the image anytime for any purpose including money making purposes and modifications. The images from the Swiss Re website are not published under any such license, they are not comparable to the wef images and not free for any reason. --Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Leere Kategorien

Siehe bitte: Category:Streets in Hanover, Category:Listed buildings in Hanover, Category:Eclectic architecture in Hanover usw.Da ich es nicht besser formulieren kann, habe mir gestattet, auf Deinen dortigen Beitrag an dieser Stelle hinzuweisen und wäre dankbar für den Einsatz administratorischer Autorität. Bohème (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Warten wir mal die Diskussion ab. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry :)

Sorry... Can you help me to find a free images database please :) Adolfoasorlin (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You found one of the most valuable 'database' already - and used it wrong, so what other source should I give you. You have to look for photographers who voluntarily agree to Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi, please delete this picture because is not PD-old. I confused the Author with his father (they have the same name). Thanks --gian_d (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & sorry :) --gian_d (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. Housless blue photo...

It might be better to go ahead and withdraw the picture for now. I took it myself but should probably study the ramifications of the licensing policies before letting this photo go onto the commons. I will experiment with less critical photos before proceeding. Thanks for all of your good work. Houselessnothomeless (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, for uploading please make sure to use the correct upload form, dont add any {{s or }}s if you dont know what youre doing and of course, please dont forget to license you upload. --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Shah_Pahlavi_and_Queen_Soraya.jpg + File:Queen_Soraya.jpg

Olá, Martin: Não há necessidade de encaminhar para votação. Você, como administrador, pode apagar estes arquivos imediatamente, sem ter que incomodar a comunidade com este processo. Já havia solicitado uma vez a você que deletasse todos os arquivos carregados por mim mas, infelizmente, não fui atendido (talvez o Commons julgue conveniente mantê-los). De qualquer forma, tome a atitude de achar necessária, pois não vou encará-la como "algo pessoal" (desde que você pare de se dirigir a mim como se estivesse falando com o balconista de um pub). Aproveitando o ensejo, gostaria de te fazer uma pergunta bastante pertinente: neste caso, qual seria o autor da foto? Não consegui visualizar este item tão importante e, por isso, aguardo ansiosamente uma resposta tua. Boas contribuições! Biólogo32 07:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont invent facts, dont follow bad examples. Man, with uploading you assert that the legal status is correct, how can you assert a legal status if your only knowledge of the file is some invented information based on your personal opinion. I cant understand this. --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Suas afirmações estão corretas e eu me comprometo a não repetir meus erros. Meu pedido inicial permanece (de cancelamento de todos os arquivos caregados por mim) pois, se "inventei" algo nestes dois últimos arquivos, talvez também possa ter inventado nos arquivos anteriores. Gostaria de salientar um ponto que considero tão ou mais importante do que o assunto em pauta no momento. Não te fiz o questionamento sobre isso para tentar justificar meu erro, mas para que você me informasse por que aquele arquivo não foi submetido à eliminação rápida nem levado para votação. É um mau exemplo? Concordo plenamente mas, ainda assim, o arquivo permanece inalterado desde 2007, sem que as informações exigidas por você sejam inseridas e sem que nenhum administrador se atreva a alterar o bad example. Como este existem vários e vários outros arquivos em situações semelhantes ou piores que vão sendo mantidos sem qualquer interferência ou ameaça de eliminação. Você deve saber disso muito melhor que eu, visto que muito raramente faço login ou mesmo uma visita anônima ao Commons, ao contrário de você, que é constante e atuante por aqui. Como membro da comunidade, acho que mereço uma resposta mais polida e, principalmente, mais consistente do que um lacônico ...don't follow bad examples.... Já me comprometi a não repetir os erros anteriores, mas ainda quero saber por que meus erros são tão prontamente "detectados" (em minutos, apenas), enquanto tantos erros semelhantes muitíssimo mais antigos ainda não foram patrulhados. Boas contribuições! Biólogo32 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cat removed

Hi. Can you tell me why you removed this cat on that file ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a 1918 photograph and is the topic 1918 significant to it or is it a 1918 book. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Request Review

Twice now, I have tried to upload a photo that has subsequently been removed. The original photo was taken by TitoMedia (shown on the metadata), but I purchased the photo from them. When the first image was removed, I took a photo of the original photo, so as to remove the metadata from the image (clever pick up from you). Would you please review your decision to remove/delete my photo, as I am the owner of these images. I look forward to your response.

You have to provide a witten permission from the original copyright holder allowing anyone to reuse the photo anywhere, anytime for any purpose. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Please do so following the instructions in Commons:OTRS. If you upload anything please use the correct upload form in Commons:Upload (its from somewhere else) and provide all necessary author and source information. --Martin H. (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also purchasing an med/high resolution image doesn't mean you own the copyright to the photograph. Also never fake to be the author or copyright holder of images as we have already seen DMCA in action on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Single work template deletions

Hi Martin, I noticed you recently substituted and deleted Template:Frau am Fenster by Caspar David Friedrich and Template:Das Lesekabinett by Johann Peter Hasenclever. Although I now realise I did this totally the wrong way, the idea of using a template to share artwork descriptions between files in order to ease maintenance is well-established. The currently accepted way of doing this is actually to use {{Category definition: Object}} and {{Object photo}}. As you can see at [3], this is used for about 80 artworks currently, by many users including User:Zolo, User:Coyau, and User:~Pyb. I converted these two artworks to use that instead. I'll deal with converting all the others in Category:Single artwork templates in the same manner. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think hiding the file description in templates is the worst thing we can do. Its getting more and more difficult to participate for people who dont know how to work with all the templates we use. Also for two or three usages I dont see the advantage of an extra template, some copy&pasting if the information changes is not so much work. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Better with File:Johann Peter Hasenclever - Das Lesekabinett - Google Art Project.jpg, but still our promisse that there is an edit button that you have to klick, find the place where the text is and.. edit is broken. --Martin H. (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but at the least there is the "+/−" link above the painting information which edits the category with the painting information in it (perhaps it should read "[edit]" for consistency?) I agree that the value is less if there are only two or three images, and in the future I'll try to at least wait for there to be at least 4. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know how multilingual, "newbie"-proven or intuitionally a +/- button is, maybe it does it. The hurdle to edit is however high. While I personally prefer a sollution that completely separates the effort to improve the category pages and leaves the file descriptions alone (except of course for improvements with copy&pasting an improvemed artwork template over the different versions), I can see some nice layout things in changing this. Two options offered in this short discussion: First that one I deleted, moving the artwork template to a template, and second that one we have at the moment in the example. From this two options I prefer the second and I suggest to at least turn all usage of the first into the second. Furthermore for example in Category:La Liberté guidant le peuple, to give a famous example with many different upload purposes, there is place for use for an separated artwork description and a a photograph/file template to describe the source and purpose of the file, e.g. an extracted version to describe a detail or a derivative to be used as a logo. But, as said already, I'd prefer any file-page-based-sollution over the two examples. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the new solution is preferable and I will not use the old one. While it presents barriers to editing, the maintenance problems created by forking a description among many copies (as many as 10-15 in the case of Category:The Birth of Venus) are rather staggering. I have observed substantial divergence between descriptions of the same artwork due to having separate file pages for each photo and having each one independently updated over time. This has always been the tradeoff with using templates, but I think for works with many copies it is clearly justified. Ideally software changes would provide some kind of compromise. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Paula Fernandes

Hello Martin

According to Law No. 9610 OF 19 FEBRUARY 1998 Brazil: removed

In case you deleted the photo, was a work of "disclosure" of the singer, not hurt the property right

Thats something like a fair use paragraph of the copyright law, there is no fair use on Commons. The portrait might be free to use for several purposes but it not fulfills the criterias of Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms that must allow anyone to reuse the portrait in any context for any purpose, not only to illustrate information about Paula Fernandes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake copyright

I actually do not hold the copyright on the images I've uploaded, they've been taken by someone else. Could you delete them please?

Copyright

How do I know when a photo is free or has creative common attribution? I took the photo on flickr.com --2811Butterfly (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such photo under a free license on Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Check User

1. User:Achayan
2. User:Palakkappillilachayan

User:Achayan uploaded this image and pretended as photographer and send the OTRS permission from a public email ID. Now User:Palakkappillilachayan is uploading the deleted image after some corrections in the photoshop and says that its his creation. New upload facing deletion now Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG, Previously deleted file is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg. Please advice.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I not used the checkusertools but just blocked him. Thats a DUCK. Looking for one problematic user, that Achayan appears to be, is enough trouble, we dont need a 'clone' of him. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider vector format for some images

Images such as

PSM V84 D016 The mechanism of heredity fig5.jpg could very well be generated in vector format (with Inkscape for example) and these are much superior in many ways. Unless the scan is of an historically important document (an in that case that information should be added to the image's page) of course.

Gregors (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that there are some people patroling the recent files. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tables in DRs

Martin:

I appreciate the effort that goes into putting a mass DR into a table -- it certainly makes it neat and easy to consider. However, when it comes to actually doing the deletion, it slows things down a lot because the new DelReqHandler highlights the whole table while working, so you can delete only one image at a time. If the images are behind bullets

• like this
• image2
• image3

then DelReqHandler will let you delete them as fast as you can click and hit "enter". Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

«File:Chichizola.jpg»

Hola Martin, quería saber que métodos utilizaste para detectar que mi foto tenia derechos de autor... Gracias.

--.•Estebanelv•. (➨Mensajes) 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for tips to not get caught in future? Seriously... just stop uploading unfree files. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake OTRS

I strongly believe this piture File:Kanjirapally_Bishop_Mar_Mathew_Arackal_and_Prasant_Palakkappillil.jpg is not photographed by User:Achayan because its in web resolution and user is trying to fill all the non free photographs in commons, and the OTRS is send from a free mail service OTRS REPLY. I will invite your expertise to look into this...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is from a free email. Generally such releases are accepted unless there's evidence of prior publication or similar. Without prior publication somewhere we really can't demand an official email address, since images can legitimately be from a private person without a website or the like and so all we can do for permissions is take them at their word. Given that it was never sourced to a third party I would've thought that a regular DR would be the way to address it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not an OTRS volunteer. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you able to check these links 001 and 002 ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those two are Wikipedia pages, so they can't be the source of the image if that's what you're asking me to check. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Popular Science Monthly duplicate images

Hi, and thanks for interceding regarding the deletion of the duplicate image. File:PSM V35 D042 The good shepherd.jpg FYI, I am aware of the duplicates, and there are about 15-20 duplicate images out of the ~5,000 uploaded so far.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian copyright question

Hello Martin. I wanted to upload a photograph of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, held in the collection of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. [4]. I'm unclear reading the Commons guidelines about current Russian copyright law whether such an upload is permitted. The photograph obviously predates the Soviet state. Thanks for any guidance you can give. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In such cases where the (assumed) country of origin has a copyright expiration based on the death of the author I not make assesments, if I not know the author or anything about the image and its creation background and not have sources that give me author information. --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that's what I figured. I won't upload then. Appreciate your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Creamfields Australia

Hi Martin I am the Administrator for the company Totem Onelove and actually own the photos taken of our event.... I have the original files here on disc.... I am also quite new to Wiki so I've been having issues knowing what to do. I believe I picked the right copyright restrictions considering we've used watermarked versions of this in other forms of media.

Please use the correct upload form for files that are from somewhere else. Not just declare the photo your 'own work', you act here as a person, not as a company - and unlikely anyone is allowed to reuse this photos for money making purposes as long as "MissMelbourne" is attributed nearby the image. The author is the photographer, not the uploader or someone who was asked to upload. Provide the correct information and follow the procdure described in the upload form: The file was already published elsewhere, so you have to copy the {{OTRS-pending}} into the permission field and you have to provide a written permission to COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Flaggen von Berlin

Hallo Martin, es wurde mir im :de:Portal:Berlin empfohlen, mich mit meinem Problem eventuell auch direkt an dich zu wenden und was ich hiermit tun möchte. Ich habe unter Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Flags of Berlin eine Bitte auf Sperrung mehrere Dateien gestellt. Leider scheint diese Seite nicht so frequentiert zu sein. Deswegen meine Frage/Bitte an dich, kannst du hier helfen? Es wäre natürlich schade die Dateien sperren zu müssen, vielleicht gibt es ja auch einen anderen Weg oder ich muss irgend etwas anders machen. Gruß --Jörg (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Soweit ich das beurteilen kann stimme ich mit deiner Version und deinen Edits diesbezüglich überein. Ich habe eine Datei meiner Beobachtungsliste hinzugefügt. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass der Warnschuss bereits gereicht hat und ein Seitenschutz auf die Datei nicht nötig ist. --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke --Jörg (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Creator

Please, do not substitute my Creator templates, they are very useful, since I can eventually change all the links to author info easily and at once. For instance, I had just moved my info to Meta and could change all the links by adjusting the template. Only the file modified by you stayed in an inappropriate state. I would prefer a namespace Info working like a template, but it doesn't, so Creator is quite a good choice for persons having created the files. What a problem is in that? Petrus Adamus (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Creator template is not intended for users, its for notable artists. See Help:Namespaces, that page does not invite you to use the Creator namespace for personal information about you as a user. For that purpose you have your user page. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And who decided, where exactly the use is permitted and where it isn't? The user, having editted the template most times lately, is Jarekt, who personally did some changes in my Creator template. So he doesn't know the goal of that? Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Creator: namespace is not a place for information about Wiki users. The creator template is associated with notable artists. As much as I love your photos of Khartoum, as much I cant understand why you declare yourself a notable artist now associate yourself with the creator layout and use the creator namespace for overweening self-promotion. Why dont you write an Wikipedia article about yourself? That will be exactly the same. Im sorry to say this. --Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't consider me an artist, just rated as useful to use some template in the author description fields, to enable an easy change of the link. I hadn't put there anything except the name and link, Jarekt later did it and I only didn't revert his edit. I think it is better to use the Creator namespace (as the template has just the name "Creator" and not "Artist" or "Notable Artist"), than create a template with a personal info. Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You use the design (creator template) that we use for notable artist, you use a namespace that is intended to host information about notable artist and nothing else.... Just create your own user template but dont use that creator template. I wonder why you ever did it. You have no property on the content namespace "Creator" and page in that namespace about you obviously falls out of the project scope. Many users have user templates, but not one came to the great idea to use the visual identification of our notable artists templates. Of course you claim yourself a notable artist with doing so and with writing your own page in our topic namespaces. --Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, but who decided the scope of the template? I can just see, that the goal of the template was quite smooth and suddenly [5] Rocket000 wrote, that the template is for notable artists. Maybe there was some voting, I do not know. Nevertheless, I think it's very confusing to use a template named "Creator" just for notable artists, that'd be similar like use a template "House" just for castles. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your questions sounds like we talk about something that always existed and now we have to decide how to use it. Thats not the case. The creator namespace and the creator templates where initialy created for notable artists, it was not created for various other purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mention in Template_talk:Creator#Creator_templates_for_Wikimedia_users we have now Commons:Creator - proposed policy on use of creator namespace. This discussion seems to debate one of the points of this policy. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, don't you consider it quite unseemly to try to persuade me, that your personal opinion is a majority agreement? Even having mentioned nothing about the discussion, showing that the reality is quite different and the opinions varying? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You have no ownership in the file description. I think it is you who not asked before adding yourself to the creator namespace and making yourself part of our educational content, but simply did it following your very personal interests. Writing a vanity article about yourself in Wikipedia, your edits with this creator templates equals this, will of course end up with various tags asking for notability. Linking your vanity article on 100rds of pages will end up in reverts - not just the one revert I tried. You have to live with such reactions and it is you who have to argue properly that information about you is educational and in scope of Wikimedia Commons and worth inclusion in pages outside your very personal userpage. --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Semaoune,_Algerie.jpg

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

Art-top (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChicagoHistory1

I believe that User:Macy Hefner might be another sock. Would you be able to look into it? Thanks?

(Sorry if I posted this request in the wrong place; I'm not very active on Commons.) Zagalejo (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Another copyright question

Hello, Martin, another question, if you don't mind. This is the link to the 1923 English passport for the travel writer Robert Byron (1905-1941).[6] I believe since the passport was issued by the British government that it is exempt from copyright restrictions. Is that correct? Thanks in advance. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I believe I figured it out. Cheers, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

You deleted a picture I uploaded to use on a Wikipedia page because of copyright. The name of the picture was Trace_legacy.jpg This picture was taken from http://twokinds.keenspot.com/?pageid=4 and the author of this writes on his webpage that everyone is free to change it in any way or print, send or otherwise share these pictures only if you say where it's from and do not use it to make money.

This picture was to be used in a wikipedia page about twokinds and therefore it's free to use.

If this is wrong then I want to know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansjsand (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You already have the answer on your user talkpage: User_talk:Hansjsand#File:Keith_Keiser.jpg. Not use it to make money is not allowed on Commons, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Image7.jpg

File:Image7.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Art-top (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Image6.jpg

File:Image6.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Art-top (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agencia Brasil

• Hi. As you ask here, the Creative Commons licence is back in Agencia Brasil. Thanks.Jo Lorib (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Great news, I will later check on COMT:L. --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Files on id.wiki

Hi Martin,
Thanks for your message here. All files have been restored. Cheers — Tjmoel  ^bicara 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will correct them now. --Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This file is restored. Thanks — Tjmoel  ^bicara 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

LOONA

Lieber Martin, vielen Dank für Deinen permission Hinweis gestern bzgl. meines uploads von: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Sinner Ich vertrete LOONA (Marie-Jose van der Kolk)sie wünscht sich gerne dieses Foto als Hauptfoto auf ihrer LOONA Wikipedia Seite, und hat mich darum gebeten darum zu kümmern....ich habe gestern Abend eine Mail mit diesem Persmission Vordruck ausgefüllt an die genannte Mail Adresse von Wikipedia geschickt und es wäre sehr nett von Dir wenn Du uns netterweise dabei behilflich sein kannst, dass bald das o.g. Foto auf LOONA s Wikipedia Seite als Haupt Foto erscheint VIELEN LIEBEN DANK im Voraus! Liebe Grüsse, Alexandra alex@loona.com (info@loona.com) www.loona.com

File:Loona 008.jpg entsprechend markiert. Das Bild im Wikipedia Artikel bitte selber einfügen, de:Hilfe:Bildertutorial/4 oder am besten einfach an einem anderen Artikel abschauen wie es geht. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

VIELEN LIEBEN DANK für Deine Hilfe !!! ´Liebe Grüsse, alex

Guinea

Hi. Can you upload most of the images under here, particularly the photographs by User:Attawayjl. It has some much needed images of Guinea and people of Guinea Bissau. The aerial views of Conakry are valuable.. Attawayjl has over 900 free images of Guinea I think which are greatly needed, mostly Senegal and Guinea. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also I remembered I made a flickr agreement with CharlesFred on flickr 325 sets!! which can be uploaded. Although they seem to like photographing men, they have an awful amount of valuable photos from all around the world. The OTRS ticket can be viewed at File:Agordatmen.jpg. GFDL I believe. Can you upload? I think if you evade the "men of the world" category you could by pass the images of men... Thousands of valuable images like this. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, all edits I do are made by hand, I can not import such large batches. See the flickr batch upload pages please to request this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-3.0-FilmiTadka

I created new template for review images form FilmiTadka (the site provided CC_BY_SA images ). Please verify the template .If useful review all image in Category:Images from FilmiTadka .
Is permision from this link [7] stored in our OTRS ?
Thank you -- Dpkpm007 (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know, im not an OTRS volunteer. COM:OTRSN please. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the template..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons licenses

Hello Martin, I've had a query from a Flickr user about licenses. It's referred to on my talk page where the text is first outdented. Can you help? Schwede66 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sieht aus, als ob das bereits erledigt wäre. --Martin H. (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not sorted. The other editor answered the wrong question. Schwede66 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sag doch mal auf Deutsch wie ich dir genau helfen kann, ich stehe auf dem Schlauch. --Martin H. (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ich hab auf Englisch geantwortet, weil Bob die URL von meiner Diskussionsseite hat. Bob erwaegt, die Lizenz von seinen Bildern zu aendern, so das sie mit Wikipedia / Commons kompatibel ist. "Attribution Creative Commons" und "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" sind die Optionen. Er fragt, was der Unterschied zwischen den beiden Lizenzen ist, und welche 'besser' sei. Schwede66 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Wikimedia Commons compatible (free) licenses, cc-by and cc-by-sa, require attribution of the author and indication of the license. The difference is of course the "SA", the ShareAlike reuquirement. Both licenses allow remixing and modification of the original work but:

• a cc-by licensed work can be used for a new work, the new work can be published under a non-free license disalowing others to further use the new work.
• The "sa" makes sure that any new work based on the original work is only distributed under a free license that again allows free reuse by anyone as long as both authors, the original author and the creator of the derivative work, are attributed and the license is indicated.

Just compare cc-by-2.0 and cc-by-sa-2.0. The SA is similar to Copyleft, it keeps the free-ball rolling. --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"it keeps the free-ball rolling", wow, darf man dich damit zitieren? --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Auch nur aufgeschnappt. Ich weiß nichtmal ob es die Wortschöpfung im Englischen geben kann. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people might get the wrong idea. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL Schwede66 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, free willy. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality/featured images by location

Hello. While I appreciate the distinction you are making about topic vs. maintenance categories (although I am not sure that I agree with your conclusions in this case), I would simply point out that even if these were maintenance categories, on the Commons we do not slavishly follow categorization guidelines when doing so does not make a lot of sense (for example, COM:OVERCAT is an important principle, but we sometimes we bend it where it makes sense to do so). These categories contain the images that the project has identified as being the best ones related to these locations. It doesn't help a soul to hide these categories. In fact, it's arguably a tremendous benefit to the project to make these groupings even easier to find. I'm struggling to figure out what the drawback would be of not making these hidden maintenance categories; with all due respect, it comes across as a bit of an ideological stance in support of the purity of a hazy distinction between topic and maintenance categories. I don't mean that to be snide, because I know you are much better versed in these issues than I am. Perhaps a better explanation might help me. I just think this is far too important an issue to deal with in short and unclear edit summaries. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic category tree is a hierarchical structure of topics. "Featured" at al. is not a topic, its strictly related to Wikimedia Commons and it is of zero significance for the outside world - its not a topic. If the intention is to make this stuff more visible you should link it at the appropriate places. Example: en:Switzerland contains a wikicommons link leading to Confoederatio Helvetica, note that it not links to the category, the pages on this project to build links is the gallery namespace while the category tree is only intended for givin a structure. That gallery page is the perfect place to give featured (et al.) images a priority and to place a {{category see also|Featured images of Switzerland}} somewhere in the gallery or to mark featured pictures et al. with small signs like {{FP star}} in their captions. --Martin H. (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P.s.: ill revert you again. Please distinguish between "linking" and "making something visible" and "categorization". Both are very different. Your point "hide a category of the best images pertaining to the location" is invalid, this images ARE inside the category tree of the location, discriminatory sorted together with the other content related files. The topic category tree is neither for maintenance nor for making any kind of selection within a topic, thats what galleries are for. --Martin H. (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, "Featured, quality, VI, B&W, Sepia, montages, panoramics, vieuws, aerial photographs, historical, ... pictures from Sweden belong in the "pictures from Sweden" category. Lets not waste our time on pedantic interpretation. --Foroa (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not "pedantic". Category:Featured pictures is a project/maintenance category, it was splitted up and this splitting up does not make it a topic. I dont refer to sepia/montages/panoramics etc that you list above, I only refer to something that is nothing else but an internal project of Wikimedia Commons, while the other stuff you refer to, Category:Sepia photographs etc., indeed is a topic. --Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also sort of find that you are being pedantic; you are certainly splitting hairs, to the detriment of the project. Your comment about the categories in question, that they are "of zero significance for the outside world", I would suggest is not widely held. While the link idea is a nice one, inclusion in the category is also appropriate (this isn't an "either/or" situation) - in a category-based media repository, the idea of links on a gallery page does nothing to address my concerns. Your comment "images ARE inside the category tree" suggests you are perhaps missing the point I am making - using that logic, we should delete all the subcats of Category:Switzerland and place all the contents in the parent cat, since the media would still "ALL be in the category tree" and according to your theory, no harder to find (especially if we create galleries!). The point is to have an easily-found category where the designated images are together. Again, I ask you what benefit to the user you are trying to achieve by hiding categories, beyond this ideological stance you have taken. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are just talking as if I delete something or remove a category. Of course I not do so. I just remove a false, non-hierarchic, non-topic categorization and separete a maintenance category from the topic categories. In the future for example File:Plafond de la chapelle des Maccabées 3.jpg, which is in Category:Saint-Pierre, Geneva - chapelle des Maccabée, will be in Category:Featured pictures of Saint-Pierre, Geneva - chapelle des Maccabée which will be a subcategory of Category:Saint-Pierre, Geneva - chapelle des Maccabées. Then the image will be in a (non-topic, badly sorted) subcategory only and discriminatory hidden from the topic category - making quality separations is not what the categories are intended for, making quality judgmenets is the scope of gallerie pages. The "by country" separation was implemented a short while ago, the Category:Featured pictures is a project category related only to Wikimedia Commons, it is maintenance. All splitting of this category will stay maintenance, not topic, and will stay a hidden categoy related to this project, not related to the topic. Also the split up did not change something, the category always was hidden and it was never suggested to make it a valid topic. --Martin H. (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're making conclusions that I suspect are yours alone, such as "making quality separations is not what the categories are intended for". Who says? And in the scenario you describe, it's not clear to me why you fear the images would be hidden. Having something in a subcat does not hide it. I'm sorry, but you have yet to explain what benefit for the user you hope to achieve through your change. I'm not going to fight you on this. This is exhausting. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The benefit is to have a media repository organized by topics and facts, not organized by personal opinions. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)s

Surely you can understand the frustration. You are the one declaring your opinions to be fact (and taking unusual opinions, I might add) and then suggesting a repository shouldn't be organized by "personal opinions". Do you see the irony here? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pedantic. Images classified by medium, Purlitzer price, Magnum ot Worldpres price or quality/FP/VI labels: they are belong to a classification method for which we make specific categories. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Youre not really comparing the pulitzer price with a Wikimedia Commons project and/or Wikimedia user opinions. Or? If the Wikimedia project got the same status you can add the categories back. Otherwise you must use other methods, e.g. those little icons mentioned in Commons:Galleries#Starting a gallery, a better emphazising of the FP collections at Commons:Featured pictures or e.g. with adding a link to the specific scope (e.g. the country) at the assessments template, but not declare personal opnions a topic and include it in the topic categories. --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Martin, share the sentiments of the other posters her. You seem to have gotten this black/white opinion into your head, which I cannot help but think of as a bit "political". FP is not a maintenance category with zero interest to the outside world. One of the FPC project goals is to point out exceptional media for our "customers". Some people are driving an anti-FPC agenda, negating all the obvious benefits of the project and mischaracterizing it as a back-patting club. It is ok to have and express such an opinion, but the place for that would be a discussion about the project itself. Your actions seem POINTy and destructive at this point. Please reevaluate your premise and try to explain to us how it brings the project forward to remove the FP/QI by location categorization. I see more use than harm in the categories, and do not understand your persistence in light of the comments you are getting here. --Dschwen (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are neither pointy nor anything else. I'd suggest many ways to give COM:FP more visibility and I have no doubt that I can find more ideas or agree to other peoples ideas. I already made a lot of suggestions. The only inacceptable way to give it more visibility is to simply switch it into topic. The worst thing here is that a mistake that was done with the category creation was quickly adopted as "ok", albeit it is not, and no other effort was made or even tought about to make it ok. And now it looks like (and you just said it again) that I come and reduce the usability of FP. Thats simply untrue and your accusation is a bad insult in my direction. Also you blame me for things that I not said, I not said the FP is of "no interest". Consider to go for better sollutions, not insult people who also follow the commons scope and aims and actually also have an interest in making FP more vissible as long as the other aims of Commons are not hindered. --Martin H. (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you said "[FP] is of zero significance for the outside world" and your argument hinges on this. I think that is plain wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats what I said. FP is an opinion or judgement by Wikimedians. Its not a notable topic in itself, a claim "featured pictures of xy" is an quality assessmet from our project, nothing more, and those assessment is indicated on the file descriptions and it sorts images to a project category to keep track of them. Not beeing notable as a topic or not beeing significant in a content-based categorization does however not mean that this is not interesting or not worth viewing or that I "drive an anti-FPC agenda" or something like that. This pictures worth using, its great that they got a big marker on their file description, it worth linking this files everywhere, all galleries worth having a note "please also see our best content related to this topic" - but still it is not a topic and the non-topic "featured by Wikimedia" has nothing to do in the hierarchy of topic categories. --Martin H. (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "featured" is not a topic. Probably it should be in a parallel branch like media attributes. But it is perhaps a bit late to worry about the purity of our categorization system - I think it is getting to the stage where it is too damaged to repair :-(. There is a fundemental disconnect between what users want to do - tag images with keywords, and our category system - categorize images by subject. It either needs a very major effort to sort out how to address this, or perhaps we should just give up ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging vs hierarchy is not the main problem here, but in an overall view about categories your right with that. The only problem is that people not search for alternatives to categorization. The only person who pointed out alternatives here so far is me. Linking is one option, most people forgot about the Gallery namespace - but they apparently also forgot that people coming from Wikipedia will not end up in Category:Switzerland but in Switzerland - the gallery, that page that they not longer care about. Therefore they start their promoting attempts at the wrong end, thereby intruding the topic categories without increasing the visibility but with damaging other scopes of Commons and now protesting if I try to fix it. I just visited Category:Switzerland and saw that page contains more promotion for Wikinews in Esperanto than for our own quality projects, eo.wn is of course a good project too. I tried to change that with some editing at Template:Sistercommons, the result is the small collorfull buttons, I left room for improvement. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Worth checking?

Hello Martin H. Could you please have a look at this section of the AN? Vandal sockpuppets around. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked and one more Category:Sockpuppets of Xraykan blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Boats at Câmara de Lobos 1.jpg

Hello Martin H., only now I returned here and checked the undeletion requests. Thanks for undeleting the file. The reason I requested the undeletion instead of uploading it again was that I thought that here, as in the Wikipedia projects, keeping the original history file was important. I understand now that it is not that essential, so if similar situations come to happen again, I'll try to fix them myself without bothering anyone in the undeletion board. Thanks again, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rrr (Medium).png

Hi Martin, I did not see a deletion request process for this deletion. Was it speedy deleted and if so, on what speedy grounds? --Tony Wills (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted. The formula was replaced with its TeX equivalent, all uses are replaced, if the user requires assistance with TeX help will be given to him. Speedy deletion of the file was requested and I followed it, such content usually got speedy deleted following its replacement, and under the light of COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content, Commons:Project_scope#Must be a media file ("not considered media files") and COM:SPEEDY ("A page that falls outside of Commons' scope.") I not see a reason not to agree to speedy requests. --Martin H. (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and precise response :-). Those links to COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content, Commons:Project_scope#Must be a media file were useful and I now understand why it was a candidate for deletion. But COM:SPEEDY only lists "out of scope" as a reason to speedy delete "content pages", not "files". Scope questions for files are normally a subject of a deletion request as it is often a matter of opinion.

In this case I am not sure exact what the file was (as it now deleted and I can not see it :-), but I am assuming it was on my watch list as it was part of a set of images recently uploaded by User:Latifahphysics as part of article he was creating on ar:wikipedia. Anyway his images appear to have been generated using TeX, but perhaps he is not aware that TeX can be used on wiki pages, or perhaps the <math> code is really hard to edit in a right-to-left language (I left a message on his ar:talk page, trying to demonstrate using inline TeX but it got really messy trying to edit it as the editor renderred things like brackets in strange places, I don't know whether it is as hard to use for him as for me.). So I am not convinced that the png renderings of formulas are totally redundant and un-necessary. I accept that if TeX can be used for all instances on the other projects that these sort of images could be deleted. But I would put them up as a mass deletion request, rather than speedy delete so that it can be discussed. In this case it would be good if we can find an ar:Admin to assist in communication. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See the deletion log for the formula, it was a blurry version (screenshot or even a monitor photo) of File:3.png. --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks :-). If you are interested, there is now a disccussion of the TeX/png question at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:4.png. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some proof?

Hi! Do you have some proof for these:

1. (Deletion log); 17:14 . . Martin H. (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:The Vue from Lake Eola.jpg" (Copyright violation)
2. (Deletion log); 17:14 . . Martin H. (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:55 West Orlando.jpg" (Copyright violation)
3. (Deletion log); 17:14 . . Martin H. (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Orlando CBD.jpg" (Copyright violation)
4. (Deletion log); 17:10 . . Martin H. (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Bank of America Center in Orlando.jpg" (Copyright violation: Duplicate of File:Bank of America Center.jpg with false author claim "Rackas321")

Or is it just the talk page that makes you conclude that this is copyvios? --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Bank of America Center in Orlando.jpg was uploaded with a lie on the author information, File:Orlando CBD.jpg has a 500x333 size and is most likely grabbed from flickr, same for File:The Vue from Lake Eola.jpg, also ripped of flickr. Concluding: this uploder did nothing but stealing here, File:55 West Orlando.jpg falls under this general suspicion. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ty. --MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Authority

Da ist doch etwas megafaul. Alle Fotos mit angeblichem Datum 5/25/11, was ich mal als 25. Mai 2011 interpretiere. In den Kamera-EXIF Aufnahmedatum vom 31. Dez. 2006. Auf 8.jpg sieht Herr Fields aber jünger aus, hat eine ganz andere Frisur und einen Dreitagebart, etwa eine Stunde später (laut EXIF) hat er ein paar Pfund zugenommen, ein paar Falten zugelegt, ist rasiert und anders frisiert. Die Nikon D3 ist übrigens erst acht oder neun Monate später auf den Markt gekommen, Aug/Sep 2007. Aus den globalen Beiträgen werde ich nicht schlau. -- smial (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Meine Einschätzung: U.S. Ausgabe von Walter Freiwald, bewegt sich also wohl eher im B- bis C-Promi Segment, will hier Werbung machen, name-droping in en:Showdown (How I Met Your Mother) weil die Folge irgendwas mit Der Preis Ist Heiß zu tun hat (Raubkopie Online, bei 3:30), wahrscheinlich werden die Bilder von einem Agenten oder Praktikanten mit falschen Urheberrechtsangaben hochgeladen. {{subst:npd}}, beim Ausfüllen sollte der Schreiber merken, dass die Angabe "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of ..." nicht so ganz zutrifft, ansonsten passt auch {{subst:nsd}} da die Urheberangaben im EXIF und die in den gegeben Informationen sich widersprechen. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In DE wäre der Fall klar, weil man da kein Urheberrecht übernehmen kann, nach US-Recht ist das aber afaik möglich, oder? Trotzdem müßten solche Zweifelsfälle m.E. stumpf gelöcht werden dürfen, wenn kein Ticket des Urhebers vorliegt. -- smial (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ja, trotzdem denke ich, dass die (in den EXIF Daten mitveröffentlichte) Urhberschaft nicht einfach umgeschrieben werden kann und auch bei der Qullenangabe Nachbesserungsbedarf besteht, wenn Urheberrecht übertragen wurde dann muss das schriftlich geschehen und der neue Urheber ist sicher nicht ein "gewöhnlicher" Wikimedia-Benutzer sondern ein Unternehmen, das als Quelle auch angegeben werden sollte. Damit soll sich das OTRS-Team rumärgern, ich markiere derartige Dateien als 'missing permission': Freigabe erforderlich. --15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke für die Hinweise. -- smial (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question

This image was proposed as the blurb image for Today's Featured Article on en.wiki. I'd appreciate your view on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If this image is used on the mainpage it will most likely get a deletion request as a COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. Most likely I will not comment in that deletion request: not delete because im not sure - but also not keep, for the same reason. --Martin H. (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Unblock

Hello Martin, my friend from wiki-pt User:Lucas Brígido wants his unblock see here and, he asked in my user talk if can you unblock he, like you unblocked me. Thanks. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 17:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion: No. Lucas tried to imita a professional photographer to upload that persons work unauthorized. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But this happened in the past, now he changed your attitudes. He knows what can upload, and cannot upload in commons. Give a second chance, as it did me. --Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I said my opinion already. --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Germán Sirvent

Hey You! Those photos for the page Germán Sirvent I took, I raised and them that page after raising wiki! I took those photographies for this website: www.germansirvent.com.ar. BUT THEY ARE STILL MINE!

P.D: Answer me in Spanish!

--Diego HC (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Martin,

ich habe das von dir cv-getaggte und von mir selbst gelöschte File:Humberto Krujoski.jpg vorläufig wieder hergestellt (aber no-perm getaggt), da der Uploader behauptet[8], dass er es zunächst für die vermutete Quell-Website aufgenommen hat. Tatsächlich trägt das Foto auf der Website ein Wasserzeichen (links unten)[9], die Version auf Commons dagegen nicht. Ich neige dazu ihm zu glauben, habe aber mal die Website kontaktiert und um Bestätigung des Autorennamens gebeten. Ich habe dem User bereits auf meiner Disku ausführlich geantwortet, weshalb du dir den Aufwand sparen (oder es von dort kopieren) kannst. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke, Turelio. --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Martin, 12 Tage nach meiner Emailanfrage an je-motorsport.com.ar habe ich deren Bestätigung für File:Humberto Krujoski.jpg erhalten. Ich habs an OTRS weitergeleitet, so dass die OTRS-Ticket-Nr. dort auftauchen sollte. Außerdem habe ich dir früher von mir gelöschten File:Humberto Krujoski full.JPG und File:Humbert campeon.jpg wieder hergestellt, da sie in derselben Zeitschriften-Website gefunden wurden. --Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Danke, der Uploader bleibt mir dennoch suspekt. --Martin H. (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User rights

Hello again Martin. I find I'm spending enough time here to need additional user rights. Can you assign me rollover rights, to fight vandalism, as I have on the English wikipedia? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave you rollback, and I made you an autopatroller and patroller, see Commons:Patrol. --Martin H. (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Martin, I appreciate that. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Also wondering if I might be given File mover rights. I've discovered quite a few of my early files, before I was accustomed to working at Commons, which bear somewhat unwieldy (or not specific) names. I'd like to rename them with more appropriate titles. Thanks again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

file nataliacruz.jpg

This picture from my wife I took while she was working on Univision. 2 pictures from my wife were deleted. I am trying to make her wiki page. Pictures were taken by me and with her consent and we give them as public domain.

Page: Natalia Cruz. model: Natalia Cruz Photographer : Jairo Cruz (erumberonews) taken on 3-25-2011 --Erumberonews (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The copyright on such screenshots belongs to the television station she is working for, the copyright does not belong to the subject or her husband or to the person who created the screenshot. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Springsteen thing

Please see my remark at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#The Songs Of Bruce Springsteen 1965 - 2010. I see no reason not to assume good faith. Of course he needs to file an OTRS, but why did you start by assuming he's an imposter? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood him, I not compared the "book" author and the username and thought, it was him who made a photo of a book that he owns, so your right, my instruction is wrong there. I however have to place "book" in scare quotes here, this looks rather like an yet unpublished book intended for self-publication, the edits are book, email and weblink spam. --Martin H. (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block of serial copyvio uploader and sockpuppets User:Usher124 and User:Candy475

Judging from the page history at the spanish wiki and the files uploaded and added there today and in the past the following users may be more sockpuppets of the two mentioned above: User:Eliseo258 and User:Rebi. I don't have an idea how to start a checkuser request but it may be needed. --Denniss (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, already checked Candy475 but i possibly missed Eliseo258 and Rebi. --Martin H. (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Aaro is another candidate, uploaded a copyvio image for the same spanish article. --Denniss (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The incarnation of today is User:Presents. Add User:Prous to the list. He/she/it seems to be eally obsessed with the band the images are uploade for..... --Denniss (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gesperrt. --Martin H. (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Kolyarudoj (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

You previously blocked this user for uploading copyright violations. This user is not correctly giving evidence of permission on their uploads. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All files tagged already. --Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Borrado de imagen Paloma.jpg

No entiendo porque eliminaron dicha fotografia ya que estaba siendo ocupada en el perfil de la persona http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paloma_Fabrykant la foto es propiedad de Fabrykant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.178.145 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article es:Paloma Fabrykant is deleted, the image File:Paloma.jpg exists and shows something different. I dont know what you mean. --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this licence okay for commons

User:EvaK/Licence - A personal licence page, confusing with many licenses including a non commercial stuff, is it okay here..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as it includes at least 2 Commons-compatible licenses. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What will be the logic behind the non commercial license..just confused..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know EvaK's logic behind that. A possible intent might be to slightly restrict the commercial usability, while fully maintaining the usability on Wikimedia projects. Remember that this template was created already in 2008, when Commons was perceived mainly as a "tool" for the Wikipedias. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is ok under Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it...thanks.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitte um Hilfe

Hallo Martin! Ich habe ein Problem und bitte um Hilfe. Irgendjemand hat mir „sinnvollerweise“ die file-mover-Berechtigung gekappt. Ich wüsste nicht, dass ich irgendetwas falsch gemacht oder diese missbraucht hätte. Aktuell wäre das Bild File:Valdimir Pettay - Referee, Russia (01).jpg nach File:Vladimir Pettay - Referee, Russia (01).jpg zu verschieben. Kannst Du mir diese wieder geben bitte? – Vielen Dank und l.G. Steindy (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Den Rechteentzug hat Rehman vorgenommen[10] wegen "Revoked filemover rights due to inappropriate moves followed by ineligible SD requests". Das hätte dir eigentlich mitgeteilt werden müssen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für Deine Antwort, Martin. Leider sagt mir das nichts, den Link kann ich wegen fehlender Rechte nicht einsehen und ich bin mir auch keines Fehlers bewusst. Verständigung gab es auch keine. Was kann ich jetzt tun? --Steindy (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Zum äussersten greifen, User:Rehman ansprecchen. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Was soll denn „Zum äussersten greifen“ bedeuten? Die letzten Verschiebungen, die ich gemacht hatte, dienten ausschließlich dazu, ein Ordnungssystem herzustellen. Du kannst ja bei meinen Benutzerbeiträgen nachsehen:

22:28, 10. Mär. 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) K File:Bernhard Brugger - Fußballschiedsrichter (01).jpg ‎ (moved File:Bernhard Brugger - Fußballschiedsrichter.jpg to File:Bernhard Brugger - Fußballschiedsrichter (01).jpg) (aktuell)

21:56, 10. Mär. 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) K File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (04).jpg ‎ (moved File:Thomas Einwaller, Schiedsrichter (3).jpg to File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (04).jpg) (aktuell)

21:55, 10. Mär. 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) N File:Thomas Einwaller, Schiedsrichter (2).jpg ‎ (moved File:Thomas Einwaller, Schiedsrichter (2).jpg to File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (03).jpg)

21:55, 10. Mär. 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) K File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (03).jpg ‎ (moved File:Thomas Einwaller, Schiedsrichter (2).jpg to File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (03).jpg) (aktuell)

21:55, 10. Mär. 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) K File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (02).jpg ‎ (moved File:Thomas Einwaller, Schiedsrichter (1).jpg to File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (02).jpg) (aktuell)

21:52, 10. Mär. 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) K File:Thomas Einwaller - Fußballschiedsrichter (01).jpg ‎ (moved File:Thomas Einwaller - Fußballschiedsrichter.jpg to File:Thomas Einwaller - Fußballschiedsrichter (01).jpg) (aktuell)

--Steindy (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Auch wenn ein wenig ironisch gemeint, sollte mein Rat verständlich gewesen sein: du solltest Rehman selbst mal fragen, warum er die Rechte entzogen hat und ob das denn nötig war. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Meine Englischkenntnise werden für eine Diskussion wohl nicht (mehr) ausreichen und mit bablefish kann ich mich nur läscherlich machen. Immerhin ist es mehr als 40 Jahre seit meiner Schulzeit her... Naja, egal. Ich muss jetzt ohnehin gleich zum Fußball fotografieren fahren. – Vielen Dank und noch ein schönes Wochenende --Steindy (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Umbenennung erledigt. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Danke. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Global replace

Hi Martin! Can you globally replace File:Flag of Cordoba province in Argentina.gif (which is not official) for the official one File:Flag of Cordoba Province in Argentina.svg. Thanks! Alakasam (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin. What happent. Thanks! Alakasam (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I somehow missed this question. It looks very different, I dont know if I can just replace it. Also it is used in many infoboxes, Commonsdelinker will not replace most usage. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do it manually. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests for: Orden de la Amistad de los Pueblos (Rusa).jpg

Hi Martin, I know that several of my images uploaded have had license problems and tried to correct it, but in the case of this image and the other (Orden de la Amistad de los Pueblos (Soviética).jpg that you recently deleted can't understand.

I got these files from the same page as the main image of the article, this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OrderOfTheFriendshipOfPeoples.jpg and I was use the same license and put it more info that this other file.

This image have a lot time in Wikipedia.

why don't deleted that image too?

Only explain me that please!!! --C records (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because one file, File:OrderOfTheFriendshipOfPeoples.jpg, is not yet deleted does not mean that you can upload more of this. This is a photo of a medal. The photographer has a copyright, you can not just take other peoples photos and upload them. --Martin H. (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok Martin, you right. I was think that those image was free to use, now I have it clear. I will not upload an image until to be totally sure of his license.

Only some questions:

If I retouch several details in a image like these (Medals and Orders), not supposed that is not the same image?, still have the copyright?

I so, I guess that will must upload like a Own Work right?

Please sorry for my mistake and thanks for your time. --C records (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the photogtraphic work or scan must be your own work. Sometimes also such medals or awards can have a copyrighted design, but for official medals or awards we in most cases think that the medal design is exempted from copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

reza amirkhani permission

Hi http://www.cinemapress.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=4437 according to what the origin of that work has mentioned, sharing this work is free in condition to citing the name of the origin and author (in persian- look at the bottm of the web site)--94.76.231.18 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It says "All Rights Reserved". So they not necessarily allow commercial reuse, they not allow for modifications, they not necessarily allow for redistribution and they reserve the right to change this reuse terms, therefore the license is not irrevocable and not free. See Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain (and following sections). --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reza amirkhani picture permission

in the bottom of this web site has been mentioned all the materials are owned by iran cinema and use of them by citing the name of the author (iran cinema) is allowed.This way is common way to redistribute different works in iran.Also i made a contact with the owner of this web site and they repeat this sentence that sharing the pic with citing the name of the author and website is allowed.--94.76.231.18 17:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See one above. The copyright holder must give written permission to a free license, the sentence does not constitute free reuse terms as described in Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Antonie Janisch

Thank you very much for uploading this photo!

Category:Voortrekkers

Hi, I see that you have been busy removing images from the category of Voortrekkers - can you tell me why? cheers Androstachys (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed those that are already in the subcategory of the monument, per COM:OVERCAT. --Martin H. (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep! I can see that categories could quickly become a mess without sensible management! ciao Androstachys (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More ChicagoHistory1

FYI. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can relinquish on a checkuser at the moment, if possibly - I hope not - a new sock comes I will do a check and include this one. --Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One more question about licensing please

Martin, but what about field Licensing: for my screenshots? Which option under the field Licensing: should I choose for my screenshots? I tried to choose different options filling out all the required information in other fields but the file is always deleted not giving me the chances to send the email with written permissions. Can you please help me with this question?

You have to select that license that the copyright holder agreed to. You have to follow the information written below the "Permission" input field. --Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand right I must add {{OTRS pending}} and send permission by e-mail so for now I need to choose nothing under the field Licensing: ?

Martin please help!

Birth of the Internet jpeg

I see that the "File:Birth of the Internet.jpg" was deleted from the Commons. Where can I go to see the discussion leading up to the decision to delete this file? Where can I go to review some of the history of the file now that it has been deleted? I'd like to know when it was originally uploaded, under what sort of license, by whom, and with what permissions. W163 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The file was tagged as a derivative work, the ´copyright on the photographic work waived ({{PD-self}}) by the uploader, the main subject of the photo is however an object that is not public domain and that is not de minimis. --Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

From your response I take it that there was no discussion before the decision was made to delete the image. Is that correct? Who tagged the image as a derivative work? When? Is a commemorative plaque displayed in a public place really considered a creative work subject to copyright? When was the image originally uploaded? It was first used back in late March 2009 in an article I've been working on recently, so the image was available for two years or longer. Did it go through the OTRS or whatever other process existed back then? Was it judged acceptable then? Were any complaints received from someone with an interest in the plaque? Assuming that there was no complaint, shouldn't files that have been available for a long time and that have not been challenged, be given special consideration, at least to the extent of asking if beyond a possible technical copyright violation, if anyone is being hurt by the continued existence of the work on the Commons? In such cases isn't there something less drastic that could be done other than simply deleting the file? Was any attempt made to get permission from the copyright holder? Could the photo have been moved from the Commons to Wikipedia-en and used as a non-free fair use image? W163 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes.
• See the notification on the uploaders talkpage
• See the notification on the uploaders talkpage
• Of course, Yes. see recent undeletion discussion for a similar plaque that has considerably less copyrighted text but still is under copyright and requires the copyright holders permission.
• Not documented, ask the uploader
• A complaint is not required, we not infringe on copyrights as long as copyright holders not complaint. COM:PRP.
• No. Not "being hurt by the continued existence" is not an argument. Not free is not free, and not free is not in scope of Commons.
• Yes, a deletion discussion with the same outcome.
• Not documented, but ask the uploader.
• I dont know, but I dont think so. Reduced size versions for "fair use" are available on Wiki mirrors, the file description is visible in google cache. So if you think it fits the "fair use" requirements you have all information still online or you can ask the uploader.

--Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a copy of Martin H's answers with the original questions added in italics to make it easier to follow:

• no discussion before the decision to delete. Is that correct? Yes.
• Who tagged the image as a derivative work? See the notification on the uploaders talkpage
• When? See the notification on the uploaders talkpage
• Is a commemorative plaque displayed in a public place really considered a creative work subject to copyright? Of course, Yes. see recent undeletion discussion for a similar plaque that has considerably less copyrighted text but still is under copyright and requires the copyright holders permission.
• When was the image originally uploaded? [not answered, but looking at the description from Google cache it seems to have been uploaded on 3 November 2008 by User Ethics2med who has been blocked since September 2009]
• Did it go through the OTRS or whatever other process existed back then? Was it judged acceptable then? Not documented, ask the uploader
• Were any complaints received from someone with an interest in the plaque? A complaint is not required, we not infringe on copyrights as long as copyright holders not complaint. COM:PRP.
• shouldn't files that have been available for a long time and that have not been challenged, be given special consideration No. Not "being hurt by the continued existence" is not an argument. Not free is not free, and not free is not in scope of Commons.
• [is] there something less drastic that could be done other than simply deleting the file? Yes, a deletion discussion with the same outcome.
• Was any attempt made to get permission from the copyright holder? Not documented, but ask the uploader.
• Could the photo have been moved from the Commons to Wikipedia-en and used as a non-free fair use image? I dont know, but I dont think so. Reduced size versions for "fair use" are available on Wiki mirrors, the file description is visible in google cache. So if you think it fits the "fair use" requirements you have all information still online or you can ask the uploader.

W163 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

From looking at User talk:Ethics2med it seems that the notice of copyright violation was added to that page on 4 April 2011 by User:davepape. Because User:Ethisc2med has been blocked indefinitely since September 2009, it seems fairly certain that the notice wasn't seen before the file was deleted on 6 April. And a two day notice for a file that had been available for two and a half years seems pretty short, not that a longer notice period would have done any good since the only notice was to the talk page of a user blocked since 2009. In your reply above you (Martin H.) suggest several times that I check with the uploader, but I don't really know who the uploader is or how to go about contacting him or her. This whole business is made more difficult because the original file was uploaded so long before the decision to delete it was made. W163 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a derivative work of unfree content, its the uploaders burden to not upload content that is not free of third party copyrights or to provide evidence that all parties agreed to the license (see Commons:First steps/License selection). If this not happens the file will get deleted. If the uploader considers this basic rules he will not upload such files. If he not had uploaded this file you would not have used it in Wikipedia, if you not had used it in Wikipedia you now not would have asked me questions about the file; questions that I presumaby cant answer to your satisfaction. --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But the uploader did and I did. Should I be taking this conversation to some other forum? Where? W163 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Rosario Skyline.jpg

File:Rosario Skyline.jpg the image was not approved by any user and in fact the license is not compatible with commons. Alakasam (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think because of the obvious lie, the user deserves to a lock. Alakasam (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, faked flickrreview template, copy&pasted from File:Buenos Aires - Club de Pescadores.jpg. Not only File:Rosario Skyline.jpg but also File:Caminito Havanna Buenos Aires.jpg, File:Planetario Buenos Aires Night.jpg and maybe more. Possiby the uplaoder not know anything about license and what it means but he thought he can copy images from the internet or from flickr and can upload them here with a file description copy&pasted from another file. --Martin H. (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

from uwe kils

hallo Martin!

Wie gibt man auf einer deutschen Tastatur die Tilde ein? Ich kann keine Bilder mehr hochladen. danke. user uwe kils

Die Taste rechts neben der ü-Taste gleichzeitig mit der "Alt Gr"-Taste drücken. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Alt Gr + + (neben dem ü). --Martin H. (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

==danke, geht. was mach ich beim Hochladen auf Commons falsch? Error Author needed. original Source needed. Ist etwas neu? Kannst Du mein Antarctic Krill krill666.jpg Bild bitte vorschlagen als Picture of the Day Uwe kils (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry about United Nations Photo Library Template

Hi. My name's Daffy123 and I've uploaded several images that belong to the united nations photo library since there is a template that authorizes to do so http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:United_Nations_Photo_Library_License. But the images where taken down and I would like to know where now then the United Nations Photo Library Template is unable to use. (There seems to be no image that is currently using the template)

Its not the template that authorize you to do anything. Its a written permission from the copyright holder, if you not have such a permission, and if a general permission did not exist, then you can not do anything. --Martin H. (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poptropica logo.jpg

Hi Martin H. Can you check what's going on there? Doesn't look right. Thanks, --ZooFari 23:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorted out and closed the deletion request as obviously unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gillian Zinser actresses.jpg

You warned this Commons account uploader to stop uploading copyvios and yet he has done another one here. The copyright belongs to Charley Gallay/Getty Images. This is a flickrwash. Perhaps he should be blocked for 2 or 3 months? Just a suggestion, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Tabercil (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: OK. Its good that he was blocked for at least 1 month because if you or Tabercil warn him and he still uploads another copyvio or flickrwash, then a warning is just useless sadly...if no action was taken. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMG 0929.JPG

Hallo Martin, da du der Datei verständlicherweise mal ein no-source verpasst hattest, bist du natürlich auch zur DR-Party eingeladen, die ich aufgemacht habe, nachdem die Datei heute auf COM:AN gelandet war. Fühle dich frei, mir in der DR auch zu widersprechen. --Túrelio (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hobo or hipster

Martin, i'm the guy in the photo. It was uploaded to poorlydressed without my permission. I feel i have a right to publish such pictures wherever i wish as they were unauthorised likenesses of myself

The copyright holder is the photographer, not the person inside the image. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But the photographer is unknown. Nevertheless, i have asked the owners of the blog for permission

The copyright belongs to the photographer for their lifetime +70 years. If you cant find out the author the copyright will still belong to the photographer for their lifetime +70 years. If the photographer published the photo under a pseudonyme without leaving any trace to the real identity or published the photo anonymous without any trace, then the copyright will expire 70 years from publication. But I doubt that the photographer is unknown, you are watching directly on them, therefore you probably know who made it. -Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the photographer. But i have posted a comment on the photo asking the owners of the blog for permission to use it http://poorlydressed.failblog.org/2011/04/13/fashion-fail-hobo-or-hipster/#comments

Wann schafft man Unterkategorien?

Hallo, ich würd gern wissen, was so ne ungefähre Richtlinie ist, wann es sinnvoll ist, Unterkategorien zu schaffen, habe aber nix im Regelwerk gefunden. Weißt Du was? Damit Du weißt, worum es geht: Commons:Village_pump#Category:Churches_in_Belgium. Danke. Catfisheye (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Naja, sobald es eben sinnvoll ist... ;) --Martin H. (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sind 3.000 files sinnvoll in einer Kat aufgehoben? Darf ein Admin hier in seinen eigenen Belangen löschen? Catfisheye (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wahrscheinlich macht es schon Sinn, da zu separieren. Kommt sicherlich darauf an, wie es gemacht wird. Ich kann aber zu der Frage auf dem VP nichts sagen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Und zu der Löschen/Revertieren, dann Reden? Catfisheye (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kommt darauf an, wie separiert wurde. Ich kenne den Fall und die Struktur nicht. Wenn es schlecht gemacht wurde möchte ich einer 'Intervention' nicht widersprechen, ansonsten wäre Commons eine Einbahnstraße ins Chaos. Wenn es gut gemacht war wäre ein Revertieren sicherlich nicht Richtig. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Dann darf ein Admin seine erweiterten Rechte in seinen Belangen benutzen? oO Tja, dann ist das wohl eher nicht mein Projekt. :( Catfisheye (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Dandridge

Hallo, hier eine Liste, die Dir die Arbeit beim Aufstöbern von Jerrysocken vielleicht erleichtern kann. Gruß, Martin1978 (deWiki) --141.90.2.58 08:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich würde ein weiteres Eigenschaftswort ergänzen: "hyperaktiv". Eigentlich ist er ganz drollig, bindet aber zuviel Arbeitskraft. Hier kam er auch schon vorbei. Ist vermutlich ein Nomade im Web :-). Gruss, ME 78.55.158.6 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ps.: User:Bad Mentee ist wieder mal Jerry. --Martin1978 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help in removing watermark

Hi, I've uploaded this file from Flickr, it has watermark of author on it, which I don't know how to remove; as you've pretty much experience with files, so please remove this watermark and also give me some guidelines about this procedure..Thanks Bill william compton^Talk 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, im totaly unexpirienced with image editing. I can only crop. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Borrado de Gifs tenerife

Han borrado esta foto File talk:Gifs tenerife.jpg, en su tiempo cambie las categorías alegandoque; Las imágenes ya están subidas al commons y son de mi autoría, espero haber completado lo que solicitaban y no borren el collage. No sé que realice mal, pero puedo dar fe que el trabajo es propio y que las fotos están todas en commons. Me gustaría lo volvieran a subir para poder añadirlo en su artículo correspondiente. Un saludo.--Martely (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the photos are all at Commons you should list them as source. My personal example for this is File:Cuscoinfobox.png, if all photos are your own work you can possibly leave out to link all licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminação das imagens

Muitas dessas fotos eu tirei há dois, três, quatro anos atrás, pois sou apaixonado por fotografia. Eu as coloquei no orkut, e muitas pessoas salvaram várias de minhas imagens, que até hoje estão por vários sites e blogs. Eu excluí meu perfil do orkut, mas as fotos continuaram na rede, porque as pessoas gostaram delas. Não tenho o que fazer.--Juniorpetjua (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, remove your false author claims from the stolen photos and stop chatting. File:PORTO DE GALINHAS-PERNAMBUCO.jpg for example is obviously stolen, "Fonte: Trabalho próprio pelo carregador" is a bloddy lie! --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminação das imagens

Eu não roubei todas essas imagens. É muito triste ver todo o trabalho que eu tive ser excluído da Wikipédia e Wikimedia Commons. Mas eu não tenho muito o que fazer, até porque não conheço muito a Wikimedia Commons. Fiz essas edições com a melhor das minhas intenções. Um abraço --Juniorpetjua (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

rename request

Hi Martin, would you be so kind to rename a couple of categories for me? We are currently trying to sort out subcategories for registered heritage structures in New Zealand. As part of the discussion, I created a couple of subcategories. We've now agreed to not spell out "New Zealand Historic Places Trust" in full, but use their acronym instead (NZHPT). The discussion is on Wikipedia. Is this simple enough, or do I have to go through a more formal process?

• Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings to Category:NZHPT Category I listings
• Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings in the Canterbury Region to Category:NZHPT Category I listings in the Canterbury Region
• Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Register in the Canterbury Region to Category:NZHPT register in the Canterbury Region

Thanks! Schwede66 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You just created them, therefore I see no problem in quickly renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You are your usual efficient self! Schwede66 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I've stuffed something up and I think I need your help. I think it's got to do with a normal dash and an endash. If I know this right, Category:Manawatu-Whanganui Region should be using an endash. Am I correct? I don't even know how to figure out what kind of dash the existing category uses. I've tried to use sub-categories to this:

• Category:NZHPT register in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region
• Category:NZHPT Category I listings in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region (I haven't created that one yet, but it's needed)
• Category:NZHPT Category II listings in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region

The problem is that I've ended up with a mixture of dashes. I've tried to fix it by setting up a redirect (Category:NZHPT register in the Manawatu-Whanganui Region), but that didn't work either, as I don't know which dashes I'm using. Could you please try and straighten this out? Sorry for causing this hassle. Schwede66 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got it under control. Schwede66 23:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

image source

Hi , you think that some images uploaded by myself are missing information about their source as you wrote here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrywka in all images it is written that it is my personal archive .And all photos were made more than 70 years ago. I do not see any problems for these images Andrywka

70 years old is not the requirement. The copyright belongs to the person who created the image. That person died >70 years ago or the photo was published >70 years ago and the authors name was never given in any publication. You have to provide information about the photographer or you have to reference the publication(s), beeing in your personal archive is meaningless for the copyright status, the fact that you not know the author does not mean that the author is unknown and is not a sufficient replacement for an evidence of anonymous publication. --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And per this edit: Are you sure that your information above ("made more than 70 years ago") is the truth? Or is it just a little lie for uploading the image?? We normaly not falsify or fake information and tell the untruth on this project, the scope of this project is NOT to steal somthing. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a lie . The foto was made between 41-43 years. but if there is a rule of 70 years it is better not to wright anything then to write 43. The article to which these images refer is about my grandfather who fought against nacism in the second world war. in Russia every family have such foto archive with such images from that war made by their relatives with only information of period of foto and nothing else. So what shall be done to make this foto satisfy the rules of Wiki? (having in mind that this foto was made by unknown author or may be by himself , no one will never know it) Andrywka 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also have photos of my grandparents. I can not upload photos they created themself because Im the inheritor of the photo albums, but im not the sole inheritor of the intelectual property rights, and the licensing will require the consent of all heirs of that rights). And I can not upload photos others created of them because the copyright belongs not to my family but to the family of the photographer. You see, physical ownership of some photo is absoulutely meaningless. You must have a publication or you must have a written document for transfer of intelectual property rights (copyrights). There is nothing you can do with this photos. --Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

so if they will be published on another website and after uploading to wiki i will put that site as a source it will satisfy the rules? Andrywka 21:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not another website. Published some 70 years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How these images should be published on commons if i got information that these fotos were made by my grandmother? Andrywka 09:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Rova 1903.gif

Bitte wiederherstellen, der Quelle fehlte schon in der en-wp, muss einfach unbekannt heißen (leider erst jetzt aufgefallen)--Antemister (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quelle einfach "unbekannt"? Das ist auf keinen Fall eine ausreichende Quellenangabe. --Martin H. (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambrosius Benson.jpg

That was one of the first files I uploaded. I did'nt know very well how to manage all the uploading steps properly, nor even know how to do it fastly nowadays: I just write when I see it is possible to do it, and click when I don't see it's possible to write. When clicking, you don't choose the text by your own, but choose among a very little amount of possibilities, and maybe you know their implications or maybe not. If not, which is very common at the beginnings, you choose that which seems to be the most simple or just fastest way. That's why sometimes we upload some files in a way which is not very accurate, specially at the beginnings.

With Ambrosius Benson.jpg, I just took the picture and made some modifications in colour in order to put it in spanish Wikipedia article titled "Capilla Flamenca" so it, when seen as a small miniature (let's say 100px), would more or less suit to the CD cover's own colour. That's why I wrote my nickname in some place, because the engine asked for it when modifications where envolved, but I think source data can be read in some other place anyway.

I'm not fond at all to see my name at this media or anyone else, nor even a nick of mine, but the uploading engine asks you for at least a nick, and I don't want to register myself using a different one each time. If I could or know how to do it, I would do all the job anonymously, but... --Wikielwikingo (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ehm, Commons:Upload (Commons:Upload/es), its NOT your own work (fruto de mi trabajo), its from somewhere else (de algún otro sitio). --Martin H. (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File Tagging File:Meopta Prerov.jpg

Dear administrator and check-user on Wikimedia Commons, this file is uploaded by an official Meopta webmaster sometime ago, and it was deleted. Tomorrow I will call meopta Prerov, and will supply info requested to OTRS.--Erkanumut (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File Tagging File:Meopta Admira 8 G2 SUPRA.jpg

Dear administrator and check-user on Wikimedia Commons, what do you want for this simple camera picture? I think I supplied all the info...--Erkanumut (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A written permission from the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Erlaubnis Commons für Image, Michael Spindelegger

Lieber Martin H.,

wir haben explizite Erlaubnis von Bigshot.at, vor allem aber Christian Jungwirth, die Portraits von Vizekanzler Michael Spindelegger in den Commons zu publiziern. Wo ist das Problem??

--Barbarino (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wie angegeben: Die Freigabe bitte an OTRS weiterleiten. Nur folgende Anmerkung: Eine Freigabe zur Publikation auf Wikipedia oder Wikimedia Commons ist nicht ausreichend. Der Urheber muss zustimmen, die Datei unter einer freien Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Eine freie Lizenz erlaubt Jedem, nicht nur Wikipedia, die Datei jederzeit, überall und zu jedem Zweck, edukative ebenso wie kommerzielle Zwecke, weiterzunutzen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Conta "Abdias"

Eu sinceramente não sei mais o que fazer. Criei a conta "Abdias" porque pensei que a minha conta "juniorpetjua" seria excluída por você. Eu tive muito trabalho: eu entrei em contato com várias pessoas no flickr e pesquisei fotos com licença "Creative Commons - Attribution 2.0 Generic". Fiz upload das fotos dentro de todas as regras da Wikimedia e mesmo assim vi todas as minhas imagens serem excluídas novamente. Eu estava pensando em tirar mais fotos de minha cidade para fazer upload aqui na Wikimedia Commons, mas pelo visto tudo o que eu adicionar será excluído sem a mínima análise. Passei meses editando a Wikipedia, e criei a conta "Abdias" apenas para evitar que todo o meu trabalho fosse posto no lixo... mas de nada adiantou: Perdi tudo!

Veja essas fotos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rds_sp/4963738128/in/set-72157617130269378 by Raul DS

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gjofili/5176774006/ by gjofili

Agora me diga: Há algo de errado com essas fotos? Eu posso fazer upload de fotos com a licença "Creative Commons - Attribution 2.0 Generic" de usuários diversos do flickr aqui na Wikimedia Commons? Ou estou proibido de fazer qualquer coisa por aqui? Um grande abraço =]--Juniorpetjua (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

With the Abdias account you created own flickr account and started license laundering - thats stealing of images on flickr for the only purpose to later forward the stolen photos to Commons. As long as you dont do such bad things I dont care what you do. --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Veja essas fotos que eu fiz upload:

File:Terminal Salineiro no Rio Grande do Norte.jpg

File:Boa Viagem (2) - Recife - Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg

File:Rio Capibaribe (2) - Recife - Pernambuco - Brasil.jpg

File:Recife e suas pontes.jpg

File:Torre de Cristal - Recife-PE.jpg

File:Porto de Galinhas - Pernambuco - Brasil(2).jpg

File:Montagem Recife (2).jpg

File:Petrolina, Pernambuco - Brasil.jpg

File:Recife, Pernambuco (2) - Brasil.jpg

Elas estão irregulares? Eu posso utilizá-las na Wikipedia sem problema ou elas serão excluídas? --Juniorpetjua (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks ok, why not directly, why so many bad uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Thank you for doing what was needed in respect of the photo "Triloki Nath Madan.jpg". I have sent written permission to permissions-common@wikimedia.org.

MD (payasam) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payasam (talk • contribs) 24. April 2011, 02:52 Uhr (UTC)

An OTRS-volunteer will deal with your permission. Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ID needed

Hi! I think we should add a file to "the bad list" but to do so we need an ID. How do we find it? User_talk:MGA73#File:Whitey_Ford.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You can use http://idgettr.com/. This is documented at Template:qfi. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Answered? I have http://www.flickr.com/photo.gne?id= bookmarked in my Commons bookmarks. --Martin H. (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Experience does matter

Can you pls look here File_talk:Anoop_Menon.jpg...as i believe the uploader is not a real one 1 upload..appearing on several websites...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Answered at the file talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

hi

i think you are deleting my image files. just because they are arabic background even if i put the sources needed for the files. you and the egyptian users in the arabic version in the wikipedia deleting what ever you want and editing what ever you want way behind wiki politics. see the arabic version of wiki ! it controls by egyptian and they just cares about their country and they write articles about people who even not notable enough only from egypt. if you are brave man reply me.

neogeolegend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogeolegend (talk • contribs) 28. April 2011, 00:59 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Neogeolegend, Martin is offline and cannot reply currently. It seems that most of your uploads were deleted because they violated copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All copyvios, unfree files taken from the internet. Its not that we not care about the content, we only care about copyirghts and if the file is free content, if it is not free content you are simply not allowed to uplaod it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Evando.JPG

Abouthis picture, I'm the author. Eversonrachadel (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eversonrachadel,

as Martin is offline, I'll try to answer. This image is obviously not an original. You wrote yourself "Foto escaneada", i.e. it's a scanned photo print. When was the original photography shot, where and by whom? --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

the source for the scan is required. Physical ownership of an photo or magazine does not confer ownership of the copyright: that remains with the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:JSK Coupe du Maghreb des clubs Champions 1973.jpg

Tu as supprimer ma contribution alors que la photographie est vielle de 40ans!!! Donc dépourvue de licence, et en accès libre! Certes j'ai scaner, et alors? Où est le problème? Tu veux que je te donne la date du journal dans laquelle je l'ai prise? Tout en sachant que les archives de la Bibliothèque National de France ne me permettent plus de le faire!!! Rhéabilites ma contribution tu as supprimer pour rien! Sinon je vais me plaindre! (Akli11 22:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

Martin is currently offline and cannot reply. Besides, the file was deleted on 5. Sep. 2010, i.e. more than 7 months ago! And it was not deleted by Martin, but by Jameslwoodward, who had it already explained[11] to you. Besides, "40ans" means nothing. In most countries of the world, a photo is protected until 70 years after the death of the photographer. --Túrelio 06:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

answered. thx. --Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Leon.jpg

Hallo Martin H., magst du mal wieder eine Version bei File:Leon.jpg löschen? ;-)

Der Quellenlink des scheint mir übrigens auch nicht ganz zu stimmen. Aber vielleicht war er früher ja richtig...

Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Versionslöschung anscheinend schon durch Bdk erledigt. --Túrelio 07:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, dann schau ich da garnicht mehr rein. --Martin H. (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

when you are back

Hallo Martin H., könntest du dich nach deiner Rückkehr event. mal dieses Falls annehmen. Danke. --Túrelio 14:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• erledigt, habe einen Checkuser gemacht und Martin einen Rat gegeben wie es weitergehen soll.

Endlich bist du wieder da ;-). Ich bin schon ganz erschöpft von den vielen URVs and Vandalismen. --Túrelio (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ein Kampf gegen Windmühlen ;) Ich hab auch meiner Beobachtungsliste schon 2 Langzeitfälle von URV-Sockenpuppen gesehen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello from Cienfue

Please don't delete my images Martin! My photographer already emailed commons giving his permission to use them on http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cienfue:

From: "ivan marquez" <marquezivan@me.com>

To permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:CIENFUEgritoFVCM10.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:CienfuebandJazzcafe.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:CienfuecloseupCalledelInfierno.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:CienfueVive2010puño.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:CienfueQuitoFest.jpg].

I agree to publish that work under the free license [FAL-Free Art License].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

May5, 2011, Ivan Marquez marquezivan@me.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/marquezivan/

Thanks!

Camilo Navarro (Cienfue)

The question is, if "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of " is the correct wording. The photographer must agree to the free license and must agree that anyone, worldwide, can reuse the image for any purpose with attribution to the photographer. A photographer will possibly not like if his work is reused with some wrong attribution to some Wikimedia Commons user called Cienfue. --Martin H. (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:CWH041807

Hi. Since you blocked this user in November for uploading nonfree images, he's uploaded at least one more nonfree image and this one is yet to be deleted but it's pretty clearly nonfree. Just so you're aware. 68.35.40.154 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Anoop Menon.jpg

Hi Martin, I hadn't noticed that you had reinstated the no-permission tag, but after reading the talk_page discussion I added a DR (sorry :-), I can't remove the DR page myself, so I'll leave it up to you how to handle it. As the file is in use (and has been for 2yrs), if we copy the details from the talk page to the DR, non-admins will a least be able to see why the file went whereas with a no-permission deletion they wouldn't find out why. PS I think you were right, as always? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't help me, fight me: you like it so much...

If you create an image since one source, it's only copyviol. When you create one since two sources, it's compilation, but can be copyviol again. When you create it since many sources, i'ts research, but it's may be copyviol again & again. But if you create an image only since yourself, it's can be original research !  ;-)

Even some of my personal photographies, as "Ammonites & Belemnite.jpg", were deleted !

But please, make that you think to be right. Spiridon Ion Cepleanu <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Spiridon_Ion_Cepleanu> as --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Working towards getting proper license agreement for photo.

I recently received an email from MediaWiki Mail

It said, in part: ...

Heather Knight sent me an email which stated the following: ...

• I feel like I am muddling through this. Your guidance and patience is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Emails removed. The first permission, a permission for Wikipedia only, is not sufficient. See COM:PS#Must be freely licensed or public domain#Non-allowable licence terms. If you got a permission to a free license you should forward your email to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

May be you can help...

Hi.

I understand all this an I respect the author's rights (myself I'm an author). But fot Jeannel and other images, I draw with Photoshop, since a source, another image, with other colours, positions, details. Frequenntly I write the sources in the document itsself (Gulag.jpg). Il this case (Gulag.jpg, Jeannel.jpg, etc) is it a copyviol again ? If yes, I agree the deletion. I try to upload some images with "œuvre d'une autre provenance" & with "PD-old" but this choices are invalid (grey): only "œuvre personnelle" (own) works. Why? I dont' know.

May be you can help me, if you are an administrator. In my french and romanian accounts Wikipedia I ask the change of my account for Spiridon MANOLIU (pseudonyme) into Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (my name). Result: no problem, & done. In the english account and in Commons, impossible. Why? I don't know. So, I open e new account Spiridon Ion Cepleanu in Commons and upload File:Ammonites & Belemnite.jpg and others with this account, but another administrator, Johann Bos (Jcb) taked my new account (my real name) as a sockpuppet of the account Spiridon MANOLIU and blocked me. And delete even File:Ammonites & Belemnite.jpg. My english is too poor to explain easy my position to him (and you), I must ask the help of german or dutch colleagues.

Sorry, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Or your ask an French administrator. I cant help you with the file, you never uploaded File:Ammonites & Belemnite.jpg. Renaming requests are filled in Commons:Changing username. --Martin H. (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:Commons:Deletion requests/Photos of cities by ASDFGHJ

Hey, I am sorry just delete them. ASDFGH (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You should use your account User:ASDFGHJ and use the deletion request for comments on it. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Check

This user uploaded images without multiple sources and then named them for disposal stating that I did not allow the inclusion of sources, which can be seen from historic images never existed. You can verify this? Please. Sorry my english. Fabiano ^msg 03:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion are ongoing. Rarico seems to be a copyvio uploder. --Martin H. (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ajay devgn on the sets Once upon..jpg

You deleted two images from this account as copy vios according to the user's talkpage. This is likely another copy vio sadly. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

deleted and added to QFI. --Martin H. (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Picture_of_Amy_Fisher.jpg

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

Hold and wave (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

image

Hi,why you deleted File:Reuters+India+Sai+Baba+funeral+27Apr11+480.jpg i took it from Voa and Voa is a public domainReza1615 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a photograph created by the agency REUTERS. Such photos are not public domain. See Template:PD-USGov-VOA. --Martin H. (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Dear Martin im Muhammed Raafat, official representative of Amr Diab on the internet and administrator of AMRDIAB.NET i just uploaded a new photo on Amr Diab page here on Wikipedia but it has been deleted cuz its grabbed from http://www.amrdiab.net/photos.html and thats ok as we are the official source of it so please let me upload it again and it'd be great if you allow me to be the only one who can edit Amr Diab page as there is many users try to ruin it and add wrong inof Thank you

The author and holder of copyrights is the photographer, not an internet administrator of AMRDIAB.NET. provide true author information and dont upload anything with false source ("its entirely my own work") or author claims. --Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And "to be the only one who can edit Amr Diab page ".... surely not, thats not possible. Its a wiki, anyone can edit. See en:Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and read especially en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in fact its you who should avoid to make edits there, edits made by persons in job often turn an encyclopedic article in some kind of en:Wikipedia:Fancruft. --Martin H. (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Borders.gif

You deleted this image as a copyright violation and so its copyright status is now being questioned on enwiki (as w:File:Armenia Throughout History.gif). Could you clarify what the image was a copyvio of and/or why it wasn't eligible for {{GFDL-Armenica}}? I obviously can't see the deleted history, so I don't know how it was tagged and some more information would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See the upload log, the file at the source is not labled as free content and hat no license indicated for 8 days. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought there might be something more to it since the deletion log said copyvio instead of no license. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Uher Zita

Dear Mr. Martin,

The lawyer who is handling the Uher Zita estate brought to our attention your comments regarding some problems accepting Uher Zita's photographs in Wikipedia. He indicated almost all of her pictures were removed. You comments regarding the issue you are correct. The pictures were not taken by Uher Zita. We didn't try to pull any tricks on anybody. We just didn't know what we were suppose to do to make it right. It was an oversight. The authors that is who took the pictures are long gone or deceased. Permission to release the pictures is given by her family and her lawyer who has the photographs. We believe the source of the pictures is a private collection ( személyes gyüjtemény ) of the late Uher Zita. Without the pictures the story is incomplete. Please make the necesary correctios and restate the pictures. In a somewhat related matters, we would like to ask your help. Some of the text in Wikipedia was changed twisting the sentences and thus the format, making the text difficult to read. Case in point is the following sentence which doesn't make sense at all. " 1951. május 27-én még fellépett a viharos sikerű Anyegin-felújításon Larina szerepében (más forrás helytelenül Filipjevna szerepét írja) lépett fel, Ferencsik János vezényletével,[12] de június 7-én kitelepítették a családot Tiszaföldvárra. What business this has to do with the kitelepiessel. The word még and de don't belong to this sentence at all. And the fellépett again lépett fe is repititous and it is simply bad Hungarian. The original text had it right. Please look it up. We believe it is unfair to change the text to bad grammar. Is there anyway to protect the text from rendering it. Editing the text correctly is different and it is welcome gesture.

Thanks for your help. Again, we are apologizing for our oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.27.171 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

First, there is no way to prevent other people from participation in an article. You not have an ownership on articles, its a wiki and anyone is allowed to edit it. This however includes you, you are also allowed to correct language mistakes made by others.

Second, regarding the images, the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject, and therefore to the photographers heirs(familiy), not to the subjects family. The copyright expires 70 years following the photographers death. As long as 70 years not elapsed it is impossible that the file is public domain. If 70 years elapsed you may upload a file with a clear reference to the photos first publication to provide evidence that the file was published >70 years ago without any information about the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but all those who took the pictures ar long dead. I can get the names of those people, but it won't be easy. Would that help. Thanks

It simply is required. There is a copyright law that protects the authors right, we can not reuse such files that are in copyright if the author not agreed to the reuse. Thats because on Wikimedia projects we not only use the images for educational purposes but we want all content to be free content, see Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martin, in the 195os private ownership was unheard of in Hungary. The pictures were taken by the photograper of the Hungarin State Opera House. They took the pictures a PR gesture for ther members. I just talked to them. Would this information help. Thanks

Regretably not, as far as I know the copyright law (70 years post mortem auctoris) protected older works retroactively. --Martin H. (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lokomotivbau Elektrotechnische Werke Hans Beimler

Danke für die Hilfe. Irgendwann habe ich da nicht mehr durchgesehen. --Markscheider (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Human_penis_erect.jpg

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

Yikrazuul (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Foto to delete please!

Hi Martin I would now delete the four versions of my photography "File:Djetcha Haltura Raschi Pack Buran.jpg" on Wikimedia Commons. Can you do it for me please? Thank you very much in advance. --Doumouchka (d)--Doumouchka (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hi. what do you think about Commons:Deletion_requests/File:It-bicchieri_di_degustazione.ogg, is it a valid reason for delete it? Regards!! Ezarateesteban 00:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If the recording is an recording of a non-existing word, and thats how I understand the request, the file should be deleted. The word does not exist, the file not has any educational value therefore. --Martin H. (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User Color-light

Hello Martin, I think this user's contributions should be checked. He uploaded several photos from a single user in Panoramio, although photos were taken with different cameras. Maybe this account is being used to hide the real author. For example this image is a reduced version of this one, available at this site. This was not uploaded to Wikimedia (as far as I know). So it's not a problem of Wikimedia, but when other files of this same Panoramio account were uploaded here, like File:Porto de Suape.jpg and File:Porto de Suape Navio João Cândido.jpg, I think we should pay attention.

Other reasons to pay attention to Color-light:

• Many uploads of Pernambuco (Brazilian state), like user Juniorpetjua - who had all his uploaded files deleted.
• Both like seaport images (see File:Terminal Salineiro no Rio Grande do Norte.jpg, by juniorpetjua)
• Also, the name and preferences are similar to Criative light, another user who had many of his files deleted. Both have edited this file.

I hope you can use other (more powerful) tools to investigate these strange relations. Ednei amaral (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A photo he copied from Panoramio was also posted on Flickr, but as "all rights reserved". Something else to be checked. Ednei amaral (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that panoramio user is a bad panoramio user. --Martin H. (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Imam_Khomeini_21.jpg

Hi Martin, could you please restore the above mentioned file you deleted in January 2011. There is no approriate information about source and licence available. --Wvk (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Die Bildbeschreibung sagt, dass Bild sei vor mehr als 30 Jahren veröffentlicht worden ohne hierüber mit einer Quellenangabe Nachweise zu führen. Also: Nein. --Martin H. (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

„Anfragender“

Wenn man seine Edits und Diskussionsseite so anschaut, so scheint ihm einiges nicht bekannt zu sein. ;) --Markscheider (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Du beziehst dich auf Commons:Deletion requests/Lokomotivbau Elektrotechnische Werke Hans Beimler, Gallerien haben einen gewissen Reiz (vor allem optischer und pädagogischer Natur) den Kategorien nicht haben und nicht haben können, diesen Reiz muss jeder für sich entdecken. Gegeben, dass meine Benutzerdisk von so vielen anderen Benutzern beobachted wird, wird sich gleich ein Admin finden der den Löschantrag entfernt:) --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

et voilà...--Markscheider (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Danke, wenn ich beim Reparieren des LAs besser aufgepasst hätte worum es geht hätte ich Ihn auch gleich selber dichtgemacht. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ich bin ja nun immer noch relativ neu auf Commons, mit meinen Dateien komme ich klar, Kategorisierung geht auch halbwegs, aber gerade die bürokratische Seite ist etwas schwierig, weil ich es selten mache. Man liest sich also durch, was bspw. in dem Kasten zum Schnelllöschantrag steht und versucht, das umzusetzen. Da ist es sehr nett, wenn ein erfahrener Benutzer wie Du eingreift. Um noch mal auf den Antragsteller zu kommen: ich finde es gewöhnungsbedürftig, wenn jemand eine Kat leerräumt und anschließend darauf einen LA bzw. SLA stellt mit der begründung "empty cat". Ich bin aber niemand, der den Konflikt sucht, von daher tue ich mir das nur in Einzelfällen an. --Markscheider (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Flat lists

Hallo Martin H. Darf ich bitte wissen warum sie allerlei flat lists leeren? In allerlei Categorien die flat list löschen? Um was geht es genau? Was ist ihren Gedanken im Hintergrund? Ich finde dass sie einen grossen Schaden anrichten. Flat Lists sind ungeheuerlich nützlich und wichtig um Kategorien zu erkennen ("versteckte"), zu ordnen, zu verknüpfen, zu managen. Mit dem ich beschäftigt bin. Herzlichen Dank für ihre Antwort. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Flat list categories are a violation of Commons:Categories. Also they effectively make the category tree so complicated thing that no new user has a chance in future to understand the structure and to participate on Commons. People shoud care for the topic category tree and for simplicity of the category structure and fully separate such maintenance tasks - which will only have a temporary, not a permanent use. And people should consider to use other pages such as project pages for category lists and not always intrude the category structure with such simple tasks. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wer hat das beschlossen? Gibt es da eine Diskussion? So ein schwerer Eingriff muss irgendwie kollegial entschieden werden, und nicht nur von einem Einzelnen; auch wenn er evt. Recht haben könnte. --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Danke für die Korrekturen Herr Professor! Wie schreiben Sie auf italienisch?

Genau so ist es, daher wundert es mich umso mehr, dass dieser, der Projektbeschreibung entgegenstehende, Wildwuchs einfach hingenommen wurde und die Fehlentwicklung nicht viel früher beseitigt wurde. --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Genau so ? Wo ist die Diskussion über ihren zerstörerischen Eingriff ? --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hamm-Hindu--090606 7938-Tempeleingang.jpg

Will you able to guide through the copyright situation, is this picture can be considered as COM:DW or is it okay with FOP in germany...???--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Per File:Sri Kamadchi Ampal temple 6039530.jpg it looks like it is permanently placed there. --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But, what about the drawing..it contain artistic quality and it can be considered as a derivative..?? --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I refered to the drawing, its permanently placed there, at least the other photo is two years older. --Martin H. (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Stebunik

This user does not understand principles of licensing at Commons (or Wikipedia). He also doesn't speak English very well. You should try explaining the issue in German which I think he's more familiar with, maybe you can do it better than me in his mother tongue. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-creating deleted content, action need to be taken...

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese Palakkappillil.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG

Again recreated by the Achayan and available as file File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG

You already blocked the duck..User_talk:Martin_H.#Check_User--Please take action...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the file and blocked the account for three days. Tiptoety ^talk 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

UserLanguage

Hi, could you please help me, I'm translating MediaWiki:Uploadtext/faownwork, I set the 'uselang' for 'own work' link in Commons:Upload/fa to 'faownwork', when I change my interface to Farsi and I click on 'own work' link in Commons:Upload/fa, the interface changes to English while it shows the MediaWiki:Uploadtext/faownwork correctly in Farsi, what is the problem? what did I miss?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  11:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont know, I come to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/faownwork if I klick on own work in Commons:Upload/fa. In both cases: With Special:Preferences set to English and to Farsi. Maybe your browser cache? --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is my browser cache, when my Special:Preferences is set to Farsi, clicking on own work link in Commons:Upload/fa changes my interface (sidebar, toolbox and other texts) to Farsi, didn't this happen for you? were your sidebar still in Farsi? I guess problem should be about 'userlang', do you know how does 'userlang' recognize 'faownwork' as 'fa'?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your right, if I set my language to Farsi and klick own work in Commons:Upload/fa the interface language is indeed changed. Dont know why. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But this doesn't happen for French and German, I think I should add something to somewhere so 'userlang=faownwork' work same as 'userlang=fa', problem is I don't know where thanks anyway.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I followed the same idea and compared it to the German interface. There it works, you just pointed this out. But I see no difference in the source code of the pages. I have no idea. --Martin H. (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think I find out what I did wrong, I forgot to create all relevant pages. I'll do it as soon as I translated all needed pages.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

POOJA_GOR.jpg

I nominated File:POOJA_GOR.jpg for deletion, but without realizing I wasn't logged in when I did so. It notified the uploader (and the pointer to the entry is redlinked), but it didn't do any of the other steps (although it said it did). I'm not sure how to fix this. Can you help? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Place {{delete|reason=Reason for nomination|subpage=File:POOJA GOR.jpg|year=2011|month=May|day=15}} to the file page and follow the instructions inside the deletion template. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. It looks to me like the same user uploaded a file by the same name, which was deleted in early Decemer 2010.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Bosniaks

Hello, i dont know what to do with this picture, how to license it, so can you make it becuase you probably know how it works, i think that i done all what was needed but you are not pleased, for example see this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish_people_revised.jpg , it has the same license like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bosnjaci.jpg , and nobody want to delete it, or want a new license. So what is the problem ??? Dino hattab

Bad example. Sources must be given, see File:12 kurdish people.png for example. --Martin H. (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's logical that the source from all pictures on wikipedia are from google.com, nobody has it in a home collection for sure, so i can upload every single picture from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bosnjaci.jpg on bs.wikipedia.org and show it as a source thats ridiculous, the pictures are to small and it cant be ilegal to use it, its a fair use and i made it 100%, and its used on many articles, it would be a shame and sad to delete it. Dino hattab

You can not upload pictures that you copied from the internet, this pictures are unfree in most cases and not allowed on Wikipedia or Commons or any other Wikimedia Project. This is a free content project. You must use files that have been published udner a free license by the copyright holder. Man, read Commons:First steps and Commons:Licensing! --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, dont delete it i will write all the license for each one, and edit it like this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12_kurdish_people.png i will need some days OK ?

image copyright

en:Elyse Pahler.Article Because if a picture that is in an article that talks about a deceased person must have copyright?. should be in public domain--Killingme (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

see en:File:Elyse.JPG. On English Wikipedia fair use is allowed, the person is dead and a free photo can not be obtained. On Commons this is not allowed. --Martin H. (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Uher Zita

Dear Mr. Martin,

We have read carefully both texts of Uher Zita's manuscript in Wikipedia. One that was submitted originally and one which was edited in part by you. It is not clear yet whether you have edited the text, as well. If you didn't then please forgive us bringing up editorial issues that are clearly beyond your tour of duty to be concerned with as an administrator for Wikipedia. On the advise of Uher Zita's lawyer who handles her operatic estate and on the encouragement of two independent reviewers, we decided that there was no other choice but to delete the vandalized document from Wikipedia. The document in its present " edited " form is a mess. A shameful account of the original manuscript. One " edited " sentence is classic. We believe the Hungarian Wikipedia board should have exercised oversight and not let it pass. " 1951. május 27-én még fellépett a viharos sikerű Anyegin-felújításon Larina szerepében ( más forrás helytelenül Filipjevna szerepét írja ) lépett fel, Ferencsik János vezényletével, [12] de június 7-én kitelepítették a családot Tiszaföldvárra". So " még fellépett " then " lépett fel " in the same sentence. Then comes the grand finale with any connections at all to any sentences " de junius 7- én kitelepitették a családot... ". Also, after 1951 she performed on stage, right. Then why it is said that " még fellépett ". Also, Suzuki's ( partner ?) is Cso-cso-szán and not Pinkerton F.B., hadnagy. We could go on and on. It was the Magyar Állami Operaház who mixed up Larina's role with Filipjevna, failing to give her the proper credit. The mistake was picked up by the internet and in other publications and therefore it is " forássok " plural. You have changed the text and you put the citation in the wrong place. Whoever has edited the text used the copy and paste functions hastily without checking the resulting changes for context, making many sentences unintelligible. Sections were left out from he original manuscript rendering the Tartalomjegyzék and Hivatkozások to a confusing state. You have removed the pictures ( but let the citations to stand ) authoritatively on the basis of a copy right rule that implies to photographs less the 70 years old or not authored. As we pointed out, the pictures belong to the public, released by Magyar Állami Operaház in the 1950s for PR purposes for the State. Many of the pictures were taken by her husband who is still alive, by the MTI's Foto Osztály, and by Mr.Várkonyi Lászlo. The 70 years rule that you are referring to obviously doesn't apply to the pictures you have deleted. Even you say " as far as I know ..." We did our homework and respectfully we would like to point out that your assumption is suboptimal. One photograph that you allowed to pass was also taken in the 1950s. You have also removed Mr. Merli's portrait that was dedicated to Karl Uher. Since it was autographed to him it constituted an important evidence to his desire to be an operasinger. Both the translated German text from the picture and the picture itself were taken out. Yet, the origin of photograph goes back to the 1916s. Wikepedia a well respected and prestigious online lexicon cannot afford to include vandalized form of any manuscripts. Constructed editing is always welcome. Case in point is -A sevillai borbély and not Sevillai borbély as we wrote. But changing or rendering the text under the guise of editing is certainly not. A truncated information would certainly tarnish the fidelity of dissemination of unbiased reporting by your distinguished online lexicon. Thank you for your professional help and efforts to help us to publish the manuscript in Wikipedia. We strongly believe, however, that the edited form of the original manuscript should it be remain in the public domain would be an insult to Wikipedia's reporting excellence. Remain sincerely.

And again: This is Wikimedia Commons, not hu.wikipedia.org. Im not an editor on hu.wp, if you want to see who edited your article: Check the version history of the article. Talk to the editor, use the article discussion to talk about the article. But keep in mind: You not own the article, other people can edit it too. --Martin H. (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hadley20.jpg

Hi, User:Westwood1984 contacted me about their file, they mentioned on the file page that permission is available at bottom of this website, the website and it's cached page doesn't load for me so I couldn't confirm the permission, is it same for you too?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo comes from another website, densityofsouls.jalbum.net not www.hadleyofficial.com. Additionally it is questionable if they have the necessary rights to apply such a licensing to content they not photographed themself, and the sourcing of File:Hadley20.jpg is unclear, "PD-self" is not a source. --Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Suche in edit-summaries?

Hallo Martin, weißt du ob eine Möglichkeit besteht, gezielt (oder überhaupt) auch die edit-summaries auf eine Zeichenkette zu durchsuchen, idealerweise auch mit einer zeitlichen Eingrenzung? (Kontext sind User:Seewolfs Feinde) --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ist mir nicht bekannt. Ausser halt Benutzerbeiträge auf bestimmten Namensraum stellen, auf letzte 500 Beiträge vergrößern und mit der Browsersuche nach der Zeichenkette suchen. Ansonsten noch Special:AbuseFilter wenns ernst ist. --Martin H. (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Danke. Letzteres wäre event. eine Option, weil siehe edit-summaries und weil es in letzter Zeit doch häufiger kam. Weißt du wie man das Teil steuert? --Túrelio (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Könnte man vielleicht erstmal in Special:AbuseFilter/13 mit reinstopfen. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Danke. Hab mal 2 typische strings der Seewolf-Vandalen irgendwo eingefügt, wo schon ähnliches stand. --Túrelio (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hab ich jetzt wohl versehentlich wieder überschrieben, kannst ja nochmal schauen ob der Filter so reicht. --Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoffentlich machen jetzt die Bilder mit seinem Realnamen im Dateinamen keine Probleme. Aber die sind ja eh schon hochgeladen. Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Uher Zita

Dear Mr. Martin, thank you for your reply. We were under the impression that you were the one who removed the pictures referring to a copy right rule that we believe doesn't apply to the submitted pictures. Sorry, if we were wrong. However, we are pursuing other channels to find out the validity of your assumption. It is not clear to us what role you played here. Again, thank you for all your help. It is time to close down our communication with Wikimedia Commons and Wikepidia. Sincerely yours.

User:Aline ERN

Hello Martin, could you check this user? S/he has uploaded several files of the same city as User talk:Ademario neto (block indefinitelly), Eirunepé. Some of his files s/he claims to be uploaded under authorization of the authors, from Skyscrapercity, but could not prove that. I would not be surprised if this account has also some relation to User:Juniorpetjua: one has just edited File:Montagem Recife (2).jpg "other" uploaded. Ednei amaral (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To add another "coincidence", beyond the same city, user Ademario neto, in pt.wikipedia, uses the image just after user Aline ERN uploaded them ehre. For example, here and [12], and here... It's just matter to check others, to find more. Ednei amaral (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Without checking this so far, but Im sure that Juniorpetjua is someone else. I see the possible connection between Aline and Ademario, for example at this file he signed with "AN". --Martin H. (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Francisco_J._Santamaría.jpg

Dear Martin H:

Sorry, I don't speak english very well. Tengo en mi poder un documento del Gobierno del Estado de Tabasco, por medio del cual y de acuerdo al artículo 36 fraccion IX de la Ley de Archivos Públicos del Estado de Tabasco que a la letra dice: "Permitir a los particulares la reproducción del acervo histórico, siempre y cuando se realicen con las técnicas que garanticen su preservación e impidan su deterioro". Probablemente habré escogido mal la plantilla de permiso, pero no existe ningún empedimento para que sean utilizadas dichas imágenes. Saludos

I have in my possession a document of the Government of the State of Tabasco, by which, in accordance with Article 36, Section IX of the Public Records Act of the State of Tabasco that reads:"Allow individuals play the historical, provided they are made with techniques to ensure their preservation and prevent its deterioration "I will probably be a bad choice permission template, but there is no empedimento to be used those images. Greetings Alfonsobouchot (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

see the deletion discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look. -- Magister Mathematicae 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright query

Hi Martin, if this photo were to be released under a licence that meets Wikimedia Commons' requirements, would it be ok to upload it? Or is the 'artwork' of the poster under some form of copyright itself? Schwede66 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Natürlich ist das Foto urheberrechtlich geschützt, meiner Meinung nach wäre das nicht mehr de minimis. Danke ansonsten für die schöne Konstruktion mit dem If-Satz (if were to be released & would), an sowas habe ich schon häufiger geknobelt. --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Danke fuer die Antwort, und bitte sehr fuer den 'if - would' Satz. Schwede66 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Don King in suit.jpg

You can speedy delete this at my (the uploaders) request. File:Don king.jpg is free and sufficient. Ctjf83 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sobre fotos en varios artículos borradas

Hello Martin H. I'dont speak English very well. The I write in Spanish. Me has advertido que las imágenes que he subido a Commons no tenían los requisitos de fuente (source) y prpietario bien definidos. Traté de cumplimentarlos pero no sé si lo hice mal pue no obtuve ninguna respuesta más y hoy he visto que han borrado las imágenes que había subido al Artículo Alfonso García Ramos. Han quitado algunas fotos que considero de mi propiedad pues Alfonso García-Ramos es mi padre (fallecido hace treinta años) y son fotos privadas, de la cámara de mi madre. No sé que más hay que hacer con fotos de esta procedencia. por otra parte había escaneado las portadas de casi todos sus libros y ya había añadido el ISBN y la dscripción bibliográfica para cada uno de ellos. Había leído en alguna parte de la wikipedia que esto era lo que había que hacer (citar la fuente)... No sé... te escribo a tí porque me habías advertido. Quien las ha borrado dice que es un robot " de la mano de un tal Kameraad pjotr ( o algo así). ¿Qué se supone que puedo hacer? ¿Tiene solución o no podré poner nunca esas fotos? Espero que alguien me pueda responder en español? Muchas gracias--Chantecler (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Marc Scarpa picture

I am fairly new to wiki and I would love to get some feedback on how to successfully upload a picture of my boss onto his wiki profile. I have tried twice and both were deleted for "violating copyright laws." Both were pictures from his private collection, so I am not sure what I did wrong.

Can you please help me understand what I need to do in order to either upload one of his personal photos or to get a photo from one of the articles that he has been featured in? Do I need to get written permission from the actual photographer? If so, what type of verbiage should be used in this statement from the photographer and/or owner of the photo?

Thank you!

The first step will be to upload the photo with the correct author and source information. The author is the photographer, the photo is not your own work, in Special:Upload (UploadWizard) you have to select: This file is not my own work. In Commons:Upload (the old upload form) you have to select: Its from somewhere else. Then the neccessary steps are documented in the upload form or information will be requested. But in short: You will be asked to provide a written permission from the copyright holder.

Note that physical ownership or owning a copy of the photo does not mean that you own copyrights. Also owning a photo given fromt he photographer to your/Scarpas collection with permission from the photographer to use the photo for your portfolio (tfp or other such agreements, this happens often with prominent people and press photos) does not mean that you have permission to transfer this non-exclusive, non-transferable rights to anyone else in the world, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

iamamiwhoami - t

My image was not taken from the website you listed.

It is my OWN image.

Just because another website uses the same image, it doesn't mean that I took it from there.

Its a screenshot from the music video "t". Are you claiming to be the sole creator and copyright owner of that video? What do you want from me, copyvio sockpuppet of Borderings? Your question about how to place an unfree screenshot in Wikipedia has been answered at en:User_talk:Δ/20110501#iamamiwhoami. Placing an unfree screenshot on Commons with a false author claim and granting others the permission to reuse the screenshot for money making purposes - as you did - is obviously the worst idea. --Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Maps in Fotos?

Hallo Martin, vielleicht kannst du mir helfen. Ich habe irgendwann mal ein Panorama-Foto gesehen, in dem Erklärungen eingebaut waren. Dünne gelbe Rahmen. Ich habe schon etwas auf Commmons-Hilfe gesucht, aber nichts gefunden. Vermutlich falsche Suchbegriffe, weil ich nicht genau weiß, unter welchem Stichwort ich schauen soll. weißt du, was ich meine und kannst mir helfen? --Markscheider (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Du meinst Commons:Image annotations. Wenn du das Gadget nicht deaktiviert hast in deinen Special:Preferences (link, Gadget "Bildnotizen"), müsstest du eigentlich bei jeder Datei den Knopf "Add a note"/"Notiz hinzufügen" unter dem Bild sehen. Siehe Category:Images with annotations für Beispiele. --Martin H. (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's it! Dann will ich mal ein wenig spielen... Ich danke Dir für die schnelle Hilfe. --Markscheider (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So, fertig. Es ging um File:Mansfelder Pyramiden.jpg. Was ich jetzt noch nicht verstehe ist, daß das Bild nicht unter Category:Images with annotations#P auftaucht, seltsamerweise sehe ich dort nur files, die mit "Pa" beginnen. --Markscheider (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Der Sortierschlüssel ist der Dateinamen, also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Images_with_annotations&from=M&filefrom=Man --Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, ich hatte ein Brett vorm Kopf - ich hab nach Pyramiden gesucht...--Markscheider (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete my three pictures

Hello, I made a mistake and uploaded three pictures without a proper permission of the authors, so if you could delete them all as soon as possible without waiting 7days i would be very thankful. Pictures are: china_ethnic_nu_family.jpg; min-Nu-2.jpg and nu_man.jpg. Thank YOu!

China ethnic groups

yes, author not flickr uploder--shizhao (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion requests

I saw that you started a mass-DR. Very expensive in time and boring, right? And here is the solution:

importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

Install now!

Imagine a tada melody and a laughing computer-user performing a batch-task with this script on commons. :)

Ich hoffe Du hast Humor ... wenn nicht, einfach ignorieren -- RE rillke questions? 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kleine Werbeeinblendung? ;) geht auch schnell genug mit copy&paste des {{Delete}} und der editsummary, die Liste generiere ich dann aus Special:WhatLinksHere des Löschantrags. Vielleicht probier ich ja bei Zeiten mal dein Tool aus, danke also. --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:1898 photographs

Hello Martin, I'm interested in knowing in more detail why you said it's an "unnecessary category". I have been using those categories for old photographs because they exist, but I'm also not sure if they are useful.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A better topic category "by date" will have much more use. In general, tons of images are sorted wrong to such categories (not photographed in that year but published), or not fully correct (the date is vague). Some photographs are not even photograps. Also many of the photographs contribute much to a specific topic, but nothing to the history of photography or photographic art. Therefore combining the year with the mere material of fixation does not create much value. The last point for example is very different for other kind of artworks or techniques. --Martin H. (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. I've gathered a collection of thousands of old photographs from Madeira Island which I intend to upload in the next future, after I completed my research on the sourcing, licensing and correct dating (many were incorrectly dated at the source, but can be accurately dated by comparison or using scenery elements), so the use of those categories do interest me. Should a photograph of Funchal from 1865, for instance, be categorized also as 1865 photograph? Or 1865 photograph of Funchal, or whatever? This adding to "Funchal in 1865" cat which would be also added to the image, of course. Many of them are now museum items, as well, and many document very early tourism propaganda, from the late 1890s, much before the alleged first instances of such material in Portugal, supposedly from Sintra in 1907 or so. Does this make them important items in the history of photographs?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion category:1865 in Funchal is enough. I dont know if it is important for photography, but it might be interesting to add those photos that are travel advertising to a category combining a period of time, e.g. a decade, with type of publication, tourism advertising, and make it a subcategory of Category:Tourism or even Category:History of tourism and Category:Advertising. --Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Funchal was one of the birthplaces of photography in Portugal, with local photographers working since the 1850s. I would guess that at least those which can be linked to the photographers may be of interest to the history of photography. Along with this, Funchal was a very popular tourism destination in the 1800s (it still is), so quite earlier the photographers and retail sellers started making a buck by selling postcards with views of the island, some of them combined in inventive ways which were indeed precursors to nowadays tourism advertisements. They describe the most common tourist activities and attractions using a sort of cartoon of small photographs put together, along with the inscription "Souvenir of Madeira". I'll follow your suggestions, and refrain from adding them to "yyyy photographs", though part of me still believe that such categorization could have some use, as in "yyyy paintings".-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Postcards have a different category though, refering to the postcards publication. I agree, it requires a consideration by-case, Im personally however very sceptically with this categories. --Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of using postcard publication dates here, since those postcards were published and republished dozens of times. I've seen cases where 1900s photographs were published as postcards in the 1950s and even later, which would induce unaware Commoners to tag them as copyvios. From what I understand, they simply made them up as needed, when the supply was exhausted they made a new bunch of them. In some cases they were merely photographs with the background of a postcard suitable for mailing. I know those things were made at home, since my grandfather was an amateur photographer, producing his own photos at home, and many of them have that "postcard" background, though they were made by himself. If I well recall I even have brand new, blank, unused "postcard photo paper" bough by him for that effect, i guess that's what was available at the stores back then.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The scanned postcard was published only one time --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm lost. What postcard? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Postcards by year. photos published as postcards possibly should not be added to photography by year, but possibly you can add them to postcards by year based on the year of publication, no matter the same postcard was printed again later. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be very problematic, as I don't know the year of first publication. Some of them have a date of publication, but it's not the first, since they have been around earlier (from the mailing stamps in other versions). I'll have to meditate on it before flooding Commons with that postcard collection.

I became aware of the problems with "YYYY photographs" when I started flooding Commons with the works of Category:Joshua Benoliel, which would inevitably clutter most of those categories, since there are thousands of photographs from him. I stopped uploading them a while ago to allow for some thinking about how they should be categorized.

Not related to this discussion, but you may have a look at File:Cuatro ducados de Aragón (1505-1516).jpg. I've seen you were involved in a deletion request of similar files recently. I'm not sure if the OLD tag would apply here as well.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful work with Joshua Benoliel, I very like such photographers collections. The postcard categories are just another option that I wanted to point out because you said the photographers and retail sellers started making a buck by selling postcards - I just wanted to point out that for some reason a different treatment for cards and photos exists on Commons. As said: Its just an option, I personally prefer a simple and more valuable topic categorization. Regarding the coins: Im aware, I bookmarked the contributions of the uploader, but maybe he finds out himself that he has some bad uploads and I not must do the work. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Deantamaraw's copyvios

Thanks for cleaning that up! The user is indef'ed on .en for chronic copyvio and socking (both long-term problems involving many editors over at least a year, sadly not static IPs). DMacks (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)