This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hast Du gut gemacht (Beschreibung, Kat., Vorlage), allerdings solltest Du die Quelle genauer angeben (URL). Innerhalb von www.nasa.gov kann man das Bild nicht unbedingt einfach recherchieren (Datenmengen im Terrabytebereich). -- Matt1971 Mattes12:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
DANKE!
Klimadiagramme
Bitte keine Grafiken in die Kategorien Cities in Germany einordnen, sondern ausschließlich in die Kategorie der jeweiligen Stadt. Bzw. bei Gemeinden und die passende Unterkategorie zu Villages in Germany -- Rüdiger Wölk06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Habe 69 Grafiken zu 69 Orten hochgeladen. Da konnte ich nicht alle sofort unterbringen. D.h., ich habe die entspr. Kategorie nicht gefunden. Und irgendwann ist mal Ende mit rumsuchen, ich will ja auch fertig werden. Habe das aber auf dem Schirm, die 2 oder 3 Diagramme werden noch verarztet! Trotzdem DANKE fuer den Hinweis! --Hedwig in Washington08:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Null Problemo. Gibt halt noch nicht für alle Städte eine Kategorie, Grund im Wesentlichen, weil es für diese Orte keine Grafiken oder Bilder gab/gibt. Bin gerade dabei, die Liste der deutschen Städte die es im Deutschen Wikipedia gibt abzuarbeiten. -- Rüdiger Wölk09:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ich baue im Moment die Klimadiagramme der deutschen Wikipedia auf einen korrekten Standard um. Von selbstgestrickt auf Diagramm nach Walther/Lieth. Habe so um die tausend fertig und lade Land fuer Land hoch, einbinden, und und und. Dachte, das geht schneller. 8-) Ohne Commonist ist man echt aufgeschmissen, klasse Tool! Tja, dann viel Spass mit den Staedten, hast ja ordentlich was zu tun! Wenn Du ein Klimadiagramm brauchst, schreib mir ne Info. --Hedwig in Washington11:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Klima Palma de Mallorca
Auf welche Daten (Jahr, Zeitraum, Quelle usw) bezieht sich dieses Diagramm ? Denn es weicht von den spanischen Daten wesentlich ab. Grüsse --217.116.12.19623:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Gute Frage, habe gerade mal nachgesehen, das Programm zeigt keine weiteren Daten an (Quelle, Alter,...) Ein dickes MINUS! Entwickelt ist es von einem Geo-Lehrer, da sollte das schon stimmen, denke ich. Palma habe ich noch nicht geprueft, dafuer andere Orte und die sind OK. Magst Du mir mal Deine Daten schicken, ich maile das dann dem Autor. Wenn Du willst, kannst Du das natuerlich auch tun, ist ja nicht "mein" Autor! 8)))) Aber pruefen sollten wir das schon, bevor wir die eine oder die andere Version in die Tonne werfen! Danke fuers Aufpassen! LG --Hedwig in Washington23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Change in Category
Hi EugeneZelenko! You changed the description in the Category Climate diagrams from Weissrussland (the german name) to Belarus. Why? Don't get me wrong, I'm not complainig, only asking to understand! My intention was to sort the countries by their german name, cause all diagrams are in german. I would be happy if you give me an answer! 8) --Hedwig in Washington19:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hallo Freund Hedwig,
ich hab das Diagramm bei Iserlohn gesehen, was Du da auf Wunsch der lieben Asio eingestellt hast. Leider habe ich es nicht so ganz verstanden. Gibt es irgendwo von Dir dazu eine "Bedienungsanleitung"?
PS: Bitte kurzes Feedback auf meiner WP-Dis. Danke.
Gruss --Pelz22:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Bilder/Lizenz
Hallo Hedwig!
vielen Dank für den Hinweis, habe alle Bilder selbst gemacht und bin somit Urheber. Meine Frage nun: wie kann ich die Bilder lizenzieren? bevor ich mich jetzt hier durchackere um eine Lösung zu finden, frage ich lieber eine Expertin!
Freu mich schon auf Antwort!
vielen Dank im voraus,
Sebastian
Moin! Vorab: Bitte mit zweimal MINUS und viermal TILDE (das da: ~) unterschreiben, die Software wandelt das dann korrekt um, wenn Du angemeldet bist. Wenn nicht steht da halt Deine IP und nicht Dein Name.
So, in Sachen: Commons:Lizenzen mal lesen. Keine Bange! Muss nicht alles verstanden werden, die wenigsten wissen das alles. Hier findest Du die verschiedenen Lizenzbausteine: Commons:Lizenzvorlagen.
Template talk:PD-self Leider nur in englisch das ist eine Lizenz, die Du nehmen kannst
Am besten BEIDE ins Bild. Wenn das Bild hochgeladen ist, einfach auf bearbeiten klicken und die Lizenzbausteine eingeben. VOR dem Speichern auf VORSCHAU klicken! :)
Nachtrag: Beinahe vergessen! MAch mal aus der Expertin nen normalen, maennlichen Benutzer ;) lange Geschichte.... Du hattest die Wolkenbilder, richtig? Wenn die Lizenz ok ist, kannst Du den anderen Baustein mit dem Copyrightverstoss (USER-BLU) loeschen. --Hedwig in Washington05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig!
vielen Dank für die Hilfe und die Infos, habe alle Bilder nochmal hochgeladen und diesmal auch die Lizenz nicht vergessen.
Du kannst Dir ja auch mal den Beitrag durchschauen, in dem die bilder eingebunden wurden, "Kondensationsniveau".
2006101612.10618.skewt.gif Nicht OK, Lizenz und Infos fehlen, Dateiformat sollte besser svg oder png sein, nicht gif
Alle Bilder sind OHNE Kategorie! Das heisst, kein Mensch wird jemals Deine Bilder hier finden und in einen Artikel einbauen! Meine Vermutung ist, dass die Wolkenbilder in diese Kategorie gehoeren: [1]? Schau mal rein! Einbinden geht wie folgt: auf bearbeiten klicken und dann [[Category:''NAME'']] eingeben, wobei Name fuer den Namen der Kategorie steht. Du solltest den untersten Kategoriezweig nehmen, der passt, z.B. Clouds oder die entspr. wissenschaftliche Bezeichnung (besser), dann musst Du Weather nicht extra einbinden, das Bild wird auch in Weather gefunden. Ohne Kategorie ist ein Bild hier ziemlich verloren. Zusaetzlich kannst Du das Bild auch in eine
doppelte Bilder loeschen lassen, hierzu einfach {{duplicate|Image:NAME.jpg}} eingeben. Die Datei, die behalten werden soll, einfach bei Name eingeben!
Fuer Dein GIF-Bild, nachdem Du es in SVG oder PNG hochgeladen hast, nimmst Du {{superseded}} Dabei gleich die Lizenz mit einbauen!
alle Bilder (die nicht geloescht werden sollen) mit Kategorien versehen!
Evtl. solltest Du Dir das Programm Commonist runterladen, dann kannst du mehrere Bilder gleichzeitig hochladen und mit den entspr. Daten versehen. Link hierzu: Commons:Tools/Commonist
Bin gerade zufällig über deine Frage im Commons-Forum gestolpert (tja, etwas spät ich weiss, ist die Frage überhaupt noch offen?). Würde dir ja gerne Helfen, bin aber aus deiner Frage nicht so ganz schlau geworden, was du da genau haben willst? Könntest du das vielleicht nochmal genauer erklären, damit ich das auch verstehe ;) oder hast du vielleicht einen Link? lg --Werckmeister13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Macht nix! Das war, glaube ich, das Thema mit den internationalen Beschreibungen. Ich meine den CatScan, als Baumstruktur. Wenn Du z.B. Topics anzeigen laesst, erscheinen die Hauptkategorien als Baum. Hinter einigen englischen Kategorien steht eine deutsche Uebersetzung, bspw. bei Nauture Natur, Communications Kommunikation. Nicht gerade die schwierigsten Kats, aber es wird ja auch heftiger und schwieriger in allen Katgegorien. Nicht jeder kennt die engl. Bezeichnungen und tw. sind diese ja auch in Spanisch oder wasweissich. Das wuerde ich gerne als Uebersetzung haben, kann man ja evtl. auch in andere Sprachen bringen. Hoffe, das ist jetzt etwas eindeutiger. File:Catbaum-PrtScr.jpgScreenshot Catscan 8-)) --Hedwig in Washington16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
hmm, benutze CatScan nicht so oft, hab aber ein bisschen rumprobiert, scheinbar nimmt CatTree abhängig von der Benutzersprache (z.B. deutsch) den Text des Eintrag der auf einen Artikel in der deutschen zeigt. In einem Artikel oder einer Kategorie hast du evtl. links unten eine Liste mit den zur Kategorie passenden Einträgen in den unterschiedlichen wikis. Siehe z.B. Category:Nature links unten die Liste mit den wiki einträgen für die jeweiligen Länder. Von dort nimmt er z.B. das Natur wenn die deutsche Sprache im CatScan gewählt wurde. Hab das auch extra noch getestet, funktioniert wirklich, hoffe das hilft dir weiter. ;)
ps: bei nochmaligem durchlesen, fällt mir auf, dass meine Erklärung ein bisschen durchwachsen ist, ich hoffe du kannst rauslesen worauf ich hinauswill. ;)
oops! Habe Deine Antwort voellig uebersehen! Sorry! Bei Nature habe ich unten links keine Wiki-Eintraege. Hmmmm..., meinst Du, wenn in der DE-Wiki ein Artikel existiert, dann wird der Artikel hier uebernommen (als zweite Bezeichnung?), dann muesste ja z.b. bei Tacoma auch was stehen (Cat. Cities in USA/Washington), da steht Tacoma, Washington. Der DE-Artikel heisst aber "nur" Tacoma. Gruebel..... LG--Hedwig in Washington17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Also, das Problem ist, das so ein Computer Script dumm ist, d.h. es kann von selber nicht automatisch eine Verbindung zwischen 'Tacoma, Washington' und 'Tacoma' in der de-wiki herstellen. Darum musst du in Commons einen Link auf den deutschen Wiki-Eintrag setzen. Wie dir vielleicht aufgefallen ist, gibt's auf manchen Seiten links unten Links auf andere WP-Seiten (siehe Bild linke Seite). So ein Link wird durch den Text den du im Bild auf der Rechten Seite siehst erzeugt.
andere Sprachen
D.h. wenn du in der Category Nature einen Link im Format [[de:Natur]] setzt dann erscheint so ein Link-Eintrag in der Category Nature. Und genau dieser Eintrag müsste dann in CatTree als Übersetzung angezeigt werden (falls du die Sprache deutsch in CatTree ausgewählt hast).
Ich hab z.B. in der Category Category:Parks in Vienna zum Test den Link
[[de:Liste der Wiener Parks und Gartenanlagen]] eingetragen, darum wird in CatTree [2] jetzt auch bei Category 'Parks in Vienna' der Text 'Liste der Wiener Parks und Gartenanlagen' angezeigt.
Jau, jetzt habe ich es begriffen! Sch...ade, ich dachte, es gibt vielleicht eine Art Liste, die man stumpf uebersetzen kann. Also jeden Artikel oeffnen, de-Link setzen, speichern. Aechz.... 8-) Das ist wohl bissl viel Arbeit fuer mich alleine..... und hilft auch den anderen nicht weiter (z.B. russich, japanisch, spanisch, .....) Wie soll das eigentlich weitergehen hier? Es wird immer unuebersichtlicher hier. LG --Hedwig in Washington03:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Deedeer
How you know that this image File:Deedeer.jpg is a copy right violation?
Hi! The copyvio-flag is set, because you wrote: unknown author, origin: website xxx.zzz
That doesn't mean that I'm a 100% sure, but the website has no gfdl or whatever, at least I couldn't find any disclaimer. And my spanish is a bit rusty, so if you know, where the website says that the picture is GFDL or PD, feel free to add that URL to the picture-info and proof me wrong! I'll be glad to be wrong, btw. Sorry, but we have to be very careful with copyright here on Commons. IF anything comes up, please let me know! Take care, --Hedwig in Washington23:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rosapratincola.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{tl|self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shyam(T/C)18:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Teilweise ist der zwar drin, wird aber nicht angezeigt. Ich habe aus Versehen einige Diagramme doppelt hochgeladen, da werde ich wohl die Lizenz vergessen haben. Ist nachgeholt, ich denke ich habe alle erwischt! Danke fuers Aufpassen! LG --Hedwig in Washington22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kats ...
Hallöle!
Hättest die beiden Kategorien eigentlich gleich mit speedydelete kennzeichnen können, das mach ich auch schon die ganze Zeit – wer möchte darüber noch diskutieren? ;-) Grüßle -- JörgM22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Wuerde ich gerne, aber mein Script gibt das leider nicht her. 8-) Du kennst doch mein Motto: Faulheit siegt! 8-) Werde in Zukunft Speddydelete benutzen, ist halt ein klick mehr. Aechz... ;) Gruss zurueck! --Hedwig in Washington23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have created the image in Inkscape. As proof I have added the relevant metadata in the content. If you still have doubts, please have look at my contribution history.
If it were to be a copy violation, you would have to provide a user the site where it is alleged to be stolen from. Else, you challenge a user if it is his or her original work before accusing them of imagevio.
The image in question is about the ribbon colour of the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration. This image has been created specifically for the infobox on en: to show the ribbon colour (See image of the decoration). Such a creation cannot be copyrighted as it is information, and information cannot be copyrighted.
A graphical representation of a ribbon (a physical object) is not a copy-violation.
Colours cannot be copyrighted, though they can be trademarked for a particular brand. Neither applies here.
Looking closely at the source image, the format is jpeg, striations can be seen on it, and the resolution is different.
I am reverting the deletion notice on that page. Please be careful before accusing anyone of copyviolations. Nichalp15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you are perfectly right, I checked that again and I'm deeply sorry! I try to do better next time and I hope you will not be toooooo mad!? Thanks for reverting my mistake! (Same info on your talk page to make sure, you read it) --Hedwig in Washington23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Klimadiagramm
Ich würde gerne vom Zingst ein Klimadiagramm einarbeiten. Da du schon welche erstellt hast kannst du mir da weiterhelfen. --Alma06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, fuer Zingst habe ich nur Niederschlagsdaten, keine Temperaturen. Hier sind die Daten:
Quelle: Deutscher Wetterdienst, Normalperiode 1961-1990
ZINGST, OSTSEEBAD
Hoehe ueber NN: 1 Meter
Breite: 54°26'
Laenge: 12°41'
Jan. bis Dez. in Millimeter, letzte Zahl ist die Summe: 47.5 31.5 40.4 39.8 49.8 55.5 69.0 59.6 55.6 48.7 56.9 53.6 607.8
Some of us were a bit surprised at this deletion request, you may want to chime in if you still think it should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, do not worry.This is indeed a personal picture, so your move was entirely in the right line. The only point is that to a certain extent, my personal picts may be of interest ;-) But you just did well as a general move. Cheers ant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthere (talk • contribs) at 10:30, 10. Mär. 2007 (UTC) (c&p from my userpage to my disc. --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I put {{Copyvionote/lang}} here not realizing that you, the uploader, had requested deletion of this file. I failed to look at its history. I can't believe I didn't do that. Anyhow. I'm going to speedy delete it now. Thanks for your patience. Do let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks for the congratulations. Best wishes, Wsiegmund04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are faster than lightning! I just wrote a little (nice!) comment with diff-link and so on. Thanx for watching Commons! Hope you still enjoy your adminship. And: No problem! 8-) --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your generous comments. Sorry to put you to the trouble of composing a response when everything I needed to know was in the file history. Best wishes, Wsiegmund16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi ALE! (nice nick, btw!) You opposed "my" deletion request because the images aren't the same. Ok, I have to admit that. But how do we ge rid of those diagrams that are a) not used and b) scientifically not correct? We are currently cleaning the climate charts and upload new, correct images. The new diagrams are made by the system that two climate-gurus 8) made (Walter & Lieth) Maybe you can have a look in the [[:Category:Climate diagrams system Walter+Lieth] and let me know, how I shall tag those pictures? I thought it might be ok to use supersed/png. Thank you for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Was die Klimadiagramme angeht, würde ich vorschlagen, dass Du alle Klimadigramme, die gelöscht wercden wollen sammelst und quasi in einem Rutsch unter COM:DR, also bei den normalen Löschanträgen zur Löschung vorschlägst. Da gibt es mehr Rückmeldungen. --ALE! ¿…?17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Kannst Du Klimadiagramme zu Wiki-Artikeln Samsun und Ordu beisteuern?
Vielen Dank
Hallöle! Hedwig is irgendwo abgängig, da muß also ich als mal abgesprochene Vertretung ran. Sorry, habe vergessen, hier hinzugucken. Ich schau mal über das Wochenende, ob ich zu den Stichworten was finde. Gruß -- JörgM07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Zu Ordu habe ich leider in meinen Quellen bisher nichts gefunden - hast Du irgendwelche Klimadaten? Gruß -- JörgM01:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Klimadiagramm Kobe
Hallo, wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, machst du gerne Klimadiagramme. Wäre toll, wenn du eins für Kobe machen könntest, damit der Artikel noch besser wird. Danke+Gruss Geofrog14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Zur Vertretung siehe Abschnitt oben. Und ich schau mal, ob ich irgendwo Daten dazu habe. Gruß -- JörgM07:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Habe deine Klimadiagramme gefunden. Da ich auch Geoklima verwende,
interessiert es mich, mit welcher Software du die emf-Dateien in
png-Bitmaps umwandelst.
Herzlichen Dank!
Kurt
Nachtrag:
Hat sich erledigt, habe bereits eine Lösung gefunden.
Perhaps you are unaware: it would normally sort by its title. All you've effectively done here is to prevent the rest of the title past 'Steilacoom' being used in the sort. Was that really your intention? - Jmabel ! talk01:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Just fixing the sorting order, that was all. Got carried away, I think. You are right, of course. I need to be more observent in the future, thanks for letting me know! Changes reverted. --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)04:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Me podrias explicar porque marcaste mis imagenes como si tubieran derechos de autor, si yo las cree no las copie de ninguna pagina — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANGEL235968 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2. Mär. 2012 (UTC)
First: please sign your comments (use --~~~~)
The pictures and *.ogg files are virtually stolen from their legitimate owner. You can NOT take an image or parts of it and call it your own work. On top of everything: You already got a warning from an administrator here. Your account got blocked for a week. You might want to check your discussion page, you got plenty of warning! You will find more information on licensing and other topics here,here,here, and here. Good luck! --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)04:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hallo, I saw your requests for "Tony T Luh Tony T" and if you want to save time you might use Help:VisualFileChange to create mass deletion requests that are about the uploads of a particular user or files in a category that should be deleted for the same reason. If something does not work as expected or if you have questions concerning this tool, don't hesitate to ask me. BTW, in User:Hedwig in Washington/monobook.js, there is some very old code that is superseded by gadget quick delete. Sincerely -- RE rillkequestions?12:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you.
-- RE rillkequestions?20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi HiW, I just made an edit without leaving an explanation/summary. The category Daimler Sovereign is a subset of Daimler Motor Company Vehicles so I have deleted the duplication. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The second URL doesn't show CC 3.0 as far as I can tell, my spanish level is about 0. :( If the first webpage (elapis.com) copied the image from equova.org and they use CC-License, the image is more than welcome here. But the proof is on you.
Same with the second picture. If it is licensed under CC 3.0 you have to put a direkt link to that statement. Otherwise there is a fairly high probability the image will be deleted.
Yuuuuup, that is perfect! :) I changed the author to www.equo.org, makes it a little easier for folks like me who don't know what equo is. Do you think you could add some categories to the picture so other people can find and use it? If you don't know how and where and what, just drop me a line and tell me what election that is and where and you know.... ;-)) But try it first, please. I'll have a look at it if you like. --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)18:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
ich habe deinen no-permission-Tag von der Datei entfernt. Der Uploader ist der Fotograf. Das findest du heraus, wenn du mit der Maus auf "Urheber" gehst. AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Bei dem Bild hast du einen no permission tag gesetzt - den finde ich völlig fehl am Platz und hab ihn deshalb wieder weg. Der tag sollte nur gesetzt werden, wenn klar ist, dass Uploader und Bildrechteinhaber nicht die gleiche Person sind. Das ist hier aber nicht ersichtlich, das andere Bild des Uploaders wird darüber hinaus beim Artikel der Band auf itwp verwendet. Auch findet man das Bild nirgends sonst in dieser Größe, darum würde ich es behalten :)
Morgengrauende Grüße, --Funfood␌02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ebenso würde ich hier den Tag nicht setzen. Es mag schon sein, daß dir das "own" Work fehlt, aber wenn du Zweifel hast, könntest du zuerst dem User mailen, oder bei der Firma anfragen. Es ist bei dieser Vorgehensweise so, dass viele gute Bilder verloren gehen, wenn der Uploader nicht reagiert. Dann sind sie nach 7 Tagen futsch. Müde --AtelierMonpli (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Dieser tag ist grunsätzlich falsch. Das Bild hat eine Quelle und ich fand es nirgends sonst im Netz. Hier wäre ein DR angebracht, wenn du es loswerden willst. Ich finde, es ist eine Rarität und könnte in den Artikel eingebaut werden.
Bei diesem wäre ein "no Source" besser gewesen. Es ist nach 7 Tagen weg wenn sie nicht nachgereicht wird, und spart so eine Menge Arbeit auf DR. Noch müder --AtelierMonpli (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Album Cover, daher no permission.
Gerendete Architekten / Designerzeichnung. Sowas ist in 99.999999% aller Faelle unfrei. Haette auch copyvio setzen koennen, haette wohl besser gepasst.
Scan eines Fotos. Das ist kein own work, Quelle/Urheber fehlt. Raritaet oder nicht, nicht ausdruecklich frei = unfrei.
mach was du willst. Commons ist eine Hure, jeder darf mal ran *ggg
Ich tendiere dazu, möglichst viele Bilder zu behalten. Es ist das gesammelte "Wissen" der Menschheit. Ob ein Bild eines unbekannten Musikers mal relevant wird, kann ich nicht beurteilen. Es ist gut, es zu haben, wenn das Bild als solches kein absolutes Scheiss-Bild ist. Ich würde die Weltformel als out of scope löschen weil ich sie nicht erkenne. Wir können x Penis-Bilder aus unterschiedlichen Winkeln haben und x² Diagramme, die keine Sau braucht. Es ist ein gehorteter Bilderschatz an "freiem Inhalt".
Ich versuche, rauszuhauen, was dem nicht entspricht, und alles andere rette ich gerne. Wobei mich ein Diagramm nicht so schmerzt wie ein gutes Bild. Bilder zu tagen auf Grund von "ich glaube" geht für mich nur dann, wenn mein Glauben durch Urls belegt werden kann und fast schon Wissen ist. Ich muss damit leben, dass ich Bilder habe, von denen ich 100%ig glaube, es sind Copvios. Da kann man dann schon mal einen DR machen. 2 hat own work als Quelle. Und was würdest du mit einem alten Foto das von dir ist sonst machen, als es zu scannen? Wenn du nicht mehr aktiv bist auf commons ist es futsch mit deinem tag. Also DR, dann kann wenigstens die Mehrheit entscheiden, die sich für sowas eh nicht interessiert.
bei 1 hätte ich vor dem tagen an den user geschrieben bzw. an das architektenbüro, aber so wie die Beschreibung da steht, glaub ich dem uploader. Du hast keinerlei Beweis für copvio. Es ist zwar oft im Netz zu finden, aber zeig mir eine Url aus der copvio hervorgeht.
3 hat definitv keine Quelle. Da kannst du dir den DR sparen, der für viele andere mehr Arbeit bedeutet.
Warum kompliziert wenns auch einfach geht.
Band angeschrieben und um CC Freigabe gebeten. (info@portoflamingo.it)
Braucht keinen Beweis fuer, sondern gegen(!) copyvio. Schreibst Du E&Y an?
Ist nicht Legal Weapons, sondern The Bags. LW kam erst 1981 raus, das Bild ist angeblich von 1979. Kann also nicht LW sein. Ich glaube Alice Armandariz uand Pat Morrison zu erkennen. Bin mir da aber etwas unsicher.
ja, ich schreibe E&Y an, obwohl ich es genau andersherum sehe. Mit deiner Strategie müsste ich von jedem Permission fordern. Da kann ich jeden taggen und sagen, Beweise. --AtelierMonpli (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So ist das nunmal, wir/Commons/Uploader muessen den Nachweis bringen. COM:PCP usw. Ich tagge nur Bilder, bei denen ich mir relativ sicher bin. Klar, ich haue auch daneben. Das ist aber immer noch besser als Probleme fuer Weiternutzer zu schaffen. Derjenige, der Dateien von Commons nutzt, will sich doch vor wildgewordenen Anwaelten und Abmahnagenturen schuetzen nicht rechtfertigen muessen: Commons hat aber gesagt die Datei ist gemeinfrei. Haut doch auch nicht hin. Oder? Tasse Kaffee aus dem Kaffee-Mekka spendier :)
I looked the article you asked for. It talks about a local soccer team, I suppose a team in which he plays. It mentions the name of the players (no one has articles on es.wiki); contains three useless fotos: File:Fc 20-5 azul.jpg, File:Fc20demayo.jpg and File:Fc2052.jpg. It's a "look and throw to garbage" article. Greetings, --Cobalttempest → write me something14:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)PD: Sorry for my bad English. If you need something else, just write again on es.wiki
Hola, he visto que ha solicitado el borrado de varios de los archivos que he subido (todos).
El que más me preocupa es el archivo LogodePanorama.png, he colocado la respectiva fuente y su autor, la imagen se utiliza en el artículo de Wikipedia en español Diario Panorama.
- (Google Translate) Hello, I've seen that has requested the deletion of several of the files I uploaded (all).
That worries me most is LogodePanorama.png file, I have placed the respective source and its author, the image is used in the Spanish Wikipedia article Diario Panorama.
--George Miquilena (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hola! The logos are out of scope. There is no description showing that the two logos could be useful on commons. Remember: We collect media for educational use. The other images are without proper license and you claim authorship for images you haven't taken. You need to show the source, the author, and permission to use the images. Usage of images in articles is not a criteria, you need to follow the copyright guidelines. See, if you took a great photo and I would use it to make money - you would be mad at me. :-) I know it is a little difficult sometimes. To be on the safe side, take the images yourself and upload them here. Please have a look here: COM:L/es, COM:D, and Commons:Primeros pasos/Selección de licencia. Hope it helps! You don't have to translate, my browser does that for me. --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
He corregido la información de fuente, autor y licencia de los siguientes archivos: Esso Maracaibo modelo.jpg y Maracaibo en los 60's.jpg.
- (Goolge Translate) I have corrected the information source, author and license of the following files: Esso Maracaibo and Maracaibo modelo.jpg in the 60's. Jpg. --George Miquilena (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Debería revisar las fuentes y las licencias de los siguientes archivos: File:Santiagodeleondecaracas.jpg y File:Nuevavalenciadelrey.jpg
-(Google Translate) You should review the sources and the licenses of the following files: File: Santiagodeleondecaracas.jpg and File: Nuevavalenciadelrey.jpg
Esso Maracaibo: Venciclopedia.com is not an acceptable source. It is user generated content. The image page doesn't show how took the picture, only the uploader.
Maracaibo en los 60's: There is no author anywhere. You are too young to have taken this photo in the 1960's. Yes, you published it on your historypin page. That doesn't mean you have permission to do so. You HAVE to ask the author of the image for permission. Sorry, I hate to tell you this. I'd love to have the ship and the photo from the 60's here on commons. --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)
Hello! There seems to be a problem with Template:Assessments. It doesn't seem to support arwiki? And I noticed that the preview is not working properly. It only shows some html tags in red. Maybe it boils down to the same problem? Could you have a look, pretty please with sugar on top? :)) Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)00:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I usually dump those questions here, I never ask Rd232 for help, cause I don't knwo him at all. Can't know all admins here... :-)) I'll let the guys know that arwiki is coming soon.
One more: ar.wikipedia {{Assessments/wikipedia|lang={{{lang|{{int:Lang}}}}}|wiki=arwiki|num={{{arwiki|0}}}|nom={{{arwiki-nom|{{{renamed|}}}}}}}}
is the only thing that needs to be changed? I mean, if you want to add afwiki or viwiki or XXXwiki you just need to add this ::line, change the wikiname and that's it? Or is there more to it that meets the eye? :) Thanks again for all your work! --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I just tried it with photos chosen only on ar Wikipedia, such as this one, or on ar wiki and another sister project, such as this one, and it doesn't work properly with either :S--باسم (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my bot doesn't tag individual images. Something as non-controversial as deprecating an unused template has been quite a problem so I do not think this is a good idea at this point. If however you can convince people that this is indeed an improvement for commons, I can order my bot to tag the images regularly. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is it controversial? It is just a tag that shows that an image is reconized as valuable on a local wiki. That's my understanding. Ppl. from arwiki would like to set the tag automatically, so there's no need for handy work. :) If you could let the bot run over arwiki, too? If you don't want to take the heat :) I would do it, but I'd have to make a bot first. :) --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I honestly do not know why it is controversial, I was not told this. I'd be willing to help and I don't mind the heat should that be the case.
I can handle the task of tagging featured images on ar.wikipedia on commons. My bot currently does not handle this. We can file a case at Commons:Bots/Requests and the issue if approved there would cause little friction. Would you be willing to help me with that?
Hi Hedwig in Washington, hope you're well! I've got a new version of Up!, and could use some help testing it if you're interested. I'm curious to see if that bug you experienced with v0.1 is still hiding there. Let me know what you think! -FASTILY(TALK)04:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That's unfortunate :/ I think it has to do with the encoding changing from UTF-8, to system default, and then back to UTF-8 when it is posted to the wmf servers; I'm guessing this happens somewhere in the main library code. I'll try to replicate it. Nonetheless, it's good to hear that the upload bug is gone :] -FASTILY(TALK)05:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It's possible actually, we actually had that bug awhile ago, but I can't remember if it was fixed >:( I just tried uploading a few test files with the category Category:Fastily Test, and it worked fine :o If it's not too much trouble, would you mind answering a few more questions/doing a few more tests? Could you try uploading several more photos to a category without commas? What OS and language settings are you using? What do you think of the new GUI interface? -FASTILY(TALK)05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup, worked just fine. :) This (wikipedia only) :) machine runs on XP, EN and DE language settings. I like the new interface better. The folder selection seems to work faster as well. The only thing that bugs me is that Up doesn't remember me. With my long username (I was young and needed the money) I have to hit a lot of keys. :) Does Up works around when someone enters a new filename with .jpg? Btw: A setting for the size of the interface would be nice. --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)06:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think that indicates that its definitely not a language setting. I'm glad to hear that you like the new interface; I was worried for a moment that I was the only one who liked it :P. That's a good idea - I'll add a settings file to my todo list for Up. The diff filename field doesn't take extensions, you simply enter the base you want the files in the folder to be uploaded as (e.g. "Cute kittens"). Up! automatically observes file extensions and is able to upload all Commons-compatiable files (regardless of extension) under that title to Commons (i.e. If you have Photo1.jpg and Image.png in a folder, and you specify "Rabbits" in the diff filename field, Up! will upload the files as Rabbits 0.jpg and Rabbits 1.png). The program's preferred size setting is dynamically calculated based on your screen's dimensions (e.g. 0.5 * height and 0.25 * width). I'm assuming the program doesn't initialize too well with smaller monitors? If so, I can adjust the ratios. -FASTILY(TALK)07:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I started a little list on the Up! page already. I probably find more things to tweak or complain about. ;-) What I mean is, someone types cutekittens.jpg into the file name box. Does Up! produce cutekittens.jpg.jpg? Screen size is 15 and 17 inch, both do the same crap. It's no big deal, just wanted to mention the little bug (probably caused by me). --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)01:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:
Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.
Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
I am suffering from a surfeit of deletions! Almost certainly this means I am doing something wrong but I'm not sure what. Many of the photos I have uploaded have been deleted including:
File:Mirkwood wiki photo.jpeg
File:Mirkwood - The original line up, 1971 (2).jpg
File:Kit & Rolling Stones with wording.jpeg
File:Daevid Allen letter.jpg
File:Neil Landon 2.jpg
All of these photos were either taken by me or for me by friends - they are all my property as far as I am aware. I'm sure you're a busy man but I really would appreciate your advice as to what to do. It can't be right for so many genuine, unique and original photos to be rendered unavailable presumably simply because of a technicality I haven't got my head around.
I will be very grateful if you can explain what I need to do - as simply as possible!
As far as I can see the only thing you didn't do is providing a source for your images. I'd use the upload wizard again, same file name and add the source (there is an option for that within the wizard!) use {{OWN}} for your own work. Please describe what's the image is all about and if you can, add the appropriate categories. If you don't know how categories / galleries work that's fine, don't sweat it! :-)) Most important is that you fill in all the important fields, esp. the source of the image. Hope it helps?! --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm just glad you're ready to give it a shot. Most of the people I've asked have given me a pretty quick no. ;) It's too bad, because I only ask people I really think would be good admins. Anyways, make sure you put in that acceptance and/or statement as soon as you can, so the voting can get started. INeverCry (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello i really apreaciate your help. we still have problems with the file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer3d_col3_es.svg
English is not my native language so let me put in this way:
1. File in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer3d_col3_es.svg should be http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer3d_col3.svg, because is the first file created. (So your last action was a mistake)
2. In File history we can see 4 version of the same file, all of them should be in english. But someone (me) upload a new version in spanish that is wrong. The version 04:25, 23 July 2013 should be deleted.
3. If actions 1 are 2 are taken then we have a main image named Transformer3d_col3.svg and history only should have 3 files. My mistake should be have dissapeared.
If you can do it, i could upload the image using upload file wizzard. I am learning how to use wikimedia commons, i was tired last night, sorry about that. If you do not understand my explanation, please ask me, i will try to comunicate the idea.--KundaliniZero (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hedwig!, awesome job. I really believe in this project wikimedia and wikipedia too, thanks to believe in the project and help new users like me. I think we have no problems with the file. I upload a new version, and i think it's ok. Now text look nice. Also i followed your directions putting GNU license similar to the other file. --KundaliniZero (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen…
Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Hedwig in Washington! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons.
Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muss.
Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.
Hi Hedwig in Washington! In the meantime, this file (marked by me with copyvio) might be already deleted. For your info: You reverted my mark considering a CC-license available of one of the original sources indicated by me. In fact, it was an CC BY-***NC***-SA 2.1 ES-license for this image. Anyway, thanks for the eyes on that file as I apparently forgot to specify this non-compatible license on my copyvio-mark. I corrected my mark. Gunnex (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
i am not rude , but just that i was little bit angry over it. but i will not take it personal. so am sorry... bye. from davidzicoman — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidzicoman (talk • contribs)
No I didn't put a reason of because I want to get rid of the photo, but I will tag it for speedydeletion and put a reason --Luca Aless (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
YOU DELATED THE PICTURE OF DAREYSTEEL RADIO INTERVIEW IN AMSTERDAM HOLLAND, JUST FOR THE REASON THAT THE PERMISSION THAT I SENT WAS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND OR I FEEL IS BECAUSE OF THE DATE IN 2011.... BUT PLEASE CAN I RESEND THE PERMISSION AGAIN... I WOULD BE INTERESTED IF THE PICTURE CAN BE RESTORED BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. OR I CAN RE OPLOAD IT BACK ,IF REQUEST.
secondly . i have plead with the original owner , DSMUSIC PHOTOGRAPHER , to personally send the email permission to you by himself. ... i hope there is solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs)
1st of all: Do not use all-caps on MY(!) talk page! That is very rude. Second: You should have followed the rules in the first place. I'll discuss the matter with you here further. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
i feel that a new valid OTRS permission must have been sent to wikimedia commons by the rightfull owner - dsmusic photographer .. please kindly verify , ticket number 2013071010005831 , if yes. please restored the picture back . thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs)
OTRS is unable to verify that you are the copyright holder. According to your statement above, you []have plead with the original owner , DSMUSIC PHOTOGRAPHER , to personally send the email permission to you by himself. Therefore you can't have the copyright to the image. Only the copyright owner can release the image with a license accepted on commons. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Hedwig in Washington, i'm the ex-Matias garcias, and i'm sorry, i will not do that again. i'm ganna be a good wiki user. But, Why did you do the block and Martin H. didn't do it? Matias Agustin juanse (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again, Matías garcias, i want to tell you, ther please don't block my photos in Wikipedia. Cause i want to do better to Wikipedia and i just uploads photos, that it Matias Agustin juanse (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You have to contact Mr. Gomes and ask for permission to use any of the images from his blog. The best way to do it is to have HIM contact our OTRS team. Please have a look here: OTRS. Hope it helps. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Would have been better to use the established channels (noticeboard). I am not always online and the noticeboard is monitored 24/7. Uploads deleted, user blocked for a week. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there - would you kindly confirm my action has cured the problems you listed
over your bottom line =
Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:14, 4 August 2013
Many thanks
Tfitzp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfitzp (talk • contribs)
Well, own work for the photos is OK - as long as you made the photos yourself. BUT you can't claim own work for things you didn't create yourself. Please see File:1909 OSBORNE ESTATE + RN COLLEGE + Pavilion.jpg, upper right corner with a big, fat watermark stating (c) Crown ... LTD. If the map is old enough that it falls under Public Domain, this group can't claim ownership and neither can you. Please check this out, see Com:L and Com:CRT for more info. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - taken down the items pending check copyright with original source - Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfitzp (talk • contribs)
I could have been clearer. I'm the original uploader, and it's stale at OTRS (they want more proof than the photo's owner has to give). I figured it should be deleted, but does it need to go through the whole deletion listing? I've speedied OTRS uploads gone bad like this in the past, but let me know if there's a better way. czar··04:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you are the uploader I don't see a problem. Your intent got lost in translation I guess. :) You can always leave the OTRS pending tag stay, the file will get deleted after a while. File deleted. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and fully respect you deleting the picture LiUAIF_logo_svg.svg earlier today. I would like to learn more about how to upload this logotype for the sports organization LiU AIF with the right licenses being used. I know that the picture has no copyrights since I know the creator and he sees it as a public picture, but please inform me in this, general, matter.
Hello! This kind of logo can't be uploaded on Commons. Since you are not the copyright holder, it would need a fair use license and Commons doesn't accept this kind of license. You can read all about it here: Com:FAIRUSE. For projects that may allow fair use see M:Non-free_content. For licensing in general: Com:L. If you need help with a specific problem, you can always post a question at the help desk. A good starting point is Commons:Welcome, this will give you a good overview of what is going on here and what you can do to help. Oh, and please read Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#Markup on how to sign your posts. Hope it helps for now. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Ich habe den von dir gesetzten "no source"-tag bei diesem Bild entfernt, da dieses Bild sicherlich nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt werden kann. Sofern du widersprichst, setze einen Löschantrag. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've deleted this file. The author of this file added lots of copyrighted photos here. I marked them for speedy, but s/he nominated all pages to deletion (example) saying that s/he violates copyrights. I don't think that is a common response and you may identify any known vandal or something. Seems like gaming the system. I would appreciate if you can take a look into this. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me˱M@CS˲» 15:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, dear Hedwig in Washington. I noticed that you blоcked this unregistered user indefinitely. Why? Generally, the owner of the IP-address may eventually be change. Maybe even at the conscientious user. Regards, — Stas1995 (talk)09:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington. Wäre es möglich, von meinem hochgeladenen Bild File:Conrad Zellweger-Tanner.jpg die erste Version zu löschen? Ich hatte zuerst, aus Versehen, die falsche Datei hochgeladen. Ich bin noch Anfänger und deshalb nicht so geübt, werde aber versuchen, in Zukunft solche Fehler zu vermeiden. Vielen Dank.
--Kantonsbibliothek AR
Done Kein Problem. Muss normalerweise nicht sein, in diesem Falle meiner Meinung nach gerechtfertigt. Wo gehobelt wird, da wird die falsche Datei hochgeladen oder auch shit happens. Vielen Dank fuer die Bilder! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Most of the files uploaded by Arman0014 were pictures copied from non free websites. I could find the origin of most of them and I guess the remaining photographs are also copyvios (probably he modified the original pictures in such way that it is impossible for Google Image to find back the original photographs). However, for tables and even maps, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, since there is no clue that Arman0014 did not actually create these images by himself. So, I think we could remove the "no source" tag. What do you think about that? Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am not so sure about that. My believe is that everything he uploaded is fishy. And the no source tag can stay, since there is no source to the data. Just my opinion. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)10:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Now have necessary info to use the photo you deleted
Hello Hedwig in Washington,
Hope all is well. I contacted the attorney of Lin Evola an she gave me guidance with respect to the copy right issue. I also have the author and the source but I can not upload the photo and use my new information because you deleted it. Do you know how I can upload the image with my new information? Thank you for you time and guidance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpulido7 (talk • contribs)
The best way is to check out Com:OTRS. You'll find everything you need, including an email adress. Please send the information to our OTRS-Team and they'll review it and if everything checks out, they restore the file. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Further to talk re Corrections - I have got permission from holder to use my extract from their original given as an OK by email.
Not exactly suitable for upload to Wiki I think!
Would it be advantage to have a standard form of arranging 'permission for copyright' applicable to all such situations ? With permission being agreed by email ? Does something similar now exist ?
Regards from Tfitzp
UPDATE = just noted your answer two items up - now checking OTRS
I think, I should move the discussion into a circus tent, or in a zoo behind bars. Then we can all watch you guys hit each other over the head, while we enjoy popcorn and cold drinks. Seriously, you should change your attitude. Use a reason that can be considered a reason. Last time I deleted because there hasn't been any evidence to support the claim of the author AND the map was made in a quality that would prevent reuse. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I just observed that my following files are been deleted by you and the message is been put on my talk page.
1 File:Freedom fighters in Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg
2 File:Legands in Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg
3 File:Music in Sare Jahan Se Accha 1.jpg
4 File:Music in Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg
5 File:Sare Jahan Se Accha 1.jpg
6 File:Sare Jahan Se Accha 2.jpg
7 File:Sare Jahan Se Accha 3.jpg
8 File:Sare Jahan Se Accha 4.jpg
9 File:Sare Jahan Se Accha 5.jpg
10 File:Sare Jahan Se Accha 5.jpg
11 File:Shivaji in Sare Jahan Se Accha - Pencil Sketch.jpg
12 File:Sports in Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg
13 File source is not properly indicated: File:Pramod Kamble 1.jpg
Pls. note that all these photo are taken by ME personally by MY Sony H2 camera and I am sole copyright holder of these images. I am a photographer I am quite aware about the copyright rules.
Yes. Can you reinstate the images on commons? Could you pls. be specific what is needed more to add in the file. Coolgama (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I can't. You'll have to go through Undeletion requests. Sorry mate. Tell me again, what was the country where the sketches are from, who's the artist, and do you know if the artist is still alive? If the artist deceased, what year did she/he pass on? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The pencil sketch is been made in India in the year 1997 by great artist en:Pramod Kamble. You can get more details of the project here en:Sare Jahan Se Achcha (pencil sketch). The artist is very much alive and he has no objection to upload the photo of his sketch on commons. Pls. let me know if you need any more information. What is the way out to upload the images now? Coolgama (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, This is all my own work. The Smokey Mountain and Appalachian Mountain photos are the same and one could be deleted. I didn't know how to add categories when I uploaded them. I took that photo and the Little Gasparilla Sunset photo years ago on a Sony digital camera. They have been transferred over the years to our new computers, so probably lack any exif data. We actually had a painting made of the the Appalachian Mountain photo. It was taken on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina. The arrowheads are all personal finds from Florida as in their descriptions. The photographs were taken with help from Jose Martinez on his camera at my house. Delete them if you like; I would like to replace them with photos with better backgrounds. The masturbation photo is mine, taken on my cell phone (I was there, I should know), but delete it if you want to ( I would prefer if you didn't). I thank you and all those who dedicate their time and efforts to make Wikimedia the wonderful and unique site that it is. Mmacbeth
I am sorry about any mistakes I have made. I am not computer savvy and I am slowly learning to work in Wikimedia commons.
Actually you do. You state it is your own work when it was created by somebody else. You need to state the real source, where you found this image. Movie Posters and such are rarely free media. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,Can you please comment on this (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg) page and tell them why you want to have this map deleted. Regards. Tigerkhan007 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I didn't say that I want the map deleted. Here's what happened:
This file was initially tagged by Sahara4u as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: This map has completely wrong description about language distribution among the districts.
Meaning, Sahara4u tagged the file for speedydelete and I changed the request into a regular deletion request so people who know about the situation can state whether the map is correct or not. I have no clue, so I couldn't (and shouldn't) decide either way. Thanks for your input in the discussion. Much appreciated! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Moin! Neulich wurde zunächst Atlantic Companion (7892290028).jpg als leicht verändertes Duplikat der Datei Atlantic Companion.jpg hochgeladen und danach Atlantic Companion.jpg gelöscht. Jetzt wurde auch die Datei Atlantic Companion (7892290028).jpg gelöscht und einigen Artikeln fehlt das Bild. Leider kann ich das Prozedere nicht besser nachvollziehen. Kann die ursprüngliche Datei wiederhergestellt werden? Gruß aus Leer, --SteKrueBe (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Der CommonsDelinker ersetzt die geloeschte Datei mit der anderen Datei automatisch. Manchmal dauert das ein wenig. Hmmmm, dazu muss natuerlich das duplicate script benutzt werden. Ich schaue mir das mal fix an. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Moin Hedwig, vielen Dank für die schnelle Hilfe! Dann werde ich mich mal an die erneute Bebilderung machen. Liebe Grüße aus Leer, --SteKrueBe (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the Wondermondo web site. When I checked it, I saw a NC restriction on the bottom of its page. Anyway, this is another image that the uploader uploaded. Perhaps you can find a source for it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington. Magst du das mal umsetzen? Leider laden immer noch viele Leute Grafiken im schlechtestmöglichen Dateiformat hoch. Da ist jede Empfehlung für JPG eine zu viel. --Leyo06:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Mal eben fix probiert. Scheint mit PNG nicht zu funktionieren. :( Ich habe das bissl Code auch nur aus sentimentalen Gruenden behalten. Benutzt habe ich das seit 2007 eh nicht mehr. Die Seite habe ich fix zum recyclen geschickt, d.h. in die Tonne getreten. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I did and your edit got reverted. I read the discussion as well, let's see what the community has to say. Would be nice tho. BTW: As far as I remember, your uploads didn't state who the depicted people are. Do you think the images are wthin scope? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)10:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for undestanding me. It is important that these photos are taken until Dec 31 1976. I can not remember whether I depicted identifications of the peole in there but if it is essential, I will do it willingly. HappyMidnight (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't do that. There is no consensus, as far as I can tell, and the page is mostly in Korean which I can't read. A Korean speaking administrator needs to have a peek and make a decision. Sorry. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, Du hast die Datei:Sammy Amara gelöscht, weil wie Du schreibst, der Lizenzgeber nicht derjenige sei, der die Mail geschrieben hat. Das ist nicht korrekt. Jutta Winterberg hatte die Lizenzfreigabe erteilt, allerdings gab es Rückfragen (warum auch immer). Sie hatte die Mail mit den Rückfragen von WP an mich weitergeleitet, die ich dann statt direkt beantwortet habe. Ich wollte nun die Datei nochmal hochladen, erhalte nun aber folgendes Bild. Danke für Deine Hilfe. (Ich schreibe auf deutsch, da Du angibst Deutsche zu sein.) Liebe Grüße --Animagus (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, hätte ich mir denken können. Natürlich siehst Du nicht welche Probleme es beim Hochladen gab. Das System sagt mir, dass ich eine Datei hochladen möchte, die gelöscht wurde bzw. bewegt worden sei. Somit ist ein erneutes Hochladen nicht möglich. --Animagus (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, noch eine Ergänzung: Der Urheber hat folgende Mail verschickt:
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
>
> hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild Objektname: Sammy Amara, dass ich
> der Fotograf oder Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.
>
> Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild Sammy Amara, dass ich hiermit die
> Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden
> freien Lizenzen erlaube:
>
> Ich bin einverstanden, dass meine Datei von jedem – auch kommerziell –
> genutzt, verändert und weitergegeben werden darf. Der Name des Urhebers
> muss bei der Weiternutzung immer mit angegeben werden und Bearbeitungen müssen
> immer wieder unter die Lizenz "CC-by-sa/3.0". gestellt werden. Es muss immer
> eine Internetadresse in Form einer URI zum Lizenztext oder eine vollständige
> Kopie des Lizenztextes beigefügt werden.
>
> Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht
> haben, das Bild gewerblich zu nutzen und zu verändern. Mir ist bekannt, dass
> ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch
> darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird. Mir
> ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das
> Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze
> (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild
> im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber
> unrechtmäßig nutzen.
Jedoch folgende Anfrage erhalten:
vielen Dank für die Freigabe, leider habe Sie keine Standardbaustein verwendet, sodaß die Freigabe nicht ausreichend eindeutig ist. Zudem wurde keine eindeutige Adresse der Datei angegeben. Bitte seine Sie so nett, das nachzuholen.
Ein Eintrag konnte noch nicht erfolgen, da sowmit keine für Wikipedia nutzbare Lizenz angegeben wurde. Nur Bilder, die unter einer solchen Lizenz stehen, können für Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Eine mögliche Lizenz ist die „Creative Commons - Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“. Nähere Informationen zu dieser Lizenz gibt es auf https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/ - sie ermöglicht (kurz gesagt) eine Veröffentlichung mit auch kommerzieller Nutz- und Veränderbarkeit innerhalb und außerhalb der Wikipedia für jedermann. Die Weiternutzung ist jedoch zum einen an eine Pflicht zur Urhebernennung gebunden und zum anderen darf eine Weiternutzung/Veränderung nur unter dieser Lizenz erfolgen.
1. Sind Sie der alleinige Urheber des Bildes oder alleiniger Inhaber der vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechte an dem Bild?
2. Wenn ja, sind Sie mit einer Lizenzierung unter der „Creative Commons - Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“-Lizenz einverstanden?
3. Wie möchten Sie in der Bildbeschreibung als Urheber genannt werden? (Bsp.: Klarname, Benutzername,...)
Wenn Sie nicht der Urheber oder alleiniger Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes an dem Bild sind, teilen Sie uns dies bitte mit, da nur dieser eine solche Genehmigung erteilen kann.
Eindeutige Adresse: Sammy Amara.jpg
zu 1: warum die Frage, wenn sie die Lizenzfreigabe erteilt. Sie ist alleinige Urheberin.
Zu 2. Warum die Frage, denn sie hat in ihrer Lizenzfreigabe sich auf diese Lizenz bezogen: "CC-by-sa/3.0".
zu 3: warum die Frage, sie ist mit ihrem Klarnamen schon eingetrage.
Moin moin! Ich habe die Datei geloescht, weil die Sache schon zu lange rumgelegen hat. Wir muessen uns hier an das manchmal ziemlich strenge Urheberrrecht halten. Zu den Fragen:
Einfach die Fragen beantworten, an das OTRS-Team mailen und die Datei wird dann wiederhergestellt. Ich kann mit diesen Angaben nichts machen, da ich nicht zum OTRS-Team gehoere.
Wir koennen das nicht wissen, dass muss vom Urheber beantwortet werden.
Einfach in einem extra Paragraph die Nutzung der Lizenz bestaetigen.
Das bezieht sich auf den Lizenzbaustein. Manche Fotografen wollen mit dem vollen Namen genannt werden, manche mit einem Kuerzel, manche mit einem Commons-Usernamen. Einfach angeben, wie die Nennung aussehen soll.
Wichtig: Diese Angaben muss das OTRS-Team vom Urheber direkt erhalten, weil sonst koennte ja jeder eine email schreiben und fremde Dateien freigeben. Glaube ich hier zwar nicht, aber wir muessen uns da etwas absichern.
Hallo Hedwig, wie ich vom Urheber eben erfahren habe, hat sie gerade die Fragen selbst beantwortet. Nun ist das Bild aber gelöscht. Weiß das OTRS-Team, dass dieses Bild wiederhergestellt werden soll? LG --Animagus (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Danke für die Rückmeldung. Hast Du Nachtschicht eingelegt oder ist Hedwig aus Washington nicht tatsächlich in Washington :) LG --Animagus (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, wenn ich Deinen Baustein entferne und nochmal nachhake. Wie sehe ich denn, ob die Datei wieder hergestellt ist? Wenn ich File:Sammy Amara aufrufe, müsste es eigentlich zu finden sein, wenn es wieder hergestellt wäre. Ich danke Dir im Voraus für Deine Rückmeldung. Gruß --Animagus (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Sehen kannst Du das an der Farbe. Solange der Dateiname rot ist, ist die Datei noch geloescht. Blau zeigt an, dass die Datei existiert. Und: Kein Problem mit dem Bausten, dafuer ist der ja da. :) Sollte innerhalb der naechsten Tage eigentlich passieren. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Danke, das dachte ich mir, als ich die Datei eben verlinkte, dass ich es daran sehen könnte. Für mein Empfinden hätte es eigentlich schon wieder hergestellt sein müssen, deshalb hatte ich bei Dir mal nachgefragt. Gruß --Animagus (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, die Datei ist wieder hergestellt. Ich danke Dir abschließend für Deine Unterstützung. Liebe Grüße --Animagus (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Prezados, sou assessor de imprensa do evento Bitetti Combat, e solicito a autorização para o uso do nosso material gráfico. Todas as imagens postadas são de propriedade cultural do nosso evento, portanto não vejo problemas na utilização. Aguardo retorno.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitor Henrique Reis (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Infelizmente, eu não posso falar português. Eu tento com o Google Tradutor. A fim de permitir fotos no site commons, precisamos de permissão do detentor dos direitos autorais. Por favor, consulte Com:Project scope/pt-br, Com:OTRS/pt e Com:Licensing/pt-br. Obrigado pela sua paciência. Eu sei, às vezes não é fácil de entender todas as regras sobre direitos autorais e licenciamento. Atenciosamente, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for understanding. BTW can you override another admin's decision. User:Billinghurst delete File:Liliuokalani lying in state in Iolani Palace (Hodges).jpg (same quality but smaller file size), which I marked as a duplicate and kept File:Liliuokalani lying in state6.jpg (same quality but larger MB file size). The different size is not reflective of quality and only came about because I save image to a mobile device and then uploaded it rather than a computer and then uploading it. All other images from the book were uploaded from my computer except these three (two which are now deleted). I know I can upload over but I rather prefer that File:Liliuokalani lying in state in Iolani Palace (Hodges).jpg was restored and File:Liliuokalani lying in state6.jpg deleted. If you can't override his decision can you tell me where I can appeal my case because I don't plan on letting this one go. Thanks again.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Hedwig! I see that you have hidden an IP and summary here. However, I don't see any reason to hide them as they do not have any content related with the reason provided on hiding log. It is important to leave open the more information we can, so, for instance, one can have access to the IP and look for vandalism patterns from that IP range or see IP contributions for continued vandalism. Only the content need to be hidden, if any. Unless you have a reason I couldn't identify, I can't see why keeping it hidden from public. Thanks for your attention.—Teles «Talk to me˱M@CS˲» 00:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig, unfortunately that's not only a matter of categorization, I know by experience that Catalans are very nationalists and don't see themselves as Spaniards. The only problem is, that their passport is of Spain, the jersey they wear when they play for their country is of Spain (and the money they earn as professional sportsmen are from Spain :-) ). Of course I don't care about that, my goal is to keep the categories the more sorted and ordered as possible. If you or anyone else wants to unprotect is fine for me, but that means that those categories must be kept under control. Anyway I replied in the page where the Catalan wikicommoner posted his complain, though his issue was posted in the wrong place. Greetings from Rome :-) -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat) 08:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
:Hi! I know about the problematic relationship between Catalans and Spaniards. I still think he has a valid point in comparing the situation with Texas. Well, at least somewhat valid. For me its a region I consider outside normal boundries, like Tuscany or Black Forest. It's kind of a state like Texas or Bavaria. If you don't mind I unprotect the category as a subcat of Spain and protect it again. Would that work for you? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am observing that you have deleted the below images also.
File:Prajakta Ranade.jpg
File:Hrishikesh Ranade.jpg
File:10 years momento for Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg
File:10 years of Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg
File:Bhalchandra Panchwadkar.jpg
These are my photo and I am the copy right holder of that. This was also been updated in the photo details. Could you pls. confirm why those are been deleted?... Coolgama (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't delete these files, administrator Fastily did. His reason was, as you can see in the log, that there was no source since 11. Aug. 2013. The files got tagged with a no source template and if there is no verifable source added within 7 days the files can be deleted. Here is the complete statement from the deletion log: No source since 11 August 2013: you may re-upload, but please cite a verifiable source/reference)
If you can provide a valid source, you can re-upload without any problems. Just add all the data right away. Don't forget categories!
Accidentally placed warnings in wrong user namespace - is copypasting them to user talk okay?
Hi! Since you dealt with the actual deletions of the images, I'd think it'd be best to ask you. Recently, I had labeled 5 images (which you've swifty deleted) by User:Thundersoccer as non-free content/copyright violations, however, I had created his user page, and placed the copyvio warnings on his user page - rather than his talk space. I've simply cut and pasted the warnings from user to user talk now (and thus blanking the user page), and noted the accident in the edit summaries. Is this okay, or is there something else that should be done? Thanks! (My contribs link so you can see everything that occured in one spot). ||Tako(bother me)||03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging. You have incorrectly deleted my images/work, to which I have ful copywright on the grounds of saying from an administrator in Sweden, who has not given any guoity reason for this other than her/his supsicion.
I would so much appreciate if you could instruct me on how I can help you correct your error?
Hello! You need to prove that you are who you are , meaning we don't know who's behind a username and if the upload is legit or not. In your case there have been several uploads that have been published on the internet before. As I said in the undeletion request, you need to contact our OTRS-Team. If everything checks out, your files will be restored. You might want to read about license, if you haven't done already. Here are some helpful links:
Com:Scope for project scope (the artwork vcertainly is in scope, really beautyful, by the way)
By the way: It was your error, not mine. Insulting anyone won't speed up the process, nor will you gain anything from it. I consider your remarks as translation errors. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig,
I am brand new to Wiki so any violations on my part are not intentional. I do understand the free content nature of Wiki. The only thing I need to put some restriction on for sure is our company logo. I am the content writer and another person is actually coding it in. We haven't submitted to Wiki yet because I wanted to ask someone in the Tea House why I was getting that "immediate deletion" notice. Now I know. :) Can you tell me how to get this approved? Also, what do I need to do and where do I need to do it? Haute Face is the name of a corporation. The name itself is a registered trademark of the corporation by the founder/owner Cassandra Mills. Thank you so much for helping a newbie! Kimberly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmhauteps11 (talk • contribs)
Hi! There are several things to consider. First, and most important of all, the uploader has to prove that he/she has permission to upload copyrighted media and release it into public domain or use any of the permitted licenses. Second, the uploader has to prove that the uploads are useful and/or of some kind of eductational value. In general, as soon as a file is used on any Wikipedia, it is what we call within project scope. To make sure your uploads are safe and sound, I'd suggest you use an official email account of your company and contact our OTRS-Team. They'll verify the ownership of the files and restore the files. That usually takes between a few days and up to a week, depending on the work load. Here are the links to get the ball rolling:
Hello.
26.08.2013 you deleted some of my files (pictures) from Wikimedia Commons. The reason which you gave me: copyright infringement. But I don't understand why I am accused in copyright infringement. Who has filed a complaint against my files? And can I differentiate amongst the text of the complaint?
This is a misunderstanding. Please, help me.
Thank you.
List my files:
Hi! One example: File:Черниговский светомузыкальный фонтан.jpg was tagged by a patroller as follows: ''{{copyvio|1=copyvio (cropped: watermark removed) via http://ecity.cn.ua/gallery/chernigovskie-fontany/386-foto-1.html (2011)}}'' Similar tags for the other images, as far a I recall.
You can't just take a foto, crop it, and call it own work. That is a copyright violation. You may only upload media on Commons when you own the copyright or it was released under a free license by the original author. Grabbing something from the internet and uploading it here doesn't give you the ownership. Hope it helps, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for help. I really crop this picture, but administrators of site ecity.cn.ua violated copyright, too.
But this is long history. World is big. Thank you again. --Bilow s (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It's great to see all the work you've been doing. You're the most active new admin since...me. Now if I could just find a few more Hedwigs... INeverCry17:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Penninghame - you deleted it as useless - PUT IT BACK - THIS WAS A BLATANT ACT OF VANDALISM
You deleted Penninghame Civil Parish in Wigtownshire with all it's photos.PUT IT BACK AS THIS IS A BLATANT ACT OF VANDALISMScotire (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think throwing accusations of vandalism around is going to help. I saw that the categories of Scottish civil parishes had been hardly used (it was a lot less well-developed than its English counterpart) and thus Commons would be better off without them, as an unnecessary layer of categorisation. I think that if we are to use them, (1) they should be properly integrated into the category structure (although issues may arise with their boundaries) and (2) they should be applied uniformly to all Scottish council areas/counties. I note that according to Civil parishes in Scotland, "they have had no administrative role since 1930", and thus are only useful, in my view, for disambiguating between places of the same name in the same county, of which examples are sparse. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all: DON'T YELL ON MY TALK PAGE!! Second: You do not demand anything from me is this manner. If you think I made a mistake, ask. I'll ignore all yelling on my talk page. Do your homework and ask an adult how to behave. Then come back and ask me in an appropriate tone. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Two images that I uploaded to Commons were just deleted based on "possible copyright violation". I provided a link to the Flickr source HERE which clearly indicates the Creative Commons license to freely share or remix. Why were these files deleted? Bede735 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly did this file had to be changed? MacedonianMk (talk) 10:33 PM,31 August, 2013
Please revert the previous map back.
First of all I am from the Greek province of Macedonia.
The country to the north of Greece is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.).
Please respect my request on this matter user: Hedwig in Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacedonianMk (talk • contribs)
Not done. I go with the CIA World Factbook. [12] Since the name FYROM/Macedonia/etc. is not sorted out yet, I believe the CIA to be correct. And please sign your posts. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Well if you do look at their website they did not recognise the country as "Macedonia" but F.Y.R.O.M. after the fall of Yugoslavia until
President George W. Bush change it(politically recognised it) in 2004/2005. If you look at this article you will understand my point of view
[13] and this cia website from 2000 [14]
and this map from 1929 from this site [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacedonianMk (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts! Just enter --~~~~ at the end. It is not rocket-surgery. Back to the point: I don't care about the map from 2000 or what Mr. Bush did in 2004/2005. As I said: I believe the current map (2013) (which is now on Commons) is the map I believe to be correct. If you disagree, talk to the CIA and tell them that they made a mistake. I only care about the map. I don't care about your political opinion, nor the political opinions of your sockpuppets or the politcal opinion of User:MacedonianBoy. Your edit war is binding a lot of man power already. We are here to make Commons better, not to take sides in an edit war between political factions. In the end everybody loses. I hope that makes it clearer to understand. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No, no problem. I'll submit another request soon. You're quite right and that's one of the reason I withdrew. Better times.... Best--НиколаСтоіаноски22:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You know why i was upload non-free pics? Bcoz.. I really don't know how to upload non-free pictures...
Actually i'm trying to upload non-free pictures with source, author, description, permissions and license... like "PD-self" "cc-by-sa-3.0" "self|Cc-zero" and many other license, but your wikipedia all time says only one thing... "YOUR PICTURE IS COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" and may be deleted.
that's a reason of non-free pics uploaded... So i req u plz.. give me a last chance and unblock me...
"If i do again upload non-free pics, then u block me permanently". but this time plz... Unblock me with last warning.
No, I won't unblock you. You had plenty of warnings. But I'll change the block from 1 year to 1 week if you promise(!) to read Com:License and tell me why your uploads have been deleted. Until then the block remains as is. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay... I tell you why wiki deleted my pics, Actually when i was uploading non-free pics, then i was tagged wrong source and Author of the pic. (e.g: this tellyduniya.com/0122.jpg url i was tagged on pic, but after upload, Wiki said which source you added that is fake or wrong, original source is indiatimes.com/8731.cms and now your file may be deleted and said You uploaded too many non-free pics So i block you for one week.
Wiki also said that which license you are tagged on pics that is wrong.
That time i was uploaded 6 or 7 pics, and all pics i was downloaded from tellyduniya.com, After i'm seeing this site's some pics copy from various sites.
And second time I was tagged various license on pics for trying to upload non-free pictures.
And after deleted my pics, you block me for one year.
Source is hidden in the description: This photo is copied from sajed.ir. It has released under GFDL license. "باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده آن با ذکر منبع بلامانع است. «کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر میشوند»: translation from Farsi: "A complete or partial republication of all material of this website including articles, news, voice, images ... is allowed provided that this website is cited as a reference. All the material are released under the GFDL license."
That file was part of another discussion about this photo File:Ghouta massacre1.JPG which is a screen grab from an unidentified You Tube video. I nominated it for speedy deletion as a derivative source of non-free content. The original uploader listed it as regular delete, not speedy, claiming there's no evidence. Would you be willing to take a look at it please? Thanks. USchick (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig,
ich versuche gerade nachzuvollziehen, welchen Sinn und Grund deine Löschanträge gegen die Bilder von GCarus haben? Gero wurde als Neu-User vom de:Wikipedia:Festivalsommer für das splash!-Festival (einem der größten HipHop-Festivals in Deutschland) akkreditiert, wo er in unserem Auftrag u.a. diese Bilder gemacht hat - er hat gerade damit begonnen, seine Ergebnisse hochzuladen - ein solcher Massenlöschantrag ist demotivierend.
Muso selbst mag kein Snoop Dogg sein, er ist allerdings zumindest ein teilnehmender Künstler auf einem relevanten Festival mit mindestens einem kommerziell verfügbaren Album - mir ist nicht bekannt, dass die Relevanzkriterien für commons gegenüber Musikern verschärft wurden, zumal in commons ja ansonsten jeder Pups behalten wird. Ich möchte dich entsprechend bitten, diese Löschanträge zurückzuziehen. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Naja, Snoopy waere mir lieber als dog. :-) Leider sind all die Infos erst nach meinem LA eingbaut worden. Sah halt wie Band spam aus. DU weisst ja selbst, hier wird jeder Mist hochgeladen. Da passieren mal solche Missverstaendnisse. Den LA habe ich selbstmurmelnd zurueckgezogen. Ich schreibe an den Uploader fix 'ne email. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Unabhängig von der divergierenden Grundmeinung (imho können Musikerdarstellungen nicht "not notable" sein, selbst vollkommen unbekannte Straßenmusiker sind imho im Fokus) bei commons sein: Ich habe soeben mit Gero geredet und er hat die Mail bekommen, verstanden und die Entschuldigung akzeptiert. Sobald er Zeit hat macht er weiter (muss sich erst einfinden). Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I left a note at the person's talk page, asking him or her to check with an admin if not sure about a vio or to nom for DR where others can discuss the file(s). Maybe he/she will slow down a little now. We hope (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I did not upload this file, but I am puzzled as to why you deleted File:Damiensargue.jpg? You claim copyright belongs to some polish blog which is certainly not the case (how would a French singer's photograph end up belonging to a Polish fan blog????) and I don't know what license the picture had on it, but you really can't challenge it on that basis. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I am absolutely not familiar with what is or what is not a copy right violation in here. I uploaded pictures of myself and you are calling it a copyright violation. Please what can I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukhtar Isah Bala (talk • contribs)
Some of the files (as far as I remember) could be found on the internet. The files of yourself for the are self promotion and not useful on Commons. This here is different from Facebook or Myspace, we collect media that can be actually used in an educational setting. Please read Com:Scope for more information. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it does not help. The map was made by me. The geo data ultimately come from some free source, most likely is was NaturalEarth, but I'm not sure, because my data collection is long since forked from their original sources and is heavily modified by me. Hellerick (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There's the problem. You need to add a proper source for a map. Nobody will ever believe you made the map from scratch. Open source data is perfect. How about I restore the file and you find out the source you used? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Zwei meiner Bilder müssten gelöscht werden. Es handelt sich um folgende Bilder: Pfarrgasse 1, Backhaus, Nordheim am Main.JPG und Pfarrgasse 1, Nordheim.JPG .
This file was recently deleted as a copyright violation. Can you give more specific information as to what the circumstances were - I understand what the policy is, but I can't look at the original licence statement to give an informed opinion as how it might apply in this instance. I'm particularly interested as this file was reviewed on w:Talk:Blackwall Tunnel/GA1 and no issues were found. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The photo is not PD but intellectual property of the author because it was not taken before 1923 which could make it PD. That's the the whole secret. On Wikpedia it is considered Fair use. Commons can't host fair use licensed media, please see Fair use for more info. If you can find a source that proofs that the photo has been taken before 1923, drop me a line and I restore the file in a heartbeat.
No, I understand that, I just assumed that since the file was already on Commons when I found it, that the copyright had already been checked and cleared. In any instance, the problem I had is that we had a Good Article on Wikipedia that suddenly had a degraded experience for the reader by having a caption box with a redlink. Since the change wasn't on WP, it didn't appear on my watchlist, and there were no edits since the picture was deleted, I only noticed it when I happened to look up something on the article in question a few days ago. The best solution to all this is to dig out a pre-1923 image, which would be superficially the same as the 1928 one (but substantially different to today). I dare say there's one sitting in a newspaper archive somewhere. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've found another image that will serve the article just as well on this page which is a scan of a photograph claimed to be taken in 1899, but with no other information at all. Is that PD, or do we need more reliable evidence that it is? (I previously uploaded an 1895 photo but it was clearly associated with a local council archive) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I closed the wrong section. I think the URL should suffice. The author is not mentioned but I think that can be expected for a photograph that is over a hundred years old. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Care to explain what's wrong with this file rather than up and deleting it? I spend the better part of half an hour uploading this to source something on a page and try to go through some opaque requests that I delete something as part of an argument that the photo is legitimate for upload. Meanwhile you spend two seconds deleting it and go on about your day.
If you take a look at what you've deleted you may see that this photo was a valuable addition to Wikipedia. To be quite frank your attitude has shown me how pointless it is to contribute to Wikipedia either through my time or monetarily and I hope you understand the brusque attitude you have shown would doubtless convince anyone of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinholmes (talk • contribs)
First of all: Please sign your posts. Thanks! You uploaded an unfree image. Please refer to Com:L for licensing information. My attitude is perfectly within project scope. It saddens me that you feel that way, but even on Wikipedias / Commons are some rules to be followed. If you need to upload fair use images, you may to do so on some local projects. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the proposer claimed at first that the term 'cremà' is mispelled, and added that 'crema' has been used lately instead of 'cremà', but he didn't bring any sources supporting that. On the other hand, the term 'cremà' has long been well stablished, as far as I know it is still more widespread (in fact, I had never seen the concept as 'crema' until now), and it is formally accepted. Later, he added "I've found evidences of the use of both terms (or variations of a same term) but not a single source that can state that a term is prefered to other one. The fusion between both categories should be done, but I don't recomend any term to be better to other one, I let that decision to the rest of users, if they have other opinions." , and we were expecting some other contributions. Lobo (howl?) 14:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
So, what do we (I) do? Just revert the schmutz and leave it as 2 categories with the same content? Or do you have a preference on how it should be named/done? I am happy to do that, don't get me wrong. I love categories that actually make sense. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I do have a preference: cremà, because that's certainly the established name, but I'd prefer to seek other opinions and not to impose my preference. Lobo (howl?) 21:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Witam napisz mi proszę jaka licencja powinienem użyć do tych zdjęć. zdjęcia pochodzą ze strony map4u.pl i mozna z nich korzystać jeśli podaje sie autora tych zdjęć w podpisie, taka informacje uzyskałem od administratorów tej strony. Trzy czarno-białe fotografie nie mają źródła ???? to sa zdjęcia historyczne z których każdy moze korzystać są one dostępne na stronach http://zloczew.pl/galeria/zdjecia/12/ wszystkie dodane prze zemnie zdjęcia pochodzą z tej strony. co mam poprawić aby zdjęcia zostały przywrócone ?? pozdrawiam --ArturZłoczew (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Witaj z powrotem! http://zloczew.pl/galeria/zdjecia/12/ nie może być używany jak jest, ponieważ strona nie określa żadnych licencji, zezwolenia na korzystanie z obrazów lub pierwszy dzień publikacji. Czy jest co najmniej w przybliżeniu rok dla obrazów czarno-biały?
Jeśli po raz pierwszy opublikowany (nie brane) przed 1954 można użyć {{PD-Polish}} Może chcesz przeczytać Template: PD-Polish.
CC-0 nie może być używany, jeśli nie jesteś właścicielem praw autorskich i autor nie opublikował zdjęcie CC-0 licencji. Zawsze trzeba zachować licencję autorowi używane. Jeśli autor nie użył żadnej licencji, zdjęcie może być nadal własnością autora.
W zależności od roku, zdjęcie zostało zrobione und roku autor zmarł, istnieje kilka Publiczna licencje domen, które mogą być użyte. Proszę przeczytać User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright dla niektórych więcej informacji.
Polskie Prawo autorskie ma jakieś dodatkowe zasady, plus teraz przepisów unijnych i URAA (patrz Com: URAA) zrobić to trochę skomplikowane.
Potrzebny jest bezpośredni link do informacji o prawach autorskich na Maps4U.pl lub każdego zdjęcia, które chcesz użyć. W przeciwnym razie każdy mógł powiedzieć coś mówili do kogoś i jego przycisk OK. Musimy mieć dowód, aby móc gościć zdjęć na Commons. To nie znaczy, trzeba mieć list z pieczęcią z prawnikiem za każdym razem :). Dowód ponad wszelką wątpliwość, jest to, czego potrzebujemy, żeby utrzymać dodane bezpieczne.
to jest strona na których administrator zezwala nakorzystanie ze zdjec z portalu jesli napiszemy kto jest autorem tych zdjec i ze sa one z portalu map4u.pl http://www.map4u.pl/pl/cms/naprawdedarmo/udo_foto/ins_zdj_publicznych/ . To jaką licencje mam do tych zdjęć wybrać???
Zdjęcia czarno białe wykonane są w 1939 roku na jednym ze zdjec jest nawet data 1939 Złoczew, są one ogólno podstępne takie informacje uzyskałem od urzędu miejskiego w Złoczewie, autor tych zdjec jest nieznany, zdjęcia pochodzą prawdopodobnie z kronik. Jaka licencja bedzie odpowiednia dla nich ???--ArturZłoczew (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Map4u.pl nie wydaje się, aby umożliwić pochodnych prac. Plus znaki wodne sprawiają, że zdjęcia mniej użyteczny. Musisz skontaktować się z polskim administratora mówiący o tym miejscu. Muszę polegać na programie tłumaczeń i ci popełniają błędy.
Na czarno-białych zdjęć: Nie pamiętam dokładnie, co pokazali. Myślę, że to tylko ulice z budynkami. To powinno być objęte wolności Panorama i PD-polskim. Czy moglibyście wysłać mi dokładny adres URL każdego obrazu? Będzie przywrócić pliki i dodać źródła i licencji.
niestety nie moge skontaktować sie z użytkownikiem Jarekt gdyz mi nie odpisuje. co do zdjec czarnobiałych to wydaje mi sie ze odpowiednia licencja to {{PD-Polish}} --ArturZłoczew (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
czy jak dodam licencje do czarnobiałych zdjec {{PD-Polish}} i podam w źródle z jakiej strony jest to zdjecie np. podam link do strony i napisze co to za strona. To wystarczy ????--ArturZłoczew (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you give me the link/rationale for deleting the John Brockman photo? The Google link you gave is so long that it didn't fit in the comment. I got the photo from Brockman himself with his permission. But I want to see what you think is the copyvio from the link. Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[18]
Brr... as far as I remember it was related to Com:NETCOPYRIGHT. That would explain the long URL. Sorry, I can't be more specific. There have been over 100 copyright violations yesterday deleted by me alone. Since you are saying you have the permission to upload the file, I suggest you sent an email to our OTRS Team. I am happy to restore the file, if you agree. Thanks for your info! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you closed several DRs (some keep, some delete) per the slovene graffiti discussion, many of which not pertaining that matters — the talk pages of the kept items are now linking to an unrelated discussion (example), and the actual DR diwscussions seem to be unreacheable. -- Tuválkin✉18:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm..., that's strange. Must be a hickup of the javascript. I try to find all of the wrong links and repair them accordingly. Thank you for your info and sorry I have been so short, had to leave. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig in Washington, user Vahram Mekhitaryan consictently adding categories with HotCat where it is not necessary. I removed that categories, but he reverts my edits, please warm him about it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can tell the editsthe user made seem OK, the symbols look similar to me. This said, I am not an expert on these symbols. Please tell me exactly why the categories are wrong. Thanks a bunch! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, category is calling "Armenian Eternity sign", that simbol is look like this. But he added there pics of ornaments, in which there is no that symbol, for example here or here--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please block this uploader. This image was uploaded after you warned him to stop uploading copyvios on his talkpage. I don't know about the flickr account. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank You. I saw your notice on this user's talkpage and it was today. So, I thought I should send a message to you. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Public Display Issued by a Japanese City Not OK for Commons?
Hi, I understand you've removed File:Beware of Hawks (Enoshima).JPG due to copy right infringement. Could you advise me for future reference why it was deemed inappropriate without discussion? The display in the photo has been issued by the local city to warn pedestrians of a danger and it is a permanent fixture in an open public area. I'd appreciate your advice so I will understand the issue(s) clearly and don't repeat the same mistake. I'm not disputing your action. I am simply confused and would like to learn a lesson from this experience. Thank you. --Nandaro (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem. You certainly have the right to ask. And to dispute, we are all only humans here. At least I like to believe that. The image was deleted because Japan doesn't have a freedom of panorama for artistic works. The sign was created by somebody else, by uploading this image violated the copyright of the creator of the sign. If you like to read a little more, check out Commons:FOP#Japan. Freedom of panorama is a trap many people fall into, so no worries. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick and courteous reply. I do understand what you're saying about artistic works in general, but I'm still a bit confused about the sign in question. Commons:FOP#Japan says that "Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes...." This sign is located permanently in an open place accessible to the public and at a place easily seen by the public and it is non-commercial, like any other government-issued sign. I also uploaded the image for a non-commercial purpose (Wikimedia Commons is non-commercial, right?). The issuer of the warning sign as noted at the bottom of the sign (神奈川県湘南地域県政総合センター/藤沢市), is a local government organization (http://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/cnt/f219/ or http://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/english/index.html for English readers). BTW, I need to correct my previous comment; it is the local prefecture (not city) that has placed the warning sign, and one of its jurisdictions is the local city (藤沢市). For your reference, [here] is an English translation (not by me) that was posted in 2009 about this particular sign. As you can see, the sign is meant as a warning to citizens and tourists and is not meant as an artistic work or for commercial use. It is a warning sign issued by a government, which happens to include a picture of a bird. If that is still not appropriate for Wiki use, I will not upload any similar images in the future. I just need to understand it clearly. Thank you for your patience and guidance. --Nandaro (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Good thinking. Unfortunately incorrect. :-) Yes, Commons is non-commercial. BUT: We host images that can be freely used by anyone, even for commercial reproduction. That is where the problem is. We (Commons) can't restrict the use to only non-commercial. Therefore the image can't be hosted here. I know, it's a pain in the butt. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I rest my case. :) BTW, would a sign without a picture be OK? How about a map posted in a public area (one of those "You are here" directories)? --Nandaro (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig. Thank you for helping out with some of the {{Duplicate}} taggings of mine the other day. I'd like to go through and systematically tag many of these older low-res images which are now duplicated by new high-res images from the COM:NARA mass upload. These were uploaded by users because NARA used to (and in many cases still does) only make low-res versions available in the catalog. I have a particular interest in replacing duplicates because some of the old ones are used in many articles and as long as they are not replaced and deleted, users will continue to use them because they may not realize better versions exist.
I'm having an issue with some other duplicates I tagged, because an admin with an apparently idiosyncratic view of the policy is removing them in any cases where the duplicate files are .gif (and the high-res version ins .jpg). Like you, none of the other admins who work in this area have made that objection to my tags so far. I wonder if you have any opinion on this, since even a strict reading of COM:DUPE does not seem to suggest that two identical bitmap files of different format cannot be "duplicates"; the relevant line would be "A bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be exact enough a duplicate," but that's not the case here. I'd like to have this figured out so I don't end up wasting a lot of time tracking these down just to be reverted again. I'm hoping you might weigh in, since Billinghurst and I already discussed this on IRC, but didn't reach any agreement. Dominic (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the admin is a seasoned user. I went through the dups you tagged and I must say, some are lower quality and greater size than what we have right now. I wouldn't delete any of them so far. Not true, I found a few I processed as duplicates. How come the quality is so different? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you rolled back a copyvio request stating "it's not a copyright violation", related to the image "O Vesuvius.jpg", signed Cosimo di Giacomo. Here you are the link stating that Cosimo di Giacomo is a professional photographer, thus the image is covered by the international laws on authoring. Regards.--L736E (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
No, no. I did not rollback. I removed the Speedy template and added no permission. It might be that the uploader actually IS the author. So he has a chance to clarify ownership until tomorrow, Okt. 1. 2013. It will be deleted after the time is up. Thanks for the link, but since there are no images I don't know what the website can proof. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries - I tried purging the page and it loaded. Weird, that's the first time I've ever had to do that following a move. Thanks! - The Bushranger (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for deleting the image of Mumtaz, once again, are unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.58.158.34 (talk • contribs)
The reason, as stated by me, is perfectly clear: Unclear ownership. The file got deleted 5 times now, do you still think the problem is on Commons side? Use the OTRS-Team, scan the image, make a photograph of the image as well (to proof it actually is one). Send all this to OTRS and wait a little bit. They will decide if this is good enough. If not, you'll be contacted by OTRS. Until then, there's no chance that this file will be kept on Commons. OK? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please let me know the email id to which I have to send, or the link on which I have to upload, the scan and the photo. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhi47 (talk • contribs)
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!
He completado losdatos faltantes, el escudo fue obtenido de la W:it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredobi (talk • contribs)
Ciao! Il file non è autorizzato correttamente, si ha la sorgente (il file originale), non di nome. A quanto ho capito, il file è un altro file è un derivato del itwiki. Devi quindi anche per specificare il file. Chiedo scusa per il mio cattivo italiano, io uso un programma di traduzione. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You uploaded 6 images claiming they have been your own work. Buying a book and taking a photo of it, doesn't make it own work. Same for CDs. You gave I work as paparazzi as a source. Do you think Commons users are stupid and believe this? Read and understand Com:L for correct licensing before uploading, please. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You've left me a message to not post any copyright pictures. I did not upload any copyright protected pictures. The pictures I uploaded are done by request of the people on the picture and are used everywhere on the internet for information about the people.
What do i need to do differently in the future to prevent blocking of my account? These pictures are given by the owners with all the rights to release them free to the public.
Hi, Du hast ja bereits einige Bilder des Benutzers wegen URV gelöscht. Der Rest ist auch von der nämlichen Webseite kopiert. Könntest Du die auch noch unbürokratisch löschen? Grüße Weissbier (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig; du hast File:EXPECTATION.wav als "not OWN WORK" gelöscht. Ich war auf dieses File bereits nach einer Anfrage auf AN aufmerksam geworden, hatte aber nichts unternommen, da mir "own work" einigermassen plausibel schien: Der Uploader nennt sich User:Capitantroner und das Werk ist von einem "Capitán Troner", der ein noch nicht besonders bekannter Musiker zu sein scheint. Es würde mir daher durchaus plausibel scheinen, dass dieser Musiker einerseits seine Werke bei Amazon zum Kauf anbietet (sie sind dort nur als MP3 erhältlich, nicht als physische Alben, der "Verleger" ist er selbst), andererseits einen einzelnen Track auf Commons unter einer freien Lizenz hochlädt. Man hätte ihn also m.E. vor einer Löschung vielleicht ansprechen und um eine OTRS-Freigabe bitten sollen (oder man hätte sogar einfach weiterhin annehmen können, dass er tatsächlich der Urheber ist - wie gesagt, in diesem Fall keine fernliegende Annahme. Anderen Uploadern glauben wir "own work" ja auch einfach blind). Man kann wohl sagen, dass das Stück eines unbekannten Musikers, der zumindest für die Wikipedia wohl noch keine Relevanz geniesst, kein grosser Verlust ist - andererseits ist das hier ja Commons und freie Musik hat viele Verwendungszwecke. Insofern wäre es vielleicht doch im Sinne freier Inhalte gewesen, den User (über den Baustein hinaus) anzusprechen und ihm zu erklären, was er unternehmen müsste, um uns davon zu überzeugen, dass er wirklich der Urheber ist... Gestumblindi (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ich hab SLA gestellt (ja, sla unter anderem wegen zweiter Meinung). Kann das ehrlich gesagt fast nicht glauben... Unbekannt o_O? Du hast Knöpfe, also kannst du die Datei Wiederherstellen wenn du anderer Meinung bist. LG--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ziemlich unbekannt, ja. Nach weiterer Recherche sogar so unbekannt, dass ich mir fast nicht vorstellen kann, dass irgendjemand ausser ihm selbst auf die Idee kommen könnte, einen seiner Songs hier hochzuladen: Bloss (um die, schwankend, wie bei Google mittlerweile üblich) 81 Treffer bei Google für seinen Namen mit der Option "Wortwörtlich". Ich bin mir aber selbst unsicher, ob es sich lohnt, die Datei wiederherzustellen - denn den Baustein auf seiner Diskussionsseite, der darauf hinweist, wie er vorgehen kann, wenn er mit der Löschung nicht einverstanden ist, hat er ja. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Naja, ich habe mir das so gedacht: Viele User geben sich einen Namen der genau dem Idol entspricht oder dem sehr aehnlich ist. Wuerde die Datei also (c)vio machen. Ich habe auch auf nach dem Namen gegoogelt. Die Entscheidung die Datei als (c)vio zu loeschen und nicht als out of scope war einfach Bequemlichkeit. Steinsplitter hatte ja bereits schnell loeschen eingetragen und schlussendlich ist die Begruendung ziemlich wurscht, weil gleiches Resultat. Soweit mein Gedankengang bei der Abbarbeitung. Lassen wir den keine Quelle Baustein mal drin und dann abwarten, vielleicht kommt ja was und kostet kein Brot. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Jupps. Nur nebenbei - gibt es auf Commons für Musik überhaupt ein "out of scope", solange es einigermassen anhörbare Musik ist? Freie Musik ist ja sehr begehrt und kann z.B. zur Untermalung von Videos Anwendung finden, dazu muss der Musiker selbst nicht "notable" sein. Oder sollte ein Musikstück doch eine gewisse Eigenrelevanz bzw. bereits für sich genommen "educational value" haben? Offenbar bist du letzterer Ansicht, ich würde eher dazu neigen, Musik recht grosszügig zuzulassen (wenn sie wirklich frei ist, versteht sich). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Eigentlich waere ich lieber Inklusionist. Das faellt einem aber ziemlich schwer bei all dem Muell der hier abgeladen wird. Musik ist ein heisses Eisen, weil die (c)vios schwer von echtem eigenen Werk zu unterscheiden sind. Da wuerde ein TinEye Tool schon echte hilfreich sein. Generell habe ich nichts gegen freie Musi hier, solange es Musik im weitesten Sinne ist. Und frei natuerlich. Wie man educational value bei Musik definieren kann/soll, ist mir ehrlich gesagt ein Raetsel. :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
YouTube user changed its license after they were uploaded to Commons but free license are unrevokable. OGV files were blurred version of WEBM files which passed the license review months ago. You can easy check that. This is the same case as File:New York City at night HDR.jpg. ℳ₪Zaplotnik 05:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So YOU converted the YouTube files into .ogv? Nice! You don't have any archive links that would prove that the license has been changed by any chance? Well, I restored the two files and added the license review Morning Sunshine did on 3/27/2013. Maybe you could add some information into those files next time? Do me a favor and have a look at what I changed. Thanks! :-)) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)09:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with these files is that they still contain copyrighted footage. I've refrained from nominating them for deletion for now, because they are useful, and have instead left a message at Zaplotnik's talk page describing the problem, hoping that he will fix it. --Eleassar(t/p)09:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
For Piran, the license may be verified at [21]. For Ljubljana, the WaybackMachine has not found any match for the given url, but it was published on 7 January this year, before the publication of the Piran video, so I have no reason to assume that it was originally not freely licensed. --Eleassar(t/p)09:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
File:İhsan Doğramacı 1996.jpg was under GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 [22]? He clearly states it was his own image here en:User_talk:Anguicre What is the facebook source that you suspect? Cavann
I don't think it is acceptable on Commons. Fair use on enwiki might be a possibility. The author died in 1948 making it not acceptable on Commons before 2019, because other wikis and non-wiki projects might not use US-Law. Or am I on the wrong path here? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the "new info" you added to 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics gold post boxes was simply wrong, no doubt because you presumably just copied it from Wikipedia. As noted, having no information the preferable option if the so called "excessive" background notes must be excised, even though it explained why the number/location/dates/recipient details of the various gold post boxes in that gallery don't match up with what is implied by the woefully inadequate Wikipedia article. Frankly, it's one thing for you to say "Wiki is for articles, Commons for media" when you know what you're looking at, it's quite another to say it when you apparently haven't got the first clue if the information on Wikipedia is remotely adequate (and clearly for this topic, never will be). Maybe you think it's a good thing that the ability of people to make use of the media on Commons should be inexorably tied to the quality (or lack thereof) of the accompanying Wikipedia article, others will no doubt realise that that is an equation that is very much back to front - you can hardly illustrate a Wikipedia article using a Commons gallery if the article doesn't even tell you what the hell you're looking at on the gallery. But what the hey, if you think it's a good thing that readers of that gallery, or uploaders/re-users of the images it contains, will now be as ignorant about the subject as you and the nominator are apparently happy to be because you simply read the Wikipedia article and ignored the people like me who know much more about the topic (having had to do that background research precisely to be able to create the goddamn gallery to begin with!), then I guess I can't stop you. Congratulations I guess, I'm sure you think you've helped someone today, but I sure as hell can't think who it might actually be. It's certainly not me, or anyone else who might upload/re-use any of the images on the gallery. Ultra7 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Watch your language! If you think it is appropriate to call my help crapas you did here, I have a surprise for you: Do it again and you'll find yourself on a Commons-Vacation. If you have something to say, do it in an appropriate manner. If you don't know what that is, ask your parents or look it up on the net. Instead of whining you should ask how the situation can be improved. But it seem to me that you like burning bridges, rather than working together with others. Well done! Back to the so called crap: Instead of whining about it (again), improve it! Please refer to Commons:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#Allowable_page.2Fgallery.2Fcategory_content for more information. FYI Reverting my edit without good reason can be considered an act of vandalism. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
How are you working with others exactly? I already told you your replacement text is wrong, yet you have just blindly reinserted it, claiming I had no good reason to remove it. What better reason can there be, than the fact it is incorrect? You copied and pasted that faulty information into Commons from the Wikipedia article, which for this topic is wholly incomplete and in places even inaccurate. You want to tell Commons media re-users/uploaders that these boxes only went to British medal winners? Unfortunately, that's simply wrong (not to mention quite inflammatory to some). You want to tell Commons media re-users/uploaders that each medallist had a box painted, usually in their home-town? Again, unfortunately, not only was that not even the original plan, it wasn't remotely how the scheme was rolled out either. You want to tell Commons media re-users/uploaders that "postal companies including Royal Mail" painted the boxes? How about being a bit more accurate? - Royal Mail painted hundreds, "other companies" painted just two, which is why only two entries in the table don't have Royal Mail format numbers (to illustrate how pointless it was for you to claim "Wiki is for articles, Commons for media" in this case - why not try finding anything AT ALL about how Royal Mail numbers it's post boxes on Wikipedia - it's simply not there, because Wikipedia is largely USELESS at helping Commons media re-users/uploaders understand esoteric topics like this). All of that and many more things that were of assistance to Commons media re-users/uploaders in understanding these images, was explained in the original "excessive text" you removed, which you would have known had you bothered to read it. And do you seriously think telling people about the stamps on Commons, which is a site where they will be totally prohibited from uploading them, is remotely a good idea? It might somehow make you feel better to call this whining or to call me a child, but frankly, I am not seeing what the appropriate way is to deal with someone like you, when this is the third or fourth time I have said these things, which you have simply completely ignored, just because you apparently think you know better, but clearly you don't even have the first clue about this topic. Is that your idea of working with others, really? Ignoring, insulting and demeaning the only person here who has bothered to find out the precise image specific information that for this topic is actually helpful for potential re-users and future uploaders? Instead of lecturing me about a policy I already know all about and had been very careful to follow in this case without compromising accuracy or utility, how about you tell me which policy justifies replacing the sort of information that helps uploaders/reusers, with information which simply misleads them? Would you like to explain to me how you managed to interpret the phrase "small amounts of explanatory text" as meaning - unhelpful text is always better than helpful text as long as its shorter. The idea that there is any Commons policy that supports your deliberate and wilful degradation of a gallery like this in a way that leaves Commons uploaders/re-users both confused about the media already hosted, and hampered in their possible efforts to re-use or even add to the media referred to in it, is frankly reprehensible. Ultra7 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I did NOT insult you in any way. Please stop whining and add SOME information to the gallery, if you think it is wrong. Change it! Just don't make it a whole article. Why is that so hard to understand? Instead of whining again, improve the article on enwiki and don't try to change Commons into a wiki. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is that so hard to understand? - because what I wrote wasn't remotely a "whole article", that's why. It's not even an article, it doesn't even have the basic components an article has - it was simply a few paragraphs of text. I am not remotely interested in Wikipedia, I'm only interested in uploading, categorising and describing images on Commons - any and all text I add to Commons is for that one goal. And whether you accept it or not, that's all that text was - a comprehensive set of background notes for other uploaders/re-users of the media - it was as long as it needed to be to be classed by anyone actually familiar with the topic as "explanatory text" for the "classified collections of images" that gallery represents, and it contained absolutely nothing that could remotely be described as extraneous to that purpose, unlike your ultra short version, which despite its brevity still finds space to talk about the totally irrelevant topic of stamps. There is no Commons policy that defines how short explanatory text needs to be, and because you are so obviously uninformed about this specific subject, you are clearly not in any position to be judging how short is short enough to keep within Commons' basic aim - there is nothing in policy that says people are expected to get explanatory information about Commons media from Wikipedia, and in this case, when the corresponding article in Wikipedia is clearly so unfit for that purpose, anyone who forces Commons re-users/uploaders to do that by blindly deleting text from here simply because it's text, is in fact damaging Commons. And while I am not remotely interested in fixing/improving Wikipedia, I know enough about it and this subject already to say with certainty that a comprehensive Wikipedia article on this topic would easily run to several pages long, with numerous sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, and not one but indeed several tables - whereas the explanatory text I added to this gallery was already as long as it needed to be, now and for the rest of time. Your hacked version on the other hand, not so much, especially when the text you gutted contained even basic information such as what date ranges someone should be using to find more images of a particular box, or rather more importantly, why no such images might be found in the days/weeks/months that would otherwise be implied for certain boxes in the collection, the sort of information which will never find its way into the Wikipedia article because their esteemed archivists have a tendency to label such things as trivia in the fullness of time, even though such data is always valuable to Commons uploaders/re-users seeking explanatory text, whether it's days or years after the event. So, even in the totally simplistic way you seem to interpret the roles of Commons and Wikipedia - if in the unlikely event someone else were to improve the Wikipedia article, then the text here would not only by necessity still be different, it would indeed also look "short" by comparison. And yes, you have repeatedly insulted me - called me a child - described these legitimate complaints as whining - labelled my attempt to remove the incorrect replacement text you simply copied from Wikipedia as vandalism (the irony being that if you were seen to be doing that to established editors on Wikipedia you'd never even make admin there) - so whether you can understand my reaction to that or not, onlookers both within and without will have no difficulty in comprehending why I am now not remotely interested in fixing the gallery. You are the primary author of the inadequate and inaccurate state it is now in, so take responsibility for that and fix it yourself. Or alternatively, do nothing, and perpetuate the obvious falsehood that there's nobody at Commons that has ever put into writing any explanatory text here which reconciled why this gallery, a collection of over a hundred images with numerous inter-relations, looks nothing like what it should do if the author had merely intended the garbage served up at Wikipedia to be their only source of explanatory text. Ultra7 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Bottom line: You're an admin who repeatedly ignored and insulted a Commons contributor with thousands of uploads/edits to their name (including 90% of gold postbox images, and the entire gallery). You're an admin who thought nothing of telling a contributor with five years of service to Commons that they "don't care" about the site. You're an admin who accused an established editor of vandalism when all they were doing was removing your error ridden contribution. You're an admin who has still to remove that error ridden contribution. You're an admin who criticised someone for not caring about Commons and Wikipedia, yet performed a wholesale deletion of the only text on either site that provided accurate and comprehensive explanatory notes for future re-users/expanders of a large and complex collection of media on Commons. You're an admin who took a drastic and destructive action like that without having even read the text being deleted, to verify if it already was, or even could be, added to Wikipedia. This isn't sad, this is a disgraceful sample of behaviour from someone trusted to do pretty much the exact opposite in every situation I just described. That's the bottom line here. Ultra7 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
If you don't like it, change it. just don't make an article out of it. Simple. If you don't like my contributions, feel free to notify the admin noticeboard. I don't provide a link, since you know everything. If you just need someone to argue with, find somebody else. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't make an article. You calling it an article, doesn't make it one. You continually ignoring me, doesn't make it one. You continually insulting me, doesn't make it one. It's not your contributions I dislike more than your behaviour and attitude, which is unbecoming of an administrator. I don't need anyone to argue with, you started this by deleting text you never even read, and you have continued it by pretending it was an article, which is a total lie, and now, because you have no answer to any of this, you want to pretend it's got nothing to do with you. If you don't like people arguing with you, then don't make basic errors like that. If you don't like people criticising your contributions, then don't make contributions that damage the project. Ultra7 (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Why was this file kept, it has a flag on the logo, now how is that free? If it was free for all this time, then this file File:Family Guy Logo SVG.svg is too, because it has simple text too, but the ogre removed it without discussion, stating that "it's too complex to be free", doesn't the American Dad! logo have the same thing? --Blurred Lines (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
What about The Cleveland Show logo, through out the design of the logo, does that have the content of "simple text" or is it copyright? --Blurred Lines (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. However, how can we be positive that that poster has copyright? It's a political poster. Is it possible to prove that it's license-free? Cheers.--Lord Trustworthy (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You can approach it two ways: Ask the party how the poster is licensed and let them(!) contact our OTRS-Team. The other way would be to find real evidence for a free license, like on a website or something like that. Maybe the party would release a few more pictures? It's worth a shot, but I doubt they'll do it. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I think, that these photos have been deleted by mistake. On official website, where the photos is posted, written, that they are distributed under license CC-BY SA 3.0. 1, 2. P.S. sorry for my English. Ugonschik (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! I restored to files and added the license info. Maybe you should have a look how I changed the details. No apology necessary for your English! Вы должны видеть меня пишущий на русском языке! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that you left a comment on this user's page. I'd felt that- regardless of their quality- that they fell outside Commons scope and reluctantly nominated them for deletion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_KAJabstracts.
You labeled a whole chunk of Angrylambie's files nsd, but everyone I looked at had a source, own, and has had that source since they were uploaded. I reverted the ones that Tm didn't get to first. At least one of them had a DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asian vulva 2.jpg, so it definitely shouldn't have been tagged for speedy deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Many of your points look to be correct, but your use of {{Nsd}} seems incorrect to me as well. The apparent problem is not that the uploader neglected to give a source, but rather the source claims are dubious or fraudulent. I'd suggest a blanket deletion request of all uploads by the user as an alternative approach to addressing the problem. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I thought I give the uploader the chance to provide at least a few sources. Some images are pretty artsy and may have been done by the uploader. I like to keep as many images on Commons as possible. That's why I tagged nsd. :) But I'll do as you suggested. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
On second thought some look like something I'd give the uploader the benefit of the doubt about, eg File:Iggy_Pop_live_1980.jpg describes the photographer as "Robert Toren aka angrylambie", apparently indicating they're the same person. Might be a generally legit photographer/uploader who is sometimes careless about info and neglectful about works including derivative sections. I might ask the user about specific problem examples, and if no satisfactory answer results, then list for deletion. Note I still don't think your use of {{Nsd}} in this case was what the template was intended for. However thanks for your attention and your work to weed out problems. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I could have done a DR instead. I just didn't want to hit the uploader over the head with a DR,which I have done now. Just in case those images are legit, he might have more :) Since you are not involved, would you like to contact the uploader? And thanks, I try my best - sure I make mistakes. But I listen to what more experienced Commons-Hounds have to say. I appreciate open communication instead of being silently grumpy. :)) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
And nsd doesn't tell me why you think something should be deleted. If you look at File:Iggy Pop live 1980.jpg you'll see that he wrote "Negative lost, this is scanned and cleaned up from proof sheet by the photographer, Robert Toren aka angrylambie" on it when he uploaded and File:Iggy pop davis b&w 1.jpg says Author: Robert Toren. http://photo-robert.tumblr.com/ says at the top "Scott Miller, Game Theory, Loud Family and a few Paisley underground-related photos - all photos are public domain - Robert Toren". And without you telling us that, I couldn't have pointed this out. That's why nsd frustrates me, because it doesn't tell you what the other person has a problem with, what they want.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you could explain what you meant? The deletion request is full of images where FOP isn't an issue. Did you accidentally select every file uploaded by the user or something? I think that it would be better to close the discussion and split up the images with copyright issues on multiple deletion requests instead as the current discussion is too messy. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello... You've changed the map for Venezuela so that it doesn't show the Zone being claimed by that country. The maps should show the claimed zones as in the cases of Argentina, Chile, China, India, Pakistan, Morocco, etc.. otherwise Wikipedia would be supporting one particular point of view. The map shows the area as "disputed", according to the Geneva Treaty signed by UK, Venezuela and British Guiana (now Guyana) so it's fair to use the map with the light green area in order to show the disputed zone. Please revert the map to its previous version. Thank you. --Hiddendaemian (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Giftbeerenblüte, zwar giftig, aber hauptsächlich schön
Vor etwa 4 Wochen hast du mir beim Umgang mit ein paar Bildchen in den Commons schnell und unbuerokratisch geholfen und dabei auch einen herrlichen Sinn für Humor gezeigt. Aufgrund deines Zuspruchs habe ich eines der Bilder in besserer Qualität noch einmal hochgeladen und widme es hiermit dir (auch wenn das nicht irgendwo "offiziell" dabeisteht). Liebe Gruesse --Alnilam (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
ich komme auf dein Angebot zurück. Ich möchte gern wieder zwei nicht so gute Fotos von mir löschen lassen. Von der Art und sogar dem gleichen Standort habe ich wesentlich bessere Fotos aus diesem Jahr hochgeladen. Hier folgende Fotos zum Löschen:
Could you explain the reason you believe that file was a copyvio? The film is in the public domain, and I can't seem to figure out what you meant by (Copyright violation, see [[Commons:Licensing] Night of the Living Dead (1968).) This is not a challenge, just a desire to learn. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Was die Commons anbetrifft, habe ich leider gar keine Ahnung und mit meinen nahezu nicht vorhandenen Englisch-Schreib-Kenntnissen fällt mir auch niemand ein, an den ich mich sonst wenden koennte - vielleicht kannst du meine Anfrage an die richtige Stelle und/oder die richtige Person weiterleiten.
Vor kurzem habe ich in der de.WP einen Artikel geschrieben ([25]) und dazu ein Bild aus Commons eingebunden. Dabei fiel mir auf, dass eines der Bilder, die in der Kategorie unterwegs sind, garantiert nicht diese Pflanze darstellt, sondern ein schlichtes Gaensebluemchen
Panicled Aster (4709092033)
. Das ist zwar auch nett, aber leider nicht die kategorisierte Pflanze.
Also sollte das Bild umbenannt oder anders eingeordnet werden, aber ich weiß einfach nicht, wie ich das am guenstigsten mache.
Hallo Hedwig, ich wende mich an Dich, weil ich gesehen habe das Du "Überstzungs-Aministratorin" bist. Ich bin grad dabei die Einträge auf Category:Translated templates needing categories durchzugehen und die Kategorisierung zu korregieren. Ich scheitere allerding an den "Sub-Seiten" von Template:CheckTalkPage/i18n also diesen hier. Die Seiten kann man nicht normal bearbeiten und auf dem Übersetzungstool habe ich nun vergeblich rumgeklickt um irgendwie an den Quellcode ranzukommen. Es müsste dort jeweils {{translated tag|formatting}} gegen {{translated tag|marker}} ersetzt werden. Ein ?action=purge auf die sub-Seiten hat auch nichts geholfen. Kannst Du mit Tipps geben, wie ich den Vorlagenparameter in den ganzen Sub-Seiten ändern kann, bzw. falls ich das nicht selbst machen kann, kannst Du mir dabei helfen? Danke--JuTa18:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato(talk)13:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you direct my attention to where the deletion of the original category was discussed, if it was discussed?
If I am not mistaken you had the permission bits to rename the category, leaving a redirect, and thus preserving its contribution history?
Granted, most categories only contain metadata, and do not contain content that would require maintaining a chain of contribution history in order to honor contributor's remaining rights to have their intellectual contributions attributed to them. But categories should all contain at least a sentence saying what it contains.
So, one reason to rename, leaving a redirect, rather than simple deletion, is so that everyone can see the contribution history.
Additionally, we have no good way of knowing what external sites use the URL to the old category. If we rename, leaving a redirect rather than simple deletion, we don't break those incoming external links.
Very compelling reason: I made a mistake. The redirect should have been left in place, no question. Sorry about that. I restored the category with its history. Thanks for pointing this out! AND: Sorry for my VERY late reply. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have marked all of my uploads for deletion - why did you do that? Perhaps this is legit, but it feels like petty harassment and trolling. The instructions for responding are completely useless and confusing. The images are all mine, and I own the copyrights.
Please withdraw the requests for deletions.
Thanks.
Robert Toren/Angrylambie
I am very concerned that - apparently - no due diligence was done to discover that Angrylambie is my alternate tag/name. A brief Google search would have made that pretty obvious.
Please let me know if there is additional information you need to cancel the proposed deletions.
Here is my email address, so you can reach me easily and not waste any more of your or my time unnecessarily tagging my photographs for deletion.
Regarding the Photo of Buddha Statue at Bandaranaike International Airport Colombo [Deleted]
Good Day to You !!!
There is NO such Copyright owner for this Statute,that word itself brought me a laughter,This is a Sanga Sathu Property (means this is a Sole Property of Buddhist Monks of Mahamewna Monastery) which they Gifted to General Public (BIA Colombo),Its a Public Property,In other Words its in PD.--MediaJettalk09:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sole Property of Buddhist Monks of Mahamewna Monastery means that there is an owner. Where does it actually say that the statue is PD? One can only assume so. On Commons we need more than an assumption. I really hate to tell you this, I'd rather have the image in our collection. Regards, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to request that you please restore the pictures I loaded on the Beau Coup page. Dennis Lewin is the owner of the pictures and he is Beau Coup. He gave them to me personally and gave me the rights to use them. I got another copyright message earlier and asked Dennis to send the email as he has done before for other pictures which he will do ASAP. Thanks for you help! Mmcard59 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will have him do that asap!! He is performing in Cleveland tonight and won't be able to do it until tomorrow morning. Would you please consider reversing your deletion for 24 hours to give me a chance to get it taken care of? I would greatly appreciate that since we have worked hard on this page and Dennis Lewin and Tommy Amato of Beau Coup have shared the link with many people already to look at the page and about 15 mins ago it had no more pictures. The pictures really make it finished off. Thank you in advance for your help and consideration. Mmcard59 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If everything checks out ok, OTRS will automatically restore the images. It would be good if you could add some short description after OTRS is finished. Nothing is broken :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I texted Dennis Lewin to call me when he had a break in which he just did. He told me that he send the email earlier today to give permission to use the 3 pictures you deleted. The email address he used was permissions-en@wikimedia.org . This is the email address Wiki told me to have him use for a couple other pictures I used in which they accepted and the pictures were never deleted. Since the email was sent and I'm really stressing out about this, would you please consider restoring the pictures just until tomorrow when you can check to make sure that everything is okay on the Wiki end? I'd soooo appreciate that! Mmcard59 (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
do you know how long it will take to get the pictures restored? Dennis Lewin sent the authorization email last night approx. 17 hours ago. Thanks! Mmcard59 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Good Morning! The pictures still haven't been restored to the Beau Coup page even though Dennis Lewin sent the email that same night. Is there anything Else I should be doing to expedite this? Thanks so much for your help! Mmcard59 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! Just to cover all my bases I have been in contact with Amherst Records also since those pictures are from Beau Coup's 2 album covers. Amherst is sending a permission email to OTRS as well. Thank you so much for your help thus far :) Mmcard59 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Disculpa al no responderte en inglés, pero la imagen que me enlazas, no puedo revisar el historial, ni buscarlo por frick. Si es que la había marcado como cc-nc-... debí haberla visto por algún lugar. Por el momento, no tengo mucho tiempo para buscar el enlace, dado que estoy de viaje y no tengo una conexión segura. Espero que lo entiendas. Saludos ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪21:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure. The file is a copyright violation. The source is http://jlggb.net/blog2/?paged=11 You have no permission to use it as it is not your own work. See Com:L for licensing information. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hola! Yo no soy parte del OTRS-Team. Ellos revisarán su correo electrónico y si todo está bien van a restaurar el archivo. Hay que ser un poco pacienteya que existe un retraso. ¡Gracias!--Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, vielleicht kannst du oder ein anderer deutschsprachiger Admin mal auf diese Diskussionsseite schauen und die Uploads des Benutzers im Hinblick auf Permissions überprüfen? Danke, --Stefan Bellini (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course! I am sorry. I replaced many PD-Google-books templates with PD-old and PD-1923 using AWB. Somehow I screwed up this one. Sorry for creating extra work. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. FYI I unblocked the user, under conditions (apologize ...), after a conversation on IRC. If you do not agree, feel free to undo my action. --Alan(talk)17:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same user. You can find that out yourself by going to the user contributions and click on SUL (very bottom). It'll show you all projects linked to one account. Nifty tool that is. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is the same user, I was only wondering if the {{blocked}} message should be on the userpage over there and I any contributor can add it. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Blocking (or not) is different on any wiki. Being blocked here doesn't mean he's automatically blocked there as well. What you can do is to inform the admins on the other wiki(s) what's going on here. I just did that for another vandal. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I want to remove that image because it has already gained a map in vector form and more precise description of the map. The new versions are as follows:
Article 6
(1) The protection of copyright shall not apply to general ideas, procedures and methods of
operations or mathematical concepts as such, as well as concepts, principles and
instructions included in a work of authorship.
(2) The following shall not be deemed works of authorship:
1) Laws, decrees and other regulations;
2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
3) Official translations of regulations and official materials of state bodies and
bodies performing public functions;
4) Submissions and other documents presented in the administrative or court
proceedings
I don't think its as clear cut as that. The article is rather vague. Can we be certain graphic images fall under "official materials"? The (c) of the website was upheld in the past (e.g.[26],[27],[28],[29], etc.) against the same user. I don't see why it should be ignored now. Buttons (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Some material were clearly free, such as my personal page. But also there were my own work, such as some football crests, and the flag of Campo Belo. I wonder if you had any criteria to delete all the files. 10:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcgomes (talk • contribs)
Yes. Copying a logo doesn't give you the (c)-right. Otherwise someone could just copy any logo and use it. Same for images. I can't just take a photo of a photo and claim (c). --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, I will insist: you deleted my PERSONAL SITE. Also, you have deleted my own work, which I have the copyright. This was the case for the E.C. Pau Grande Estocolmo's badge, but also for the flag of Campo Belo. I wonder where you have guessed that I don't have right for my own work. And please explain why you have deleted MY PERSONAL PAGE.Pcgomes (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, you meant your user page. Sorry about that, my mistake. Shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. For the other files again: You copied a copyrighted logo / unfree logo. Those files are not permissible on Commons. I doesn't matter if you re-created them yourself or not. Copyright is copyright. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for returning the user page. However, I insist that all the images I have uploaded they are not copyright protected. They are either:
Images I hold the copyright (E.g. Badge of E.C. Pau Grande Estocolmo)
I have the permission from the copyright holder to publish (E.g. Badge of Esporte Clube Pau Grande)
They are not protected by copyright because they are of public usage. This is the case for the majority, since they are coat of arms or flags of Brazilian cities (E.g. Flag and Coat of Arms of Campo Belo).
It works the other way around. The uploader has to clarify the (c) status beyond reasonable doubt. If you are a (c) holder, please read OTRS and send a permission via email. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)08:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I completely understand the onus of proving no copyright violation to uploaders. But this is not necessary on obvious situations, such as coat of arms and flags of cities. Before uploading to Commons, I have checked the type of information provided by other files, such as 'File:Bandeira de Belo Horizonte (Minas Gerais).svg' and 'File:Brasão de Belo Horizonte (Minas Gerais).svg'. Nothing there is different from what I did. Also, if I am the copyright owner of some file (such as in E.C. Pau Grande Estocolmo's crest), there is nothing more to provide than my own word, which I do when using the automatic uploading tool. Also, it doesn't seem reasonable to make a mass deletion of files without any warning. These files, which I still claim to be compliant to copyright rules, were being used in several articles. These articles became broken suddenly, without a chance of fix. Pcgomes (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy, oh boy. I am sorry about missing that they are from Brazil. For some strange reason I assumed Columbia. I restored some files. There are still some we need to talk about:
file:Escudo mackenzie transparent.png It's the Mackenzie college I assume? Then same as above. (it's Mackenzie Esporte Clube, a voleyball clube from Belo Horizonte, Brazil).
File:SudarioFace.jpg is missing source and license. Can you dig something up? License should probably be PD-old-100. Haven't done a search for the photographer yet.
Hi. Thank you very much for being understanding with may claims. I will check the licensing of these files later today.Pcgomes (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Specialist WikiCommons, sorry to trouble You, and bad English.
I am not an expert in the field of copyright, and therefore appealed to the experts of the organization that developed the documents I have translated these documents and put them in the wiki after receiving permission from NIOSH and CDC. NIOSH and CDC experts were allowed to use these documents , and noted that they are public domain. Their letters are placed below.
question:
1. If placing translations of documents requires additional authorization, how I should formulate a request for such permission to the organization, that developed the documents?
2. If the document is in the public domain and may be placed wiki, is "the public domain" images, that is posted in this document ( the "source" document ) ?
3. If the picture painted by me completely, and loaded to Commons, how to load the license that You have not deleted it as You have done, for example, with images in the article Респиратор?
4. If I am the author of articles published in journals Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, (Kaptsov VA, et al Prevention of occupational diseases by using masks / / Hygiene and sanitation. - M: Medicine , 2013. - № 3
Kirillov WF Bunch AA, AB Chirkin For personal respiratory protection of workers (review) / / FGBI "Institute of Industrial Medicine" of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Occupational Medicine and Industrial Ecology. - Moscow, 2013. - № 4. - P. 25-31),
how to specify the license that You did not delete my articles?
The source you have been given is not NIOSH, CDC, or OSHA. I believe you uploaded in good faith and made a mistake. Would you please contact our OTRS Team and send this explanation to them? Please follow the instructions here: OTRS. You can use Russian language to do so. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd suggest I restore the files and add otrs-pending as soon as AlexChirkin gives word that he sent out an email to OTRS and we go from there. Would do you think? Could you explain that to the uploader in Russian please? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it would be better. The sources given were inaccurate and google finds the CDC images in Russian publications. It would make sense to attach a ticket for safe keeping. Other users might find the same sources and the whole thing starts over again. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand what this OTRS ticket will achieve? To confirm that the document is in public domain? But this is written in the document itself. Are you going to require OTRS tickets for all public domain files? Ruslik (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No, not for all. What I am thinking is to preserve the conversation the user had and to get the licenses straight. What would be your idea on how we get the files back online? Shall I just undelete and hope that the uploader will fix the sources? What if he doesn't? Two or three files I'd do myself, not 200. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Specialist WikiCommons, sorry to trouble You, and bad English.
Illustrations, that have name (File:Обеспыливание при добыче угля в шахах США. Фиг. ****.jpg) have sourse (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2010-110.pdf Файл:DUST 2010.pdf), but most of inscriptions on the images were translated into Russian; and auther names and sourse of images were input correctly (probably - on Russian too, I cannot see this information now) because of they will readed by people, that may not understand English. Sorry for my very bad English.
Files:
...
have sourse (Руководство NIOSH по измерению загрязнённости воздуха 24.11.2013.pdf), but most of inscriptions on the images were translated into Russian; and auther names and sourse of images were input correctly (probably - on Russian too, I cannot see this information now) because of they will readed by people, that may not understand English. Additionly, name of the sourse and names of authers were inputed in Inglis in the field "Addition information about file // Добавить местоположение и другую информацию… " then I input these files. Sorry for my very bad English.
ALL OF ABOVE FILES had license "A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties." But a program, that upload files, add license cod automatically, and I am only choose this license from list of them. Result.
Files (File:Обложка документа.JPG File:TB ; Обложка.jpg ) were from File:TБ Руководство NIOSH.pdf - first page and from first page of one of above mentioned documents - I cannot see it content and so I cannot exactly name sourse document.
I must say, that these documents were send to NIOSH and CDC after translation, and specialists from these organisations hadn't any objections (I ask them - if it is possible to use SUCH performed translations in RF, they gave permission).
File File:42 CFR 84 28.pdf is translation into Russian US Standart, that was developed by NIOSH.
File File:Проверка инспектором.pdf and File:Стандарт асбест.pdf and probably (I cannot see content of file) File:Стандарт респиратор.pdf were made by OSHA.
I cannot see their license and other information, but it is very little probability, that they had other license then {{PD-USGov}} , because OSHA is in the United States Department of Labor.
(File:Фиг. 2-41. Дыхательный аппарат Scott.jpg - my own foto)
(File:Гигиена и санитария №3 2013.tif - my own article) (File:Медицина труда и промышленная экология 2013 04 25-31.jpg - my own article Чиркин Александр) (File:Доклад 08 12 2011.pdf - in this report on the conference there are name of profesor Kirillov, and no my name. I delete it, because he was in the conference without me, and I don't think, that it is nessesery in future. I may upload original file with two names.)
(File:Датчики ESLI.JPG - probably /I cannot see content/ my own drawing, that is based on file(s), that is in Wiki or in CDC files - name of file(s) is in description) (File:Торопов2.JPG - my own that is based on file, that is in Wiki - File:Изолирующий противогаз ИП-5.jpg) (File:ESLI NORTH 7700 + RT41.JPG - /probably/ - my own drawing, that is based on file, that is in Wiki, name of file is Air-Purifying_Respirator.jpg).
(File:Рекомендации.JPG /probably, I cannot see content/ - my own drawing, copy of drewing in File:Медицина труда и промышленная экология 2013 04 25-31.jpg with colour markers) (File:Знаки безопасности.JPG - my own drawing) (File:Разнообразие КЗ.JPG - my own drawing) ( (File:Фильтры 3М.pdf) (File:Фильтры MSA.pdf) ) - my own work - reccommendations to calculate end of service life of gas cartridges of 3M and MSA respirators.
So, I cannot understand, why uou delete this filrs СС0.
Files^
...
are illustrations to book File:NIOSH Руководство по применению респираторов в промышленности 1987.pdf. Some of original illustrations are very bad, and so I replaced them. To replace. I find files with same content in wiki, AND IT Is REFLECTED in their description. Because I am not spesialist, some descriptions not enough correct. But I cannot correct them - You know.
There are such problem with some other files - but I cannot see content. Sorry my bad English, sorry my probably some uncorrect doing - and I did not sleep after watch 24 hours.
Dear AlexChirkin, now I begin to understand. I am sorry about the confusion. I go ahead and undelete the files. In case I find something unclear, I'll ask you so we can finally keep the files safely here. Thank you for being patient with me! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done There are two files where you have to specify the source, please check your talk page. Combining two images makes a derivative work, which should be clarified with a tag. See Com:DW. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)15:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Hedvig, sorry for the trouble and for the bad English.
I am very-very happy to see Your very constructive approach.
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in copyright and poorly understand the rules of the Wiki. Unfortunately, in some cases waiting for a response from the experienced participant takes a lot of time. Therefore, it is probable that some licenses are not quite correct - but not because of the negative motives. I'll be glad of any opportunity to repair such cases (if I know how I should do this correction). Perhaps some of the files also require adjustment in respect of their licenses. I am grateful to You for their recovery, because I didn't have the originals of many of them - now they are copied, and even delete the file without discussion will not cause significant harm to work. I used Your advice and sent an email to OTRS (two articles in scientific journals Occupational Medicine / Медицина труда...JPG and Hygiene and sanitation / Гигиена и санитария TIFF), but the answer has not come yet.
Those two files that You mentioned, should be removed. Now they even are not used.
Probably, the best solution is to make new files so that You and other experienced players not ask unnecessary questions.
If You'll allow me, I wanted to ask questions:
How to specify the license, if the derived file consists of two files with different licenses, and both of these files are taken from Wikimedia Commons? For example, if the file as File:Фиг. 2-32. Противогаз с противогазной коробкой, закреплённой прямо на маске.JPG) made on the basis of files with different licenses, how to write a license for the derived file? To list all the license of the source file (like with authers and sources), and add that a derived file have license (...) ? And how to specify the authors and source - in Russian, or in English, or on both languages; and add in the text, that indicating the source, URL of the source (for the sources that are available in the Internet)?
"Thank you for being patient with me!"
Dear Mr. Hedwig, before moving to the Commons, many of my articles in Russian Wikipedia were deleted without warning and without justification of the reasons for the removal. For example, one large article was deleted in less than 2 minutes after completing the writing - then I wrote two phrases in the Discussion of this article...
And I had no copy of the text... I sincerely think that You are very constructive.
You can use this as a guide for works you created out of files found here on Commons. In order to use this template, the file has to be on Commons. For URL I'd just go ahead and add the URL underneath the template.
I deleted the two files again, per your request.
I can't tell you much about the articles on ru-wiki that have been deleted. As far as I could find out: The article(s) are not written in an encyclopedic way. If you would like to have the text back, you can ask an administrator on ru-wiki to restore them in your userspace. That means that your text will be saved on a page similar to User:AlexChirkin/Yourarticle. Hope it helps. If you find an understanding admin there, they might even undelete some of the images for a short while and let you download them onto your computer. But that is totally up to the administrators on ru-wiki. I would ask ru:Участник:Rubin16, who is admin, OTRS, and bureaucrat there. Best wishes, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Hedwig, sorry for disturbing and bad English. I wrote You about the remote article, I made bad formulating my thoughts in English. This is just an example of a very non-constructive attitude to the inexperienced participants. You need not worry because of the article - they exist now.
Thank You for a very clear demonstration of the proper registration of a license for the image, that is made from several images.
No need to apologize for your English. My Russian is much worse. If you need any help here on Commons, please let me know! Thank you for your contributions!! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OTRS 2014041110000105 has been received for this image, which appears credible. Could you undelete please so I can check and verify? --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This image File:Independence Arch Bridgetown Barbados.jpg is being deleted and I don't know why. The image as are many images i see now being deleted that were fine only a few months ago and being used are my images and my creation only. I am khaibitnetjer/barry haynes and to that end I'd like my images to stay on wiki commons. What do i need to do to get this rectified?
This image "File:The Garrison Savannah Barbados Race Track.jpg is my own creation and I would like it to stay on wikicommons. My user name is khaibitnetjer though sometimes my images have the copyright information as barry haynes which is my real name. how can I fix this so this image stays up. thanks. 04/14/2014
File:Lions at rhodes memorial south africa.jpg
This image File:Lions at rhodes memorial south africa.jpg is my own creation as khaibitnetjer/barry haynes and I'd like it to stay on wikimedia commons what do i need to do to make sure this happens. khaibitnetjer/barry haynes 04/14/2014
File:White King Chess Piece.jpg
This image File:White King Chess Piece.jpg is my own creation and I'd like it to stay on wikimedia commons. it is my own creation as khaibitnetjer/barry haynes and i'd like to know what i need to do to stop this deletion as well that of my other imagers. khaibitnetjer/barry haynes 4/14/2014
Downtown Columbus, Ohio.jpg
This image is my own creation Downtown Columbus, Ohio.jpg and i'd like it to stay on wikimedia though i think it maybe an issue with the user name and copyright information clashing but i am khaibitneter and barry haynes would be my real name and the camera information is set up for my real name. I'd like the image to stay how do i fix this so it does? khaibitnetjer/barry haynes 04/14/2014
Quarter Moon.jpg
This image Quarter Moon.jpg is my own creation as khaibitnetjer/barry haynes and though the copyright information clashes i am the same person and would like to have this image stay on wikimedia bearing that in mind how do i fix this issue so that it can stay. khaibitnetjer/barry haynes 04/14/2014
Longaberger.JPG
This image Longaberger.JPG is my own as well as File:Emirates Boeing777 Tail.jpg, Pickerington Depot.jpg, Pickerington Carnegie Library.jpg, Dovel-Bowers House.jpg, File:Alexander W. Livingston House.jpg, File:Cinderella's Castle in The Magic Kingdom.jpg and a few other images listed for deletion. Not sure really if i should list each one singly as I've been doing or if I can do it together or not but these images are mine. My user name is khaibitnetjer and my real name is barry haynes and some of the copyright information in the images set up in my camera list my real name. How do i fix this so these images stay on wikimedia for use? Thanks for you help. khaibitner/ barry haynes 04/14/ 2014
Hello! I saw the name Barry Haynes in the exif-data of the camaera. Since your name and your username are different, and there was no information who Barry Haynes is, I deleted the pictures. Hmmm. How do we do that quickly? Would you agree to send an email to our OTRS-Team? Just attach the list below and tell them that you're the author. Here's the instructions: OTRS Let me know what you think. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig! I hope you can help me with a housekeeping admin task. There are exactly three pictures left on Category:Media missing permission as of 5 April 2014 and Category:Media missing permission as of 6 April 2014. All have pending OTRS. I was wondering what is the next step for pictures like this? For the Icelandic portrait the system didn't permit me to move the discussion DR to get it another week - and it is now double tagged with two tags(!) so I didn't even try the other two. Any help you can render will be most gratefully appreciated. Thanks!! 21:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs)
I'd see if one of the OTRS guys is online and ask to have a look if there actually is an email in the queue. If so, I'd keep the images per good faith. (And put them on my user page to check in a few weeks) :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Should I take the "needs license" tags off if I keep an eye on them? I'm trying to not leave those "needing" pages with stuff laying around too long before they are empty. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Open a new account and delete the khaibitnetjer one
Thanks for your quick response to my problem.
I thought about it and I'm thinking it would be easier to open a new account. Is it possible to have the old one deleted and open a new one that way they're no further issues?
Might be a good idea. That way it's more obvious who's who. :-) We can't delete the old account, but I certainly add the proper redirects and protect the pages against changes. Let me know who you want to proceed. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright! I added the appropriate information on your talk pages and protected both your old user page and old talk page. Do you still have all the files available? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I tried to upload one but this message comes up "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted." for WhiteKingChess.jpg. The same applies for bajanmoney.jpg, quartermoon.jpg,Kerk-Church-SouthAfrica.jpg and the_garrison_savanah_barbados_race_track.jpg I don't know if it'll do it for the rest of them but I'll try them and see which ones won't upload. Thanks. barry haynesBarry haynes (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot that new users have a 4 day block for overwriting existing files. You can, of course, use another filename, say add by Barry Haynes. WhiteKingChess by Barry Haynes.jpg should work. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if we can get the 50 peso note images back through any mechanism. There are other Argentine notes on wikipedia using a currency copyright. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20pesos.jpg
Hiya, Hedwig, the guidance on currency is fairly clear, these images of currency are not public domain. I'll tag them, if anyone spots any more please let me know. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
We have received OTRS permission from the artist Miroslaw Struzik releasing the image under both CC-by-SA-3.0 and GFDL licenses under OTRS ticket 2014040910016193. If you could restore the file, I am more than happy fix it if you could ping me. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you asked me about the photograph of Frank Wilczek. Yes, I took it – Luboš Motl – and wanted to release it as a maximally free image, optimally as Creative Commons 3.0 or whatever that works. Could you please update the image status accordingly? I don't really care about the differences because I don't understand them. Cheers, LM --Lumidek (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that flagged images that I posted yesterday as possible copyright violations but I work for the organization that commissioned and owns all of the images and have the permission of my employer to post, hence me saying it was my own work, ostensibly I own the copyright by proxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.226.69 (talk • contribs)
Я думаю, что файл был загружен ранее сюда, а потом появился на указанном файле (т.е. скопирован отсюда) в любом случае данное фото мое и я ранее его загружал на другие ресурсы). Поэтому прошу файл восстановить. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh ! What a surprise, the different representations of the same object look the same. You really are a genius. If you take three seconds to look the images full screen, you'll see the image of your link is a low rez jpg image, probably coming from a video game and that my images are .svg files you could open inkscape with details that really doesn't look the same. But I guess nobody's work deserve 3 minutes of your time, it's much more easy to erase anything looking suspicious to you without serious checking. [33]Luk (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course, erasing pictures randomely without checking anything is good behavior. Not checking if you made a mistake when politely asked for a reason is good behavior too ? You can hide your own lack of respect behind my bad behavior if it can gives you the feeling you do right... Luk (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't give me the feeling to do right. You asked me why i deleted the drawing, I answered you. So far so good. Then you thought you can lash out and I don't tolerate that. If you have something to say, be polite. That's all I ask. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Hedwig, I ask you to help me with advice. There are not very many pictures of respirators that are in the public domain. Some videos in Youtube is in the public domain. If I use some of the shots of these videos for obtaining the images of respirators, how it is better to specify a license, source, author, and other settings? Examples of such files:
You wrote that their wouild be a problem concerning 3 photos of SL12 busses (12078, 4732 and 4920).
I have a written permission from Alexander Kremer that I can use this photos on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. I wrote that also in the licence and I really don't know what the problem here might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermatte (talk • contribs)
Hi Dermatte,
No, you have to forward the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . In addition, a permission "for Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia" is not sufficient. The image need to be released under a free license (not necessarily public domain), which allows commercial use and the creation of derivatives. --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I sended the correct permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but they deleted it anyway.
How sick are the people here, who do nothing like deleting useful and legal pictures, really crazy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermatte (talk • contribs)
Das Problem sind die Urheberrechte. Fuer Commons muss unbedingt alles frei sein im "Originalland" und in den USA (weil die Server da stehen). Naechstes Mal nicht auf OTRS warten! E-mail abschicken, Datei hochladen und {{OTRS pendig}} in die Dateibeschreibung einfuegen. Dann klappt das. Meistens. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I thought all the Flickr photos under Some Right Reserves are compatible. I see it was also Noncommercial. :( My mistake! Kickboxingfan (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello:
last April 9th, 2014 you removed all the images from Carlos Pérez Merinero wikipedia page.
I'm writing you on behalf of David Pérez Merinero who is Carlos Pérez Merinero brother and the person who gave me the file images in order to upload them to the wikipedia page.
The one of Carlos himself is made at Carlos and David home. The other three are also designed by David Pérez Merinero and he who wants them to be in the public domain.
What do I have to do to restore these images?
Thank you very much for your advice,
Hello:
I don't know if I have to write you to restore the images deleted from Carlos Pérez Merinero wiki page.
Could you help me, please?
I have the permission of Carlos brother, David Pérez Merinero, to release those images to the public domain.
Thanks,
Hello: I've already sent a message (on May 2nd) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org asking for permission. Do you know how long does it take to accept my request?
Thanks,
--Perlita sagrera (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, on may 2nd, I sent a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on behalf of David Pérez Merinero, the owner of the photographs you removed from his brother wikipedia page. Nobody has answered, yet. Can I upload them again, please? Should I show you the message sent to you? Thanks for the help.
--Perlita sagrera (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
All the files are free to use, free to download, those file are example by the composer.
Yes it is composed by him, but he has file for people to use on his website.
Files:
Ice Skill03(Part01).wav
Button Sound B (Start Button).wav
Button Sound C (Reset Button).wav
1 OPTION b.wav
Right now, some of those images don't have good contrast and I already have a photo editor. The requests for photo editing are only for people who don't have or don't want to use a photo editor to fix it. There are software and online tools that are provided by their companies so that people can commit these changes to the photo graphics if they aren't correct.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
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!
Ah, I was looking for a deletion request. Perfect! That's good enuf for me, I'll restore ASAP! Thanks for finding the info!!! (BTW: How can one doubt a user named Fish Oil anyway? ) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington hi, I read your message maybe you are right But in one of the photo I have objections that The photos are taken by myself I have put address for you in under :
File:تصویر یک روز برفی از دانشگاه دهخدا قزوین.jpg
Now a question : i can reupload Compliance with copyrights and Again, I use Wikipedia page.Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftzed (talk • contribs)
Hello Sftzed! Thank you for reply! The file is still hosted on Commons and won't be deleted. Please take many more pictures of Iran, we can't have enough of your country on Commons!!! Maybe have a look at the list on enwiki: Photographs of Iran needed. Thanks again! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I got this message on my talk page contesting your block of User:Эрманарих imposed in April. Although I generally agree with the reasoning (rather editwarring than 3RR), I do not understand, why you chose 3 months period after a single 1 day block and why you prevented the user from editing his talk page and sending emails. I failed to see any traces of abuse of talk page or email. Would you please comment? Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I should have used edit warring instead of 3RR. The outcome would have been the same. From my point of view the user needed a time out because of the edit war and the (c)vios he uploaded. (I didn't mention that in the block either, my bad). The block before didn't work, so I blocked a little longer. Since there's no need for communication about this block, I blocked the talk page and email as well. If you think it's worth it, I'll lift the ban of the talk page. Please let me know either way. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I see you have deleted the photo from the Louise Golbey page on a so-called copyright violation. It is not a copyright violation. Louise Golbey gifted me that photo and all associated rights to do with what I wish. What else then can I do to assert my right to use it as I (and she) wants it to be used.
It is all right 'policing' Wikipedia for violations, but just removing things without offering any notice, explanation, advice or suggestions is merely bad manners
Sorry if you feel that way. We are getting swamped with copyright violations, so it is not surprising when a few good uploaders get hit with the deletion hammer. So much for that. Here's what needs to be done:
1 File:Ps0027.jpg (from your talk page): I didn't see that Nicholas Whittaker links to your Name Picknick99. My bad, my apologies. I removed the no source tag from the image.
Sorry about the confusion. My IP address was blocked for 2 days so I couldn't upload or edit anything. Should I remove the unblock request from my page? MoHasanie (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You can, it is up to you. It really doesn't matter if it is there or not. :) Please be careful from now on about what you upload here. No more copyright violations please! In the end those will be found, you get blocked, and all the work is for nothing. Grab your favorite camera and take some good pics!! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. your kind oomment, I don't have too many answers for you. With the exception of the map I created of the Gulf of Guinea nations, the Veniam Videbo et Vincam image I created for Scoobydunk's "Tyrannical Editor" Section and Anthony Johnson's image, there aren't many images which are sacrosanct. There are a number which, if removed, would make a section unintelligible, for example this one. And there's an image on the Punch page, which I created from legally downloaded pdfs from the online books. I think you've seen it, because you referenced Punch. And no, I know of no images from the 17th C, other than paintings of kings. The map I referred to is in my sandbox right now... I am proud of it. It will probably end up on the final punch page... Thanks for your kindness. If you're an admin, I probably will like your help with Scoobydunk. I sent a message to all users I thought might be admins, hoping to find someone willing. I think it's either on my talk or user page. Have a great Memorial Day weekend... Matt PresidentistVB (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am an Admin on Commons only. I am unable to help you on enwiki. Images that only have the purpose of illustrating a discussion on one single wiki should be uploaded there and not here. Should, not have to no other way you go to hell if you do. It just makes sense since we collect mainly media that can used on several wikis or other projects. So much for that.
Question Where did you get the map from? It seems that you did not make the base map yourself. That would make your image a derivative work, which needs to be properly attributed. File:Gulf of Guinea Nations.png
Hi, I saw that you blocked this account and added the category Sockpuppets of Globalphilosophy to this talk page. However, this account is unrelated. The account user:Chocolate con galleta which you also blocked is however a sockpuppet of the LTA Geógrafo23. I know that the blocklog on the Spanish Wikipedia is confusing but somebody made a real mess of this. Checkusers have been done at the Dutch Wikipedia, loginwiki, Commons and the Spanish Wikipedia by several CU's including the steward's user:Savh, user:TBloemink and user:Trijnstel (please correct my if I mix some things up guys and girl). He operates using his dynamic IP-adres and he is using open proxy's. He loves to impressionate other editors and he violates people their privacy at IRC and onwiki. He often uploads images about supermarkets from Peru and he uploads vandal images. (Just some background info on this LTA). Natuur12 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I found the blocks on eswiki and just added them over here. I changed the sockpuppet note on Globalphilosophy and the chocolate account. Anything else I missed? Thanks for heads up! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I think everything's okey now :). It's a pitty that they never cleaned up the mess at the Spanish Wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! A reverted the photo to its original form, before another editor cropped it to the cola can. In the original photo the cola can is merely just an object on a table, which I believe is de minimis. Teemeah (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I assume all those soft-drink-can photos you tagged were on the basis of the main purpose being to illustrate the company logos and, the company logo being a trademark, it not being free use. Whether or not that is appropriate is not an appropriate discussion here, but: first, I don't see any discussion anywhere on whether or not these were acceptable, was there one? And secondly, even if they are "tag and bag" deletions, you caused some collateral damage - File:Soft Drink.svg, for instance, was tagged along with the bunch when it was a self-made image with no copyrighted logos. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, the svg slipped through. Sorry about that. No, there hasn't been a DR. The cans are not free artwork, nor FOP, or anything else that would make them acceptable. I tagged as fair use, so that wikis like en, where FU is OK, can still use them. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Anhand welcher Kriterien unterscheidest du zwischen zu löschenden und nicht zu löschenden Getränkedosenfotos? -- Smial (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I changed one of your speedy requests into a regular deletion request, as I don't understand what's supposedly copyrighted. The picture is of a large collection of cans, with the intended (future) use case of illustrating an article about Swedish/Norwegian border trade. The fact that most of them are Coca-Cola cans is incidental. Best regards, Kjetil_r19:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Smial: Com:L und Com:DM. Wenn ich einen Fehler gemacht habe, rette das Bild bitte and sag mir Bescheid. :)
Rowing backwards. Seems like the famous Coca Cola writing on the cans is PD-1923. Unsure about the can design itself, but I assume that the finished packaging is (c) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
What is the source country of this can? A British court decided that Lego bricks and Star Wars Stormtrooper helmets are ineligible for copyright as utilitarian objects. This may mean that the can also is ineligible for copyright as a utilitarian object. However, many (most?) countries provide copyright protection for utilitarian objects. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
ich möchte dass von meinen mehrfachen "Bodypainting"-fotos nur noch eins gespeichert bleibt, weil sie vom Motiv her identisch sind.
Leider verstehe ich zu wenig "IT" und zu wenig Englisch um zum angestrebten Ziel zu gelangen.
Plattdeutsch wäre mir lieber ;)
Moin, moin! Wenn Du een Bild hier eingebaut hast, mutt dat ok hier bleven. Das is wat der Lizenzvertroog saecht, wenn Du op den OK-Knopp druecken dast. Ik kann dor in de Kategorie Bodypainting och ken Bild finden das Dien Foto wenichstens aehnlich is. Wi mutt den Geboden nakamen oder wi kamen in Deuvels Koeoek. Un denn wuellt de mi in´t Gebeed nehmen, woruem ik dat Bild utloeschen havt. Ik wuell wohl anpacken wenn ik kann. Hier kann ik nich veel mooken. Dat deit mi Leed. Moin! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig, I noticed you deleted this file, but I suspect that it might be CC-BY-SA-2.0 as claimed. Check out the discussion here? -FASTILY01:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Then how can i upload my profile picture (display picture) to display in my wikipedia profiles ? Please help me.
Check
Hello Hedwig, this user (seemingly German) has uploaded some media that might possibly be not free - or anyway upon which they should give more explanation (username suggests it's about someone from Fischer firm). Since I don't speak any German, would you please be so kind to have a look at the matter? Thanks -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Fischer Sports is a ski-manufacturer from Austria. I left a msg on the talk page asking for OTRS permission and tagged three fotos with no source, that way they don't fall through the cracks. The logo seems to be PD-ineligible anyway. Thanks for the info! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok. If it were Italian, a logo with three trianges and some text would not be eligible for copyright but I don't know the Austrian law. Thanks. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about giving you extra work when I uploaded this picture. It has been a whille since I uplaoded something on Commons and I was not aware the picture had the wrong licence on Flickrrrrrrr..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!20:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You'd have no way of knowing this, of course, but for the past 5 or so weeks, I've been collecting research data for a report I will be submitting to WMF corporate at the end of this month. The research was very difficult to acquire, because of the ways both the momentum and focus changed. In the end, it resulted in an indefinite block of my user privileges on Wikipedia, not only to edit other pages, but also my own and use email. It's an interesting punctuation to a report identifying the sources of the elevated rate of attrition and the plateau in new user registrations/first article creators. You can probably guess what the research revealed. Part of the report discusses the overtly self-incriminating behavior of one category of functionaries. I downloaded scads of diffs to document my findings for the report. I am very saddened to say (for WMF subscribers and about WMF functionaries) that you are the only (presumed) Admin/Functionary who exemplifies what a new user's first encounter with a WMF representative should be like. You will obviously be recognized for it in the report, although it would be good to know your function, officially. So thank you, in addition to so many other things, for being the redeemer... As I can no longer respond on my own talk page and am uncertain if I will even be able to receive emails via WMF servers (WMedia doesn't appear to be affected), you or anyone else may feel free to email me at my former username (PresidentistVB) at gmail.com. Thank you again... PresidentistVB (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I am not the only one trying not to bite newcomers. Actually, I too get pulled on my leash from time to time. I really can see both sides. I still remember my first real rework of an article. It took me 6 weeks to figure out the syntax of the wiki software, gathering references, etc. pp. I thought I created a masterpiece and got a review on it that basically graded my paper with a B- / C+. Boy, I was shocked. On the other hand, wikis (and Commons) are run by volunteers with an agenda. Most want to contribute to free knowledge, some need to show off, some have nothing else to do. Everybody grabs some work area where he/she thinks the most value can be achieved. Admins/sysops are getting swamped with copyright violations in both the local wikis and here on Commons. That truly is no fun. Let me be blunt: As far as I can tell from skimming over your talk page, you are not easy to work with. Not a push over either. :-)) IMHO there's a lot of misunderstanding in the beginning and it just escalated to a point where nobody could move backwards anymore without losing face. Hope you don't mind me being straight forward and opinionated.
As for your talk page / email: There's is no restriction here on Commons. You aren't blocked or restrained in any way. So please feel free to contribute as much free media as you want to. Please make sure, if you haven't done already, to take a peek at Com:Scope and Com:L for a quick tour of what's acceptable here. Almost forgot: My official function is administrator/sysop on Commons only. I have no special rights on any other project. Take my old advice and have a cup of tea before you shoot your report out. Sure hope to see you around with a ton of good uploads! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reparing my mess. A few plants flowered early which gave this misunderstanding. Later I found out that these plants were pollutions.Rasbak (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes! those pictures are mine, very old ones... old camera, blurry... you know what? I have much better pictures of that fresco, I think we should delete those two. :-) --Sailko (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Bitte hole Dir das Einverständnis des Urhebers für die Änderung an der Vorlage, bisher hat er die Formulierung als Vorschlag statt als Verlangen immer abgelehnt. Diese Änderung kann nicht von Anderen ohne Genehmigung durchgeführt werden. --Denniss (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, as an dyed in the wool inclusionist I hate to delete, but please have a look at the recent image additions in this article. The uploader photographed them in the museum,and the licenses he uses for upload make no reference to the author of the original photographs, but only to the uploaders. A common beginners error. I have left a note on his German User page, but I am afraid he will not see it, because as a newby he will not look. --Wuselig (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hat er als Newbie noch nicht eingerichtet. Ich bleib dran, weil das Thema betrifft meinen Heimatkreis. Ich habe den Gedichtband (in einer anderen Auflage) selbst im Bücherschrank und mit der Erweiterung des Artikels hat er sich richtig Mühe gegeben. Wenn ich im Juli mal wieder in der Heimat bin - und mich familiäre Verpflichtungen nicht zu sehr aufhalten - schaue ich mal in dem Heimatmuseum vorbei. Das ist eine Gegend, da kennt von den Alteingesessenen noch jeder jeden, vielleicht läßt sich da bei der Bildrechtefreigabe noch was machen.--Wuselig (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
tausend dank für die unbegrenzte Sperrung von Pava. IMHO war dieser Schritt seit langem überfällig, da der Benutzer in der Vergangenheit immer wieder durch ein schier unendliches Maß an Ignoranz gegenüber sämtlichen Regeln aufgefallen ist.
Um nur ein weiteres Beispiel für den Blödsinn, den dieser notorische Störenfried verursacht hat, zu zeigen solltest du dir mal die Versionshistorie der Kategorie:Produkte aus Italien angucken, wo dieser Benutzer (unter IP Adresse editierend) durchsetzen wollte das die Kategorie eine Unterkategorie der Kategorie:Qualität wird. Den gleichen Quatsch wollte er hier auch durchsetzen.
Hallo, du hast das vorhin so schön mit den Versionslöschungen/auftrennungen gemacht. Könntest du dir vielleicht in den nächsten 2 Wochen die "deutschen" Bilder in Category:Media requiring a split up vornehmen? Die meisten sind für Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Germany hochgeladen worden und der Wettbewerbe endet am 30. Juni. Deshalb wärs toll wenn die Probleme "versteckter" Bilder vorher gelöst würden. Hatte schon hier gefragt (gleich Punkt 1 unter der Überschrift) bislang aber ohne Reaktion in dieser Sache. Gruß Holger1959 (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig, I guess that the indefinite block administered to Pava was too hasteful. Pava doesn't speak English well and cannot expose well his reasons, plus he's well known on it.wiki and has never been a copyvioler. Please have a second thought and try to clarify directly with Pava rather than rely on third parties reports. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of this. But this borders the harrasment, especially because it's on very fragile grounds (knowing the Italian laws). Not very unlikely someone might lose finally his patience. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why the DR should be harassment. It's a legit DR and from glancing over it, it looks a there will be at least some files deleted. True that someone can lose his patience. That doesn't allow anyone to call another person mongoloid. Let me lose my patience for a second, quite frankly: It pisses me off. Patience restored. Back to topic: I will not consider to lift the block until Pava apologizes to the user mentioned and get's some counseling about how Commons works, copyright, categories, sockpuppets, and how to behave here. I can't do that since I don't speak any significant Italian. Pava doesn't seem to speak much English (correct?) In case there's some improvement and the block can be lifted, I removed the autopatrolled bit until further notice. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that this is not the first time Pava insulted a user and If the user gets unblocked it will not be the last time he insults another user. Unfortunately I don't remeber where exactly he stated it but I'm 100% sure that in the past he also called an admin cazzo because the admin deleted some of Pavas files.--FAEP (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to unblock anyone when I am given a really good reason. I can't stand personal attacks, it shows (to me) that this person isn't mature enough to work with me. I won't consider an unblock of Pava lightly. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hedwig: Bitte berücksichtige auch noch, dass Pavas Verhaltensmuster keinen Anlass gibt ihm auch nur ein Minimum an Vertrauen entgegenzubringen; Es ist doch immer dasselbe: Er ignoriert Regeln, man weisst ihn darauf hin und dann kommt das übliche "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it, trust me, I won't do it again" und kaum hat man sich versehen erwischt man ihn schon wieder beim ignorieren von Grundregeln und dann soll man sich auch noch von ihm beleidigen lassen. Wie gesagt: Ich bin nicht der erste der davon betroffen ist und ich werde auch nicht der letzte sein. Und bei wiederholten und derart schwerwiegenden Verfehlungen gegen Grundregeln sollte ein Benutzer IMHO Projektweit und dauerhaft gesperrt werden (Insbesonderer wenn ausgerechtnet der Beleidigende immer wieder betont er wolle ja nur das Projekt schützen, und derjenige der nicht Pavas Meinung vertritt verhalte sich unkooperativ etc.)--FAEP (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Auch das habe ich auf dem Schirm. Sergio hat mich gefragt und da muss/moechte ich ihm auch antworten. Das hat natuerlich auch damit zu tun dass er auch Sysop ist. Wir arbeiten alle an der gleichen Sache. Da sollten wir untereinander schon reden. :)
@Blackcat: Gist of it: The behavioral patterns Pava show don't provide reason for trust. He's ignoring rules, he gets reminded and falls back into the same pattern after saying sorry. Further, he calls other users names and from his POV everyone who doesn't agree with him is non-cooperative. -14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"Please also consider that Pavas behavior not raise him even a minimum of reliance accommodate; It's always the same: He ignores rules, you know him out and then comes the usual "I'm sorry, I did not mean it, trust me, I will not do it again" and sooner or later you catch him again while he's ignoring basic rules and then one should even be insulted by him. As I said, I'm not the first who is affected by it and I will not be the last. And with repeated and such serious offenses against basic rules a user should IMHO be project-wide and permanently be banned (especially if the offender repeatedly stressed he would indeed protect only the project, towards anyone who not represents Pavas opinion is not behaving cooperative, etc.)".--FAEP (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)(partially translated via Google Translate)
Well I'll try to give my opinion about that. Pava is stressed by the fact that in his opinion German users can't deal properly with the alleged Italian no-Fop and always complains that German users express on this topic in spite of not knowing both the Italian laws and most of all jurisdictional praxis which never prevented any subject in public places from being freely photographed for every use and redistributed in every possible form (see i.e. newspapers, magazines, product labels, and such which regularily feature photos of buildings and installments with no problem, no matter how recent they are). Actually it's my thought too that non-Italian Commoners are more concerned about italian (alleged) no-Fop than the Italian ones themselves. Hence Pava's frustration. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess he has to get over it. Law is law, if he likes it or not. It may be that the Italian courts don't prosecute, that doesn't change the law and therefore doesn't change the rules on Commons. Still no excuse to call users names and misuse an illness from which alone over 30.000 Germans suffer. And it is no excuse to start an edit war with categories. I understand that he's frustrated, I really do. I am often frustrated with some rules on Commons. And how complicated it can be. But I do behave and the Commons Community can expect that from Pava as well. If he doesn't like our rules he can always stay away. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
We all know that FOP restrictions can be a "pain in the ass" (remember your discussion with Jim about FOP in Italy) and we all understand that this can be f@ck!n9 frustrating, but that's neither an excuse for Pavas behavior nor for his ignorance towards those rules. In other words: If there are so many rules and limitations on Commons to a users dislike, than he/she should rather leave this project for good than simply ignoring them.--FAEP (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
FAEP, take my words in the most neutre possible way, but I have the impression that you German users hardly deal with Italian laws. Italian approach to jurisprudence involves both knowledge of law and praxis. For example, in Italy proprietor's rights come first. Most of the works built by architects are in public places and generally State- or Municipalities- owned. Now, anything that is viewable in public place and is property of the State or its peripheral branchs is not restricted. Law states precise restrictions only for artworks in some museums and for places with pay admittance. So as long as the State and peripheric administrations allow for their properties to be photographed, who built it is not an issue. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No Hedwig, don't make the same error you too, laws are laws in Germany :-) When you think about Italian law you must reason as Italian, not as a German. In Italy the established sources of justice are both laws and customs. What I am about to tell doesn't want to sound as offence, but the main source of stress towards Italian commoners have been just your fellow compatriots like the one who absurdely opened this DR in which he claimed to interpret according to the German laws the concept of 'artistic photo' well explained by an Italian law (and which, needless to say, was the opposite to what Germany think as 'artistic'). And therefore, according to him, the German interpretation should have been been most valuable than the exact definition that Italian law gives for 'artistic photo'... -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Blackcat: I guess the "FOP in Italy" topic has not much to do with Pavas recent misbehavior besides that it was extensively discussed between you and Jim, who happens to be not German.--FAEP (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sergio, You got that wrong. Law is law on Commons. It has nuttin to do with Germany. It doesn't matter if the law is enforced or not. Here, in Washington State, you are allowed to posses a certain amount of marijuana. The federal law still considers marijuana a scheduled drug and therefore possession is still punishable. That doesn't mean you can tell a federal judge that it's not a problem because the state doesn't prosecute. Same with the Italian FOP. Non-enforcement doesn't mean it's legal. We have to handle this as much by the book as possible, we have (at least partly) the responsibility to provide safe to use media to our customers. Sure, everybody has to check for themself if it is legal.... But that doesn't mean we can ignore basic (c) rules because one user thinks it doesn't work for him. Back to Pava: Unless there's a 180 degree turn in his behavior here, I won't unblock and I doubt any other admin will. He's free to try though. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)15:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course I wouldn't unblock him, too, it's not my custom going against another admin's decision. My attempt was to convince you to have a second thought. Anyway I told him that if he apologises you may reconsider diminishing his block. His only issue is that he cannot logon on Commons, so I guess that you will understand if he does that through IP. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)15:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean that you would. Don't get me wrong! The talk page isn't blocked, that's all he needs for pings. I also would like him to stay mellow, read about categories and stay away from ANY edit warring, and all the stuff we talked about above. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (AFK for a few)
@Blackcat: Considering that Costa Rica and Uruguay defeated them (and thereby threw them out of the tournament during the preliminary round) and considering their 0:4 loss against Spain back in 2012, I don't think that any soccer team needs almighty assistance to beat the italian team.--FAEP (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
See @FAEP: ? You don't know Italians . No matter how strong is France, Germany will always beat them. And no matter how strong is Germany, Italy will always beat them :-) -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Blackcat: And because of their being so strong, they had to leave the world cup after the preliminary round - and that twice in a row ;-) EOD.--FAEP (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking after things on this end. After posting a plea to desist, I actually got a "thank" from one of the accounts that wasn't blocked. I'm not sure this amounts to anything more than a glimmer of hope that this will stop. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Oversight. Plain old I forgot to do that. Since we are discussing the template currently, I didn't delete the subpages in case we decide to restore the template. Thanks for the hint anyway! :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. I wasn't aware there was any ongoing discussion involving Copyrheart and now that I look I can't seem to find open discussion related to Copyheart at the usual places. —RP88 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hy, why you delete my files? You don't read any description. There was link to http://www.10mpix.cz with creative commons licence. Every photo from this web have this licence.
Please undelete every one file. You're lazy to read the whole description --Simca 04:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimcaCZE (talk • contribs)
You were the first who noticed the rights to bottom. Now I correct bottom of FilmCZ.Info and wrote 3 kinds of licences, pictures, texts of author and others texts. I upload files again and create again category. --Simca 05:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's what we are here for. It took me a while to find the licenses. Maybe you should add a link to that license-page under permission= so no another user can say: "Hey! No license on that page!" :-)) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
At http://www.filmcz.info are licences at right bottom. http://www.10mpix.cz at bottom. Photos are licences CC BY-SA 4.0. Original texts by authors of web Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International and others texts at Attribution 4.0 International. I correct licences at yesterday evening and today morning. Is now the right licenses for photos for Wikipedia?--Simca 05:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, CC BY-SA 4.0 is fine for Commons and Wikipedias. Since you probably don't copy and paste text from your website into and article on a wikipedia, you can certainly license the text Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. It wouldn't affect your images here. Let me ask you one question: Did you (personally) take the photos? Here's a template you can use: {{Cc-by-sa-4.0 |1= }} You can specify a name to be attributed as well: {{Cc-by-sa-4.0 |1=Simca}} or something else you like. BTW: You are up early! :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I upload files againg. I wrote more descriptions and authors. I think, this is the best, what I can do with my knowledge.Very thanks for advice. --Simca 06:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any real reason to force Heaven Sent Gaming stuff onto the commons, or any other Wikimedia site. I will not be adding anything about that subject, or any others I'm connected with. But, I definitely don't want to hinder people's freedoms to do so. There are very few concerns I have with others using Heaven Sent Gaming content, I just don't want them to hinder Heaven Sent Gaming's freedoms either. Thank you for pinging someone for me. That's very kind of you. @Rillke: . If you wish to ask me any questions you can contact me on my Talk page User Talk:Mystic Sonic, I'm interested in helping in any way that I can. I'm a big believer that knowledge is power, and that the truth will set you free; so helping out with furthering the Wiki's goal is my intention. Mystic Sonic (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
どうもありがとうございました！ (hope this is correct) To me it looked more like the uploader of the photos is related to either you or the website. I am sorry I made this conclusion without asking. No, we don't want to hinder people here either. It would be a waste of time trying to suppress, we are way to strong already! . I hope everything works out for your website. I noticed you have a game coming up, any time frame for the great reveal? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you'd deleted this, now someone else has uploaded a new fictional version of the same. Not sure what the process for this is, but it'd just be a waste of time to do another DR. Also, could you delete the rev of this file from File:Tamil-flag.gif where at least a reasonable flag (what was used at the international conference) is located. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I just added DR. I think administrator(s) should warn him for uploading self promoting propaganda on behalf of a community. Thanks. --AntonTalk00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, The content in the page name File:Tamil_language_flag.png is not fictional or self promoting propaganda, it is just the new version of the old tamil flag File:Tamil-flag.gif it was officially designed under the request of "Department of tamil development" in tamilnadu state government. the new flag is to be officially launch at the upcoming international Tamil conference. and they are taking steps to announce the "tamil language flag" as the iconic flag for tamil community all around the world. uploading/promoting the new flag design through Wikipedia/Commons is a part of our promotional plans, to reach the tamil people globally. YELLOW color was used because its related to our culture & was once used by one of the tamil dynasty called "pandiya dynasty" on their flag. as i am the designer of the flag, hope i have all the rights over it & i assure you that the design/promotional activity dose not mean to create any false idea on Tamil language or the tamilpeople. since i have upload the file under the legal copyright regulation, i request you to undo the deletion of File:Tamil_language_flag.png the related page. Thank you . —66614:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a point of note, Anubes666 seems to have copied my signature over and the message was appearing as if it was from me. I have refactored. —SpacemanSpiff13:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Please be careful when choosing which of two files to delete.
I do restorations, and in order to keep things together, I carefully create well-documented, linked sets of files - Restoration s JPEG, Restoration as PNG, and (generally speaking) original TIFF scan from the Library of Congress.
While I appreciate your efforts to merge duplicate files, please watch for sets; it's absolutely vital that restored files are consistently and easily linked to the originals and back from the originals.
One of the two I got lucky on - I had made a typo in the file name for the set, so could just fix it.
@Adam Cuerden: TIFF version restored. Sorry, I didn't catch it. Usually Shreik, who tagged the DUP, is very careful and his tags don't have to be scrutinized. Should have done it anyway. Can you mark the duplicate accordingly to what you think should be done? Thanks a bunch - and again: Sorry for the extra work! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Was a little annoyed for a moment, then realised it was just an accident, and calmed down pretty quickly. For the duplicate, is it worth keeping a JPEG copy of the TIFF, do you think? If so, we could rename the JPEG copy, add that to the list of files on the set, then delete the duplicate TIFF? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that perfectly. Thanks for not ripping my head off. :) In general, I prefer TIFF over JPEG. It is much better to have a TIFF for printing. JPG is better if you need small file formats. I don't think that's necessarily the case here. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: Aloha! First my crop. Sorry to tell you: I have to sue you now for not following CC-by-sa. I didn't see any external sites that use the original. I found the Russian website now. I don't think they would suffer if we give them an image without that Horrorwitz guy. They would probably appreciate it. But that's just my guess.
Well, there's more to the story than just the image itself. We delete tons of images that have been reuploaded on sight, see all the socks of Geografo23. I personally think that we shouldn't kneel in front of a guy who clearly stated that he gives a dam about our projects and only uses all of us for artistic purposes. IMHO he can go to hell and take pictures there. But that's just my very personal opinion, mainly because I don't like to be played by that guy.
Let's see the value of his contributions:
Advantages to the project:
Lots of mediocre to good pictures, mainly beaches and such. Not a bad thing in general, since we don't delete lower quality images (up to a point)
Disadvantages to the project:
Main features are usually the photographer itself (Question: Did HE actually press the button on the camera or another person?), mostly his backside.
The quality of his pictures is not that great overall, with exceptions.
Disrupting projects by misusing sockpuppets. I am mainly concerned about Commons tho, most other projects can take care of themselves just fine.
Using our fighting about a few photos to his advantage and reuploads again and again.
Overall advantage:
Some pictures, more or less useful.
Overall disadvantage:
Fighting about a few images (which are mostly not that exiting and are replaceable)
endless discussions
users getting mad at each other
opening doors for other socks and puppeteers
blurring the line between what's good for the project overall and what one single user wants
being played by someone for profit
Commons looks stupid to outsiders because we can't get a handle on one single user (enwiki doesn't seem to have much of a problem with closing the doors on him. AFAIK that is)
Net value:
Low to very low, with some exceptions we don't suffer by blocking his socks and deleting his promotional images. Overall the project would be a better place without this guy.
So much for my analysis. Therefore I have to say that I wouldn't be too happy about restoring any images made by vandal. And no, I am not hysteric at all or even on a witch hunt. I try to give it a good rationale thought and evaluate the potential value to the projects. I strongly believe that we could make better use of the time we all spend here. I'd like to see you up/download the heck out of Flickr rather than have to ask for undeletion and discuss the matter for days. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I did not check OTRS. Mainly because I am not a member of the OTRS-Team. There was no no OTRS-pendig tag in the file either. But don't worry. If everything checks out OK, OTRS will request an undelete. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
ORTS confirmed that they received the email. Now we have to wait for an OTRS member who can read Danish. I restored the file and added the OTRS pending tag. Maybe you could have a look and add a few categories? Much appreciated! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Toronto Survival Manual text.pdf
Hi!
There is no copyright issue. The authors of the various sections are identified. The manual was financed by the Government of Ontario and indirectly by the Government of Canada. Please let me know if you have a specific issue. Thx, Stuart Roche
Stuart roche44 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
When Rochdale College collapsed, it was because it failed to pay its mortgage which was entirely held by the Canadian government. So any of its assets belong to the government. On the other hand, the Ontario government subsidzed the Manual. If anyone objects to the Manual being online, I won't disagree. I may publish it elsewhere on the Web.
Stuart roche44 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't haven issue with the file. Just wanted to clarify your own work claim and if others think it is in project scope. It seems like there still is the question about the (c) status. Do you have any insight to help us keep the file? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The license has to be changed as well as the authors should be mentioned in the information template. -- I don't understand. Do I need to do something? Thx Stuart Roche44
Stuart roche44 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and apologies for the trouble "we" are giving you (sure you have more useful things to do and help in Commons). I have a rule that I broke today — Do not answer to any negative messages within at least 3 days, but harassment's from this same user have been recurrent with no action from me and I thought the matter was finished. I think is now finished ... I hope. Again thank you.--JotaCartas (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, i´m mexican, I don´t know english, only a little, and I´ll try to write you this message.... I don´t understand why you erased my photos of commons..... this photos was of my propiety.... I taked a lot of the pictures that you delete me.... the rest of photos were of my friends.... I don´t want to make a bad use of this pictures, I donated to wikipedia because i believe in the proyect, I wish to take a best enciclopedy and you are a bad person.... I don´t understand why you delete my pictures and you give me a (amenaza in spanish).... You are a very bad people with me and my work and my country, my city.... you are bad ..... I´m crying.....--Isaacvp (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I try to explain it to you: You uploaded photos that have been made by other people without asking for their permission. Here is a little evidence for your copyright violations:
You can find a long list of your copyright violations here: [37]
You must obey the copyright law and not just grab something from the internet and call it your own work. Please read Commons:Sobre las licencias. If you need help deciding if you can upload a file, you are very welcome to ask before you upload. Don't be sad, it is not easy in the beginning. You will understand in time. Thanks for your other uploads! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.
Hi, Question about this edit, where you tagged the file for bot upload to other projets. Is there any Wikimedia project where a non-free photograph of a living person of whom free photos can be taken or are already available might meet fair use criteria? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... It looks like the same question applies to other files tagged similarly today, which don't seem to be eligible for fair use. Either their license tags turn out to be confirmed, and then we can keep them on Commons, or they turn out to be copyvios, and then they can't be uploaded to other projects either. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
E.g. Enwiki allows fair use uploads. Since I can't find a free substitute I' like to go with FU instead of plain deletion. I know it is a little bit of a stretch. Lesser-evil-principal. :)) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, en.wikipedia does not allow fair use uploads of files such as those. (Unless they're actually used in fair use, that is to say, if they are used to illustrate a substantial critical commentary about the photograph itself or about photographic work of the photographer.) The notion of fair use cannot be used as a rationale to publish on en.wikipedia every non-free work that gets deleted from Commons. Please see also en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Basically, the files fail the first condition. Also, the examples in en:Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use and en:Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, under the sections Images. Tagging such files for transfer to en.wikipedia will only cause extra and useless work for 1) the unsuspecting users who might naively volunteer to do the transfers (as the Commons fair use upload bot does not work since the close of the Toolserver), 2) the patrollers on en.wikipedia who will have to tag those illicit files for deletion, and 3) the admins on en.wikipedia who will have to delete them. Not a good thing, really. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently, that category seems to have images of logos. That's a completely different type of situation than the photos of people. Some Wikimedia projects do accept an image of a non-free logo in the article of the corresponding organization, although it is not accepted outside the context of such article. I suppose the images can be transferred after a volunteer user first checks the specific requirements of the non-free-content policy of the project and if an article exists on that project where the logo will fit according to that policy. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The upload bot? No idea. But I assume it won't restart soon. You can ask User:Dcoetzee if he has plans about it. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
talk page stalker comment - although en-wiki allows fair use images, please also note the bit about living people, i.e. non-free images of living people are highly discouraged because it is expected that a free image might possible while the subject is alive. This is one of the situations where I believe a non-free counterpart to Commons would be useful. Green Giant (talk)03:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I found myself lucky that I logged on to my account just at the right time, Haha. Okay, let me tell you about the colors there. You will notice that the first and the second picture are the basically the same, just the second one is a more zoomed-in version. Since it is a legal document, it contains some hanja and the colors are also described by it. Here we go,
In the first picture, at the top left corner where it says 銀色(은색), means Silver. This word is also there at the bottom.
Since it's the same one, let's go to the second picture. In the left, the word 雅靑色(아청색) is written vertically, however this word with this hanja does not exist in any of Korean dictionary. I think this supposed to mean 鴉靑色(아청색), which Korean dictionary describes as: darker than blue, but lighter than navy blue. I think this picture will help you to get some idea.
In the same picture, you can see 金色(금색) in the middle bottom and top right corner. This is easy, this means Gold.
Veo que has marcado dos de mis imágenes como que pueden ser borradas,hay una quiero borrarla pero no sé como, la otra es creada por mi así que necesito saber que hacer para que la etiqueta sea retirada.--Tgarcialvarez (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Usted necesita tener permiso para utilizar el logotipo, salvo que tiene una licencia libre. Y lo que necesita para proporcionar una fuente y el autor también.
1: file:Escuela Lenin.jpg
de la primera soy autor pero se parece mucho a una que esta en internet, asi que quiero subir otra, pero no sé como borrar esta.
1: Archivo: Escuela Lenin.jpg Dibujo su propia versión basada en el logotipo todavía sería una violación del derecho de autor, se llama obra derivada. Si desea utilizar el logotipo en un wiki, puedes subirlo a wikis wich permitir el uso justo. Por desgracia, la Wikipedia española no permite el uso justo, pero por ejemplo, la Wikipedia en Inglés lo hace.
2: Archivo: Monograma de La Lenin.jpg Es básicamente la misma cosa. A menos que pueda proporcionar un vínculo con el logotipo y el permiso cuando se declaró que el archivo está libre.
Aquí hay un enlace a una lista de proyectos de Wikipedia que permiten archivos locales y el uso justo de licencia: [38] Por favor, asegúrese antes de subirlo a nivel local que ambos archivos locales y el contenido no-libre están permitidos.
Si necesita más ayuda, por favor hágamelo saber. Voy a tratar de ayudarle lo mejor que puedo. No hablo español, así que uso un traductor. Si nos encontramos con problemas, siempre hay un administrador de habla española aquí podemos preguntar. Gracias por su interés en nuestros proyectos usted.
Algunos usuarios de la Wikipedia en alemán pidieron algunas fotos de Cuba. Si te gusta, tal vez usted puede ayudar?
De DE-Wiki:
Headquarters of/Sede social de Cubana - Calle 23 Pt 64 Vedado, La Rampa, Havana 4, Cuba
Headquarters of/Sede social de Aerogaviota - Ave 47 No 2814 e/ 28 y 34, Reparto Kohly Playa, Ciudad de la Habana. Cuba
Headquarters of/Sede de Instituto de Aeronáutica Civil de Cuba - Calle 23 # 64, Vedado, Plaza de la Revolución, Ciudad
De EN-Wiki:
Acuario Nacional de Cuba
El Templete
Río Almendares
Hay muchos más: fuentes, calles, automóviles, edificios viejos y nuevos, y así sucesivamente.
안녕하세요! 당신의 이미지는 저작권 위반으로 표시되고 삭제되었습니다. 이미지는 다른 곳에서 인터넷에서 찾을 수 있습니다. 당신은 모든 이미지가 명확하게 사실이 아니다 자신의 작품임을 밝혔다. 저작권 소유자의 허가를 받아야하고 여기에 설명 된 절차를 따르십시오 : OTRS을.
I think we need to look again at all the images uploaded by User:Agent2t (a couple of which you recently deleted). An early deletion discussion relied on an OTRS ticket (2010103110004364) which is unclear at best and at worst only releases for use on Wikipedia. A quick TinEye search shows that the other images are all over the web, so it's not clear to me which came first - uploads here or use elsewhere. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
They've been all tagged as copyvios. What do we do about the OTRS ticket? Does OTRS follow up and then we decide what to do with the uploads / deleted files? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let's wait a while and if nothing happens we can ask OTRS noticeboard to follow up. Dang, sometimes I wish I could see those tickets myself. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Siehe meine Antwort auf meiner Diskussionsseite - ich hab keine Ahnung mehr, was die originale Quelle ist. Wie sieht jetzt das weitere Vorgehen aus? --Michael Sch. (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Good to see an admin who properly looks into contributions of copyright violators... even before I get around to it. Keep up the good work! —LX (talk, contribs)17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Hedwig,
My work is 100% legal. I am the owner of spokesman company. Therefore, I represent many companies and private persons. In many cases I am the authority that gives journalists all the permissions to publish pictures, maps, sketches etc.
What can I do prove it?
Also, I am in vacation untill the next weekend.
Regards,
Avi
ProfNews (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
History hasn't ended in the year 2013. The one is a historical map the other is the current map. You can't use the current map in an article about the year 2013. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Moin! Sreejithk2000 hat die Karte EU-Eastern Partnership als Duplikat von EU28-2013-Eastern Partnership markiert. Ich habe beide Karten verglichen und dann den Antrag ausgefuehrt. Das Ersetzen der geloeschten Datei mit dem verbleibenden Unikat erledigt die Software im Namen des Ausfuehrenden. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig! Sorry if I contacted you again but I have to put an image (a single cover) on a page but I can't upload the image unless violate copyright... What can I do? Thanks! (^_^)FilBenLeafBoy(^_^)(Let's TALK!)
Dear Friends, I'm sorry. I'm no want do you bad. I'm sorry, I bad know English Language. I hope you me understand. I intend good intention. I no wish you harm. I'm sorry. With respect Андрей Козлов 123 (ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Участник:Андрей_Козлов_123 User Page) ru.wikipedia.org/Обсуждение_участника:Андрей_Козлов_123 User Talk 20:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.134.86 (talk • contribs)
Your comment wasn't very civilized and got deleted. I hope you learned that all the projects are global projects where everybody can participate. I am not angry, best of luck to you. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Something that is not angry - that's good. I do not know why you need a flag (I could not make out the text). Because of my ignorance of the language text might seem uncivilized. I did not want to hurt 213.87.141.13304:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I am an administrator here. I rename and delete files. Sometimes these files are in use on ruwiki. I change the filename or delete the file from an article on ruwiki with a javascript. The changes I make with the script don't have to be patrolled because I am not changing anything essential. Just housekeeping. Other users on ruwiki would have to check my little edits by hand if I don't have the flag. It just makes things easier for you guys on ruwiki, not for me. I asked for the bit out of courtesy and respect for the volunteers. It is no problem for me, didn't hurt. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand you. Files play an important role in Wikipedia. They have to work. If I moved, I would have certainly supported in the application. Congratulations to give the flag. Successful work in Wikipedia. If that contact 213.87.141.21509:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm glad you stepped back on your decision. As for Pava, I guess that you can rescale the block up to 3 months since 11 June, and unblock him on 11 September. He needed a block but IMHO indefinite was not proportionate. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)10:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was a big blunder. I still have no idea how it happened. Total blackout. Regarding Pava: I changed the block and informed Pava on itwiki. Thanks again for keeping an eye on the shop! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it the tradition on the Commons that an overseas building is considered to be "in" the colonial country? Also other forts such as Category:Nakhal Fort is placed in Category:Portuguese colonial architecture in Oman and ultimately in Category:Portuguese forts and therefore in Category:Military buildings in Portugal but it's article on en:Wikipedia [39] has a very different version which gives a history of the fort that doesn't mention Portugal and says that it was "Built in the architectural style of the Sultanate of Oman" and "It has a history which dates back to the pre-Islamic period." Going by this, Nakhal Fort wouldn't be in Category:Portuguese colonial architecture in Oman and it isn't even "Portuguese colonial architecture". Who's right? (I removed misleading categories from Nakhal Fort but I fully expect that I will be reverted. I removed Category:16th-century fortifications in the Arab world because although "It was re-built by Omani architects in the 17th century", according to en:wikipedia, its not "Portuguese colonial architecture". And it clearly has a long history predating any colonization Portugal may have engaged in.
On wikipedia I like to link to the Commons cat, but these categories pose a problems. I cleaned up several that were ridiculous after I discovered this via en:wikipedia and started some new categories to try to resolve the mess. But a few editors keep an eye on those categories and won't stand any change. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Category:Portuguese colonial architecture| Forts from Category:Portuguese forts since not all forts are built in the Portuguese colonial style. The category needs to be in the subcategories of the forts (where applicable) to be accurate. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::Thinking of it. Category:Military buildings in Portugal should probably changed into Category:Military buildings of Portugal This would eliminate the problem of Portuguese buildings outside Portugal. Let's discuss this with Tm. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, some of these places are active today and their primary identification is not with Portugal. But the way things are now, all these places are subsumed under Category:Portuguese forts (some are ruins, some are museums etc, some are places that are lived in today, etc.) which then forces them into Category:Military facilities of Portugal!
First I had trouble with the Ghana-related articles, because they were guarded over by someone, now this. At least the requested deledtion of Category:Shops in Ghana was turned down. Really, I never knew before that the Commons was so political. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll just add that this whole thing started for me when I was looking for some images of Ghana and at first thought there just weren't many. Then I found they were all tucked away under year, or some other not-very-accessible way. Ghana, which on en:wikipedia is consider a vibrant real world place, here on the commons is all Portuguese. Too bad for Ghana.
The fact that Category:Shops in Ghana couldn't be tolerated because it didn't fit with the system as set up one person shows you there's something very wrong. It's deletion request was closed as a "Keep" with only the nominator's delete vote and nothing else. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed your post into a numbered list, that makes it easier to reply.
1) That's ok. If it has been a fort, the category is correct (former military facility). If it is now something else (e.g. Museum in Oman) add another category that fits. There is no primary identification, just a category tree.
2) You (or someone else) will have to add different categories. If it is a palace, add the category of the palace. See 1.)
3) You need to understand that categories are just that - categories. They help finding things. Since things tend to be complicated, we add different categories. That has nothing to do with politics, only logic. E.g.File:Lexus LF-A Roadster Geneva 2008.jpg The file itself is in two categories: Motorshow Geneva 2008 and Lexus LF-A. Category Lexus LF-A is in three categories: Lexus LF-A, Red convertibles, and 2008 concept automobiles. So, you want to find a red convertible? No problem. Or a concept car from 2008? No problem. Or you want to see which cars have been presented at the Geneva Motorshow in 2008? No problem.
4) Same thing. Add more parent categories or categories to images. That's all that's needed. No, not too bad for Ghana. Bad for users who want to find something.
5) I don't know what the problem with the shop category is. As the administrator stated: Fits into the system. If it fits, keep it. You should try to talk to Katharinaiv who's not a bad person.
Hello, Sorry for the uploads but I only want to help wikipedia! I thought that they weren't copyright violation. I'm new on Wikipedia so please help me to understand which files I can upload and which I can't... And please don't block me that's not vandalism. Sorry if my english is not so good but I'm Italian and only 16... Can you answer me on my talk page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilBenLeafBoy (talk • contribs)
Hi Hedwig! Sorry if I contacted you again but I have to put an image (a single cover) on a page but I can't upload the image unless violate copyright... What can I do? Thanks! (^_^)FilBenLeafBoy(^_^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilBenLeafBoy (talk • contribs)
Hello. I believe I remember reading somewhere that we do not require sourcing for items which fall below the threshold of originality, because there is nothing for us to verify in terms of licensing. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Would make sense, or not. IMHO we need to add a source even if it is below TOO, I think it is a question of decency if nothing else. But don't we need to have a source to verify that the logo is correct? That would be another point. What's your take on that? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought of that. To that I would respond, if we had the source, and knew it was incorrect, we would not still add a no source tag, right? Thus, the proper course of action is DR, IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
One at a time as "no permissions" unless the company's website says their logo is freeware? Otherwise "no source"? Just my best guess from seeing what has been going by recently. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
talk page stalker - even if a logo is below TOO, I think a source can be useful for the uninformed person who looks at the image and can click on a link to confirm it is genuine. For example I could upload the logo for Green Giant and with my username it might seem genuine to the avergae person but you'd still want to know that it is the real thing and not just the product of my imagination. Green Giant (talk)00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you please clarify why this file was deleted? Its seems strange that this was removed when most other sports logos are perfectly accepetable. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
As I stated in the summary: Logo to complex. Meaning, it is above the Threshold of originality and therefore Commons would need permission via OTRS in order to host the logo here. You may be able to upload the logo to some local wikis under fair use. Hope it helps. Regards, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Is there any way of retrieving the image so I can upload it to the relevant wiki? I'm no expert with images, so any replacement I find would probably be of poorer quality. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You tagged it for having missing source detail. What (if any) was actually listed? Based on its name and analogous images uploaded by User:Dhatfield, it sounds like it would have been the output of a computer program which itself is just graphing mathematical functions based on facts of nature according to user-specified visual parameters. Assuming that's what it is, I think it meets {{Own}} for uploader. Could you clarify what is in the deleted item? DMacks (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Aye, some style. There it says own work by uploader. Can we assume the same for P4M1.png? I think so. Thanks for digging that up! I go ahead restore the file and add sources. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I would assume the same yes. The source mentioned in those others is a program that spits these out according to variables sometimes called "P" and "M", so this sure seems like just another case as the rest of the series. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ты удалил файл File:Muhammad Ahmad Hussein.jpg взятый с видео на YouTube с лицензией Creative Commons – Attribution. Ты думаешь, что государственный телеканал Чеченской республики загрузил на свой канал на YouTube чужой репортаж? Maqivi (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Kannst Du aus dem Kauderwelsch schlau werden? Der zweite Satz macht keinen Sinn. Es scheint dass das Video wohl CC youtube ist. Meinst Du das youtube video ist (c) aus einer anderen Quelle? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Awarded for assisting in the successful upload of File:Haile Selassie in full dress.jpg "If each and everyone endeavors to cooperate and work in as much as his capacity permits, our faith rests upon the Almighty God that he would bless the results for us" - His Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I Czar Petar I (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! Where on earth did you get the Chinese transliteration for the file moved by this edit? English Wikipedia uses en:pinyin as the defacto romanization system according to our style guide. The previous file name was understandable to both English and Chinese readers so please revert your change. Many thanks, Philg88 (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig, thanks for your edits to the Titanic-related images I uploaded recently. In case you are interested, there are quite a few more of these which require uploading of higher-resolution PNGs at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7 (I started from the top, so everything below File:Men in bread line on 41st St., New York City.jpg has not been processed yet). I might get around to doing this in the next couple of weeks but my connection is painfully slow so I'm not really hungry for more large uploads. Thanks again and best regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)21:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Very cool, thanks a lot. This is really a huge help as it takes me up to 15 minutes to upload the larger images. I have no idea what the connection between the bread line and the Titanic is. The user just uploaded loads of pictures, most of which are related to the Titanic. Maybe there is a connection I am not seeing with this image.
That's not for me. :) I only use Irfan View and pain.net. Sounds like a project for the lab. I replaced the upload with a slightly better one. Otherwise we are Done. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I quote the (c)rules: There is normally no copyright in a 3D utilitarian object in the United States, so photographs of typical household objects from the United States are normally acceptable as long as you have taken the photograph yourself. Since you didn't take the photo yourself, the exception doesn't apply. As for the other images: Other potential copyright violations don't give anyone else the right to do the same. Sorry, I don't have better news for you. :( Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
But I did take the photo myself, what leads you to believe that I didn't ? I even submitted it to QI review. D4m1en (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you have deleted one picture that I've uploaded from FlickR.
18 août 2014 à 03:02 Hedwig in Washington (discuter | contributions) a supprimé la page File:ReDRagonEntrance.jpg (Copyright violation: Flickr review NOT passed: Author is using NC, ND, or all rights reserved.) (global usage; delinker log)
I was asking myself why my pic was deleted and I saw it was because the Creative Commons licence have this requirement "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)". I don't understand because Wikipedia is not a commercial siteweb and the author of this photo reclaim that any modification will be authorized, and I respected that. So I don't see why pictures with CC-ND or NC are not allowed on wikipedia Commons. Thanks! Lika0n (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! We need media that is free of major restrictions. See Com:L. Non-derivate is one of those restrictions. Non-commomercial is another. It would make using those images virtually impossible for reusers. We collect only free images that can be used freely. What the author claims is one thing. We need a license to go with it. If you want the image on Commons, you have to contact the author and let him/her send permission to our OTRS Team. Information and sample emails here: OTRS. Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig
The picture is 'free' and I have Demco's written permission to use the image. Demco installed the college's library and that is what the picture is of.
Thank you
EMPRARuth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.204.145 (talk • contribs)
Hello! The files was deleted because: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source since 11/Aug/14. You need to add all the essential information or we can't host your file on Commons. To restore it, please send your information, including permission by the (c)holder to our OTRS-Team. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. Thanks for your contribution! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Moin! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ ist keine Quellenangabe. Ich forste mich durch die 56.000+ files ohne Quelle, da uebersehe ich auch mal was. Aber Du hast das ja gerade repariert. Danke! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The map that you see now. There is a big problem. Drawback is the Bakhtiari has introduced. Bakhtiari Lurs are part of the map to see their location. It also acknowledges the Encyclopedia Iranica (top). Iranian users to eliminate their personal tastes map to show the truth. The source of the displayed Peoples living in Iran is wrong. The correct version is, Thanks :) --Meysam (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I get it. What you can do is add this tag: {{Inaccurate-map-disputed |1=Reason}} Add a short reason and post your complaint to the Village pump, there are people who actually something about this topic. I am not an expert in maps nor in Iran. I can't help much. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello -
The images have been deleted, sorry to say for the trouble, apparently minutes after you asked for a URL, but I see on the deletion request that they can be restored.
Here is the URL you requested; all images are located in this package
I'd sent permission to OTRS, with a link to the DR and sourceforge.net. It will go from there automatically, might take a little while. Sometimes the queue is pretty stuffed. Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the rights of the photo is mine, Esprit Jouffret is my gran-uncle. There are no problems about copyright.
Best regards.(BTourniaire (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC))
Hello! Actually there is a set of problems. You claim own work, did you take the picture of your gran-uncle? I doubt that. . How did you get it, etc. pp? Further, the description is rather bad. When was it taken, is there any information on the back? Who was the photographer, where was it taken, anything. You really need to fix the problems (esp. the source), I would hate to see the picture deleted. Thanks for your uploads! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This file is labled "PD over 100 years old". That should protect it from deletion, does it? I dont know how to fix it better. Could you help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.55.4 (talk • contribs)
No it won't protect it. There is no source given, where did the file come from? own scan, web? Author? If you please could add these informations and/or let me know. Thanks a bunch and keep'em coming! :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)15:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I (Portolanero) scanned it from the 1895 paper:
Wagner (1895), Verhandlungen des deutschen Geographentages, XI 1895, S. 65 - 87: "Das Rätsel der Kompaßkarten im Lichte der Gesamtentwickelung der Seekarten." Von Geh. Reg.-Rat Prof. Dr. Hermann Wagner in Göttingen.
Things are explained and changed around the image, no copyright.
This is public domain: Date 1885 / photo, the photographer is long dead.
Photography is in my family forever. Best regards.(BTourniaire (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC))
All photos, which were placed on the Wikimedia belongs to me (Aliaksandr Aliakseyeu):
File:Aleh Lukashevich. Cannes Film Festival.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich and Aliaksandr Aliakseyeu. Cannes. Red Carpet.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich and Aliaksandr Aliakseyeu. Cannes Film Festival.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich and Aliaksandr Aliakseyeu. Book Treasures of Belarus.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich and Aliaksandr Aliakseyeu. Book Heritage of Belarus.jpg
I'm copyright holder for these photos, because they were made by my orders.
Photographers who made these photos are my best friends and they made these photos specially for me.
I can confirm it, because I only have all RAW photos of these photo sessions.
Also, I'm copyright holder for following photos:
File:Aleh Lukashevich.Paris.2014.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich and Paul Verhuven. Venice Film Festival.jpg
File:David McNeil and Aleh Lukashevich.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich. Formentera.jpg
File:Aleh Lukashevich. Ibiza.jpg
File:Books "Heritage of Belarus", "Treasures of Belarus".jpg
I took shootings of these photos by my photo camera. Only me is owner of these photos.
I ask you very much to back these photos to Wikimedia.
Hallo. Kannst Du kurz die Sperrung von File:Azerilanguage.png aufheben, oder {{to SVG|map}} durch {{to SVG|linguistic map}} ersetzen? Vielen Dank. Karlfk (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it really a good idea to delete superceded categories?
You deleted Category:Russell Carhouse, TTC, when someone decided to supercede it with Category:Russell Carhouse. Was it really a good idea to delete the earlier name, when it had been in use for over two years? Surely the fact that third parties had years to encode the raw URL to the older name in their third party web pages is a very strong reason not to turn it into a red-link?
Yes, I know it was traditional for administrators to delete all empty categories, on sight. But that was a poorly thought out tradition, and many of your colleagues will make sure they don't leave red-links, as you did here.
In addition to the serious dangling red-link problem, such deletions of superceded categories are also seriously disruptive for other reasons. Our category hierarchy is in a constant state of flux. The revision history of categories shows which parent categories contributors thought the topic should be included in. The ability to check the past thinking is worthwhile, and I can't imagine one good reason for obfuscating that information so non-administrators can't access it.
No need to urge. This particular deletion was made in error. I usually leave a redirect for older categories. Sorry mate, this one slipped through. Thanks for putting it back together! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with you and add that he has had no new ideas in four years, as notice here where all the same pictures magically appeared on Wikipedia this time and one day before those uploaded above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, one of the CU's helped me out on this one. Most of the times he falsify's OTRS-tickets or he uploads plain copyrightviolations. The images are all related to the same topic plus his behaviour at en-wiki gives him away very easely. This is the first time I see him using so much licensing taggs tough. Natuur12 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the rest of the images, I also found them at flickr through quick search uploaded under proper license so uploaded them here, looking at them most of them looks like a low quality pictures mostly taken from mobile or non-professional camera, so I thought it is uploaders own work. If you are saying that it is laundering matter then I don't know anything about that but I trust your judgement.
And lastly there is no rule at Commons which states that a user can't remove the warnings from his or her talk page. I never saw any other editor at Commons or or any other language wikipedia saying that you can't removed warnings from your talk page. Please explain this to me, why it is important. Thanks--Jockzain (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. sorry for such a long message and really appreciate if you answer all my questions.
No problem. Well, think about it. At a Golden Globe award there are professional photographers that make a living out of selling their work. Nobody in the right set of mind would post those images on Flickr with a CC license. Especially not only images of one single person and nothing else. The metadata can easily be changed or it could be a photo of a photo. Just to make it crystal clear: I don't accuse you of license laundering, you are just someone who fell into a trap.
Blanking a talk page with unsolved problems is bad practice. After the problems are resolved you surely can blank the page or remove parts of it. The better way to do it is to transfer the resolved sections into an archive, but that is only a suggestion. We admins can always see the blanked parts anyway. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining all that to me. From now on I will not only just trust flickr license when and if it comes to uploading a image, but properly check the image at google and tineye.com to make sure that it is not a copyright violation. If you have any suggestions in that matter for me, I would be really grateful to hear that. And lastly I am going to archive my messages at my talk page. Regards--Jockzain (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You can use a bot to archive for you. That's what most peeps do to archive. Hmmm, more tips. Hard to say, be vigilant maybe? There are a ton of good Flickr users, the few bad ones make it a little harder. In general, if it looks suspicious - hands off. Just like in real life. And if you hit a bad one again, no problem. Your talk page may get flooded tho. :) Good luck and most of all: Have fun here! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick question shot across, regarding the deletions of four images related to the British Army. The Sharpshooter, Quad, Teller, L123A1 and the M2 on a Jackal.
These images were all released under the British Government's free for use policy of public area images, as was tagged (At least I thought so?) on the upload of the images. Could you please explain further if perhaps I made a mistake on which code to use for why they were put up? The Government certainly allows them to be used for content.
Thanks for any further information, just wanted to check to see. Either something is confirmed and they go back up or I'll learn something new. Either way, it's handy to know.
Hello! The files have been deleted because: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source since 11/Aug/14. I deleted ~300 files in bulk with missing info from that day. Sorry I couldn't inspect them all. I took a peek into on and the source give is UK Government Defence Images, which is not sufficient. You need to provide URL links. Do you still know where exactly you got the images from? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I might be able to relocate them with some Google Reverse Search from my own saved folders. I presume I likely just filled in the permissions thing wrong then. I'll get back to you if I spot anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs)
I have put some speedy delete tag on some photos taken by Me. So could you delete them for me. Thanks for deleting the other photos. --Paasikivi (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
prejudice to Mr. Hedwig in Washington would like to ask my users to be unlocked on the grounds that the images I have uploaded are not subject to any vandalizazzione, and therefore are in order, so you can tell me why almost SENSELESS of envi block
--79.1.97.19512:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
so to avoid the Sockpuppet ask her to unlock the 'user a1cb3, because the user was just stuck on wikipedia instead of commons not wax no reason to lock it. so it would be possible to unlock the 'user A1CB3 ?
No, I can't unblock the a1cb3 because it is a global block. And yes, there is a reason to block the puppets: Block evasion of the global block. Nothing I can do until the global block is lifted. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
okay okay thanks dell 'information, however if it was a block infinite and overall could not be able to do something :)?
Negative. A global block is a global block. This user is not welcome on all our projects, so I can't do anything about it. a1bc3 has to ask for the global block to be lifted. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Добрый день! Почему Вы удалили иллюстрацию к статье "Начальник тишины"? Вы пишите " Copyright violation: book cover" - авторского нарушения нет! Потому что это сканер и может быть использован любым человеком. И я помощник автора книги инока Всеволода (Филипьева) в Wikipedia. Прошу Вас верните иллюстрацию к статье.
Good afternoon! Why You have deleted the illustration to article "Начальник тишины"? You write " Copyright violation: book cover" - an author's breach no! Since this scanner and can be used any person. And I assistant of the author of the book инока Vsevoloda (Filipieva) in Wikipedia. We Ask You return the illustration to article.
Maisk08:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! It is not that easy. Scanning a book cover, or anything else, will not transfer the copyright of the object to you. Please read Com:L and Com:DW. If you are indeed working with the copyright holder, you can ask this person to send permission to our OTRS Team. You find instructions here: OTRS. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you have suggested my Wiki page be deleted because you claim I (James Theodore Tillis), aka James Quick Tillis, am either a Boxing Fan or Imposter.
I am in fact the person this page depicts, the material posted is mine.
Since you are the first person to challenge my identity, I have no idea how or what wiki requires for me to disprove your claim of me being a imposter or boxing fan.
The other day, we submitted a photo of Carl Williams, selected from my personal collection for his page.. I fought Carl, he was a friend of mine, we thought he deserved a photo.... that makes me a friend of the man, not some random boxing fan.
I'm giving me my number.. you call me between 12noon-3pm pst... and then I expect your to resolve your false claims..
Hello! Thanks for replying! We have a system in place in order to protect the real people from the imposters. If you could explain the situation to our OTRS-Team, mention the filenames, and mention the license you'd like to use OTRS will take care of it. More information here: OTRS. I removed the phone no., just in case. Thanks for understanding my concerns. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that a manual derivation of a CC3.0 file on Commons, such as our grey png maps, even if tagged as CC3.0, is not actually CC3.0. Now I know that a derivative of a CC3.0 image on Commons should be uploaded locally on WP-en, and tagged as 'keep local', so that it doesn't get deleted. I do wonder, though: What's the point of Commons, if not to be a common repository of images to use across WP? Is it just a mirror of files kept on the various WP's, a local substitute for Google Images? Kwamikagami (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Ja, gibt es. Sergio hat Pava ins Gebet genommen, ein anderer User auf itwiki auch. Pava hat sich entschuldigt und versprochen sein Benehmen hier zu verbessern. Ich habe eineinhalb Augen auf den Account. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Vielleicht möchtest du auch mal diese Diskussion lesen. Das wird dich zwar mindestens eine halbe Stunde kosten, bringt dir aber interessante Einsichten über die Realitätsnähe und Objektivität von Pava's Weltanschauung, oder wie der Benutzer Mai-Sachme es formuliert hat:"because an up-to-date completely uninvolved user tries to impose his views on an entire project".--FAEP (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Bist du wirklich so naiv zu glauben das Pava sein systematisch ingnorantes Verhalten einstellen wird? Deine Aussage "Ich habe eineinhalb Augen auf den Account." weckt bei mir den Eindruck das du dir selbst nicht wirklich sicher bist das er sein vorsätzliches/wissentlich/willentliches Fehlverhalten korrigiert und sich in Zukunft an die Regeln hält. Und wenn man ihn dann beim nächtsen Regelverstoß erwischt heißt es von Pava dann wieder "hab ich nicht gewussst das ich das nicht darf" oder "ihr könnt mir nichts beweisen, ihr könnt mich nicht sperren weil ihr mich nicht gewarnt habt, bla bla bla etc.". Lass dich nicht von ihm ver*****en.--FAEP (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No one can be sure actually. As a matter of fact there are also expression in other languages that I might find disturbing (like someone who once said "No one in good faith can affirm that...", so I replied "Are you implicitly saying I'm in bad faith then?", then an English speaker told me that it's not meant to offend, but is a way to say that a thing is so evident that denying it is not possible). An Arab at your home would burp after the dinner which means he liked what you served at the desk, even if we Europeans might find it unpolite :-) . I listened to Pava and maybe because we share the native language I had the impression that there's a big misunderstanding possibly emphasized by the language barrier. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Bei konsequenter Auslegung von Jim's Nachricht muss jetzt schon Schicht im Schacht sein. Pava hatte seine zweite Chance und hat Sie vertan. Und auch wenn er noch so hartnäckig den unschuldig Verfolgten mimt und sich notorisch uneinsichtig zeigt, kann das doch kein Grund sein die Sperre zu reduzieren. Zudem zeigt die Art in der er mehr als ein halbes Dutzend unterschieliche IPs vorsätzlich missbräuchlich eingesetzt hat doch nur das Jim's Ankündigung von ihm ignoriert wurde, weil er dachte uns so ver*****en zu können. Eine Reduzierung der Sperre auf einen Zeitraum von weniger als einem Jahr gesamter Sperrdauer sendet m. E. nur das Signal das man sich von ihm an der Nase herumführen lässt und das kann nun wirklich nicht erwünscht sein.--FAEP (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, habe ich ehrlich gesagt uebersehen. Lass uns mal abwarten was passiert. Vielleicht kommt ja etwas gutes hinten raus. :-) Wenn nicht, die Axt steht ja neben dem Schreibtisch. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Und was hält dich davon ab ihm für die Verstöße aus der jüngeren Vergangenheit eine angemessene Sperre von einem Jahr (also bis mitte Juni 2015) zu erteilen. Schließlich habe ich dich jetzt insgesamt zum 3. mal darauf hingwiesen das er dafür eigentlich (wie von Jim angekündigt) indefinite hätte bekommen müssen?!?--FAEP (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Unter Berücksichtigung der wiederholten und schwerwiegenden Verstöße ist ein Jahr Sperre hart aber fair.--FAEP (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
WAs mich abhaelt ist das ein anderer Admin (Sergio) mich gebeten hat die Sperre zu ueberdenken. Sergio ist der Meinung, dass Pava gute Arbeit leisten kann. Wenn es nicht klappt, geht der Hammer runter. Also, keine Panik. :) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Das kann doch nicht dein Ernst sein. In den letzten Jahren haben wir vor allem beobachten können das Pava durch sein kindisches, ignorantes und uneinsisichtiges Verhalten immer wieder viel Ärger verursachen kann, warum sollte er jetzt auf einmal anfangen gute Arbeit zu leisten. Beurteilungsgrundlage für seine Mitarbeit auf Commons kann doch nur sein Verhalten hier und nicht sein Verhalten auf it.wikipedia oder woanders sein.--FAEP (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Warum kriegt jemand der sich so verhält eine dritte Chance? Er hatte seine zweite Chance und hat es absichtlich verbockt, weil er dachte uns mit mehr als einem Dutzend IPs ver*****en zu können. Wenn jemand seine zweite Chance bekommt und es danach vorsätzlich/wissentlich/willentlich verbockt ist die Person es einzig und allein selber Schuld, doch er weigert sich hartnäckig das Einzusehen. Er übernimmt nichtmal die Verantwortung für sein Verhalten, sondern stritt in den Diskussionen mit Vituzzu (auf it.wikipedia.org) alles ab und versucht die Schuld auf andere zu schieben (namentlich sind die Schuldiugen dann halt immer ich [weil ich ihn das eine oder andere mal erwischt hab'] und die bösen Admins die seine Dateien löschen und die bösen anderen Benutzer die eine andere Meinung haben als er etc. etc. etc.).--FAEP (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, wir archivieren sobald er seine ersten Arbeiten abliefert. :-) Ich vertraue auf Sergio, er hat mich gebeten es so zu probieren. Vielleicht gewinnen wir einen guten User. Vielleicht habe ich einen Fehler gemacht, moeglich ist beides. Ich mache das ja nicht um Dich zu aergern. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hatte auch nicht die Vermutung das du mich damit ärgern möchtest ;-). Ich mache allerdings auch keinen Hehl daraus das ich - nach allem was Pava so verbockt hat - diese Entschediung für völlig falsch und kontraproduktiv halte. Aber gut, wir werden mal sehen was dabei rauskommt.--FAEP (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not a very good reason but will suffice. As he uploader you can ask for deletion, no problem. Sad, because it is not a bad picture at all and we don't have many good ones in the category:Fado. If you reconsider, please let me know and I'll restore the photo asap. Thanks for your uploads! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Im allgemeinen ist es üblich, daß selbst der Urheber des Bildes selbst entscheidet ob sein wirklicher Name in den Exif-data erscheint oder nicht. Deshalb erübrigt sich die Insitenz des Fragesstellers. Monart (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Like I wrote it was a self portrait of 1533 by Cornelis Anthoniszoon. I can not say for sure the book it was scanned from. Please, what shall I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.197.217.118 (talk • contribs)
Hallo, ich habe die Löschanträge jetzt auch in die einzelnen Bilder getan, ist das jetzt ok? Die Bilder haben ja keinen enzyklopädischen Wert, da sie ja kein historisches Gebäude zeigen. VG -- Cherubino (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, da ich von Cherubino per chat angesprochen worden bin und ihm geraten habe, sich hier wegen der ersten Ablehnung seines Löschantrags zu melden, wollte ich mich ebenfalls nochmal öffentlich sichtbar melden. Ich sehe jedenfalls keinen Grund, den Löschwunsch von Cherubino abzulehen. Die Bilder zeigen, wie bereits im speedydelete beschrieben, einen Neubau auf dem Grundstück, wo zuvor das historische Gebäude stand, d.h. das einst denkmalgeschützte Haus existiert nicht mehr und der irrtümlich dafür gehaltene Neubau ist entsprechend enzyklopädisch nicht relevant. Im Gegenteil hielte ich es sogar für irreführend, die aktuellen Bilder zu behalten und in der Category:Kirchberg 1a (Muschenheim) unter der Hauptcategory "Cultural heritage monuments in Muschenheim" zu belassen, da sie eben kein kulturelles Denkmal zeigen. Gruß -- Ra'ikeTC19:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Senf jetzt in DR. Courtesy delete sollte wohl reichen. Ich habe den Loeschantrag beim ersten Versuch wohl falsch gelesen.
Auf der anderen Seite koennte ein Bild vom neuen Haus hilfreich sein um Irrtum in Zukunft zu vermeiden. Dafuer sollte eins dann reichen und es muss in der Beschreibung dick und fett drinstehen, dass dieses nicht das historische Haus ist. Gibt es freie Aufnahmen von dem historischen Gebaeude? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Schade. Gruebel..... General sind die Fotos aber in scope. Sollten wir die Fotos nicht behalten und die Category in Kirchberg 1a, Muschenheim (Neubau) umbenennen? Oder irgenwas aehnliches? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if this is confusing, as I'm new to the uploading images side of Wikipedia. I work for a marketing agency and one of our clients is Vanguard University. Their wiki page was outdated, as it contained an old logo in their description field. I was looking to add their new logo to the page. It allowed me to delete their old one, but I was unable to replace it due to copyright issues.
I'm assuming the University has the rights to the logo, as it is theirs. What do I need to do to get this uploaded? Does someone from the University need to sign off on it?
Hallo Hedwig, erst einmal vielen Dank für deine Initiative.
Die Stadt Schkölen gibt es sehr wohl, im Saale-Holzland-Kreis in Thüringen (nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Dorf Schkölen im Landkreis Leipzig). Eingemeindet sind insgesamt 14 Dörfer, darunter Zschorgula, das früher mit Pratschütz, Böhlitz und Nautschütz einen Gemeindeverband gebildet hat. Heute ist dieser Gemeindeverband offenbar als Ortsteil "Nautschütz" in der Stadt Schkölen erhalten geblieben (die Terminologie ist in Thüringen etwas unpräzise, man spricht hier auch von "Ortsteil", das wäre etwa das, was in Sachsen-Anhalt "Ortschaft" genannt wird). Der Artikel Schkölen führt allerdings auch aus, daß alle 14 Dörfer der Stadt Schkölen gleichrangig angehören. --Jwaller (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Kein Problem, wir sind doch alle am gleichen Projekt interessiert. Manchmal braucht es halt einen Vermittler. Wir versuchen das einmal hier, wenn es nicht klappt, geht die Kategorie in die grosse Diskussion.
Grosse Fragestunde:
Question Ist Zschorgula zu klein fuer eine eigene Kategorie? (Zschorgula nur als Beispiel fuer alle anderen Doerflein)
Question Gehoert Zschorgula als SUB-Kategorie in die Kategorie Dothen? (Hat ja immerhin ein eigenes Ortsschild)
Question Sollen alle Doerfer in der Kategorie Districts of Schkölen einsortiert werden, ohne etwaige Unterkategorien?
Question Sollen alle Doerfer entsprechend Ihrer Zugehoerigkeit in Unterkategorien der Kategorie Districts of Schkölen einsortiert werden?
Grundsaetzlich ist es so, dass auf Commons moeglichst in die unterste Kategorie einsortiert werden soll. Damit wird das gezielte Auffinden ermoeglicht. Andererseits sollen 1-Dateien Kategorien vermieden werden (Siehe z.B. Category:Willschütz und Category:Poppendorf (Schkölen).
Mein Vorschlag:
Kategorie: Schkölen -> Districts of Schkölen
Districts of Schkölen -> Unterkategorien fuer alle Ortsteile mit mehr als 1 Datei.
Unterkategorien (wie Dothen) -> Unterkategorien nur wenn mehr als 1 Datei da ist.
Hallo, ich versuche mal, deine Fragen zu beantworten.
Zschorgula ist auf keinen Fall zu klein für eine eigene Kategorie, als das Kirchdorf der Gegend mit interessantem Ortsbild, ich habe ja selbst mehrere Bilder gemacht.
Zschorgula gehört nicht in die Sub-Kategorie Dothen, sondern gemäß Jean11 in die Sub-Kategorie Nautschütz und meiner Meinung nach a priori in gar keine Sub-Kategorie eines anderen Ortsteils. Ich habe nur in einigen Fällen (bei anderen Gemeinden) Ortsteile zusätzlichunter einen anderen Ortsteil einsortiert, wo z.B. enge historische oder bauliche Zusammenhänge vermuten lassen, daß der Ort auch unter dem anderen Ortsteil gesucht werden könnte. Das ist IMHO hier nicht der Fall.
Ja, alle Dörfer sollten auf jeden Fall direkt in die Kategorie Districts of Schkölen einsortiert werden, einfach um zu ermöglichen, alle zu einer Stadt oder Gemeinde gehörigen Orte auf einen Blick in der Übersicht zu haben. Da ich oft in Ortskategorien editiere, habe ich schon mehrfach die eher unangenehme Erfahrung gemacht, daß ich auf den ersten Blick einen Ort in der Kategorie der Kommune, wo ich ihn erwartete, als für noch nicht vertreten gehalten habe, um erst im Nachhinein mitzubekommen, daß er sich unter einem anderen Ortsteil versteckt.
Damit ist gesagt, daß eine Einordnung als Unterkategorie unter einen anderen Ortsteil eher nicht hilfreich ist und bestenfalls als zusätzliche Option, wie unter meinen zweiten Antwort ausgeführt, erfolgen kann. Ich teile übrigens im Prinzip deine Zurückhaltung, was Kategorien mit nur einem Element (oder selbst zwei Elementen) angeht, bin aber bei Ortskategorien von dieser Linie abgekommen, weil hier perspektivisch fast immer weitere Bilder zu erwarten sind und eine "Vorleistung" in Gestalt einer schon erstellten Kategorie die Arbeit und auch die Suche erleichtert. Ein Ort mit eigenem Namen, eigener geschichtlicher Entwicklung und geographisch gut ablesbarer eigener Lage "verdient" also für meine Begriffe immer eine eigene Kategorie, auch wenn vorerst nur eine Dateil vorhanden ist. ausnahmen würde ich hier nur bei "Mini-Orten" von zwei, drei Häusern machen, für die kaum weiteres Material zu erwarten ist, oder für Orte, die mit dem Nachbarort so zusammengewachsen ist, daß für Ortsfremde die Abgrenzung nicht mehr ablesbar ist. --Jwaller (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Dann mach das doch so. :-) Bei diesen kleinen Ortschaften ist es eher egal ob die in die allerunterste Schublade gesteckt werden, da ja meist nicht zuviele Dateien da sind. Bei Grossstaedten sieht das natuerlich anders aus. Ich denke man kann das von Fall zu Fall entscheiden und entsprechend handhaben. Erste Prioritaet ist der User der etwas ueber XXX sucht. BTW: Dazu gehoeren auch die Dateinamen, ggf. sollten die Dateinamen auch geandert werden um das Auffinden zu vereinfachen. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Ich würde das ja auch gern so machen, ich habe nur Zweifel, ob Jean 11 das akzeptiert. Hier hat er sich ja trotz deiner freundlichen Aufforderung nicht sehen lassen. Und zu einem Edit-War habe ich weder Lust noch Zeit. Was das Umbenennen von Dateien angeht, so halte ich das aber nicht für notwendig. Ich gehe da natürlich von meinen Angewohnheiten aus, wenn ich etwas suche: wichtig ist erst einmal die Kategorie, in der Kategorie "sprechen" dann die Bilder selbst und gegebenenfalls die Bildbeschreibungen. Die Dateinamen erfüllen da her nur den Zweck, eine Datei von der anderen zu unterscheiden. --Jwaller (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Meinst du die ganzen Produkte, die rings um die Dhallë-Flaschen im Regal stehen oder die Gestaltung der Verpackung der Dhallë-Flaschen selbst? Sprich: würde es genügen, den Ausschnitt auf die Dhallë-Flaschen zu reduzieren? -- malenki (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ja und ja. :) Die Flaschen, insbesondere die Actimel-Verpackung) und das Design auf der Dhallë-Verpackung (Glas mit Trinkhalm, Gras...) sind geschuetzt. Wir koennen auf Commons keine Fair Use Dateien behalten. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ja und nein. Die linke Verpackung ist noch zu sehr ein Teil des Gesamten. Kannst Du nur die dritte Flasche zeigen? Die auf der ganz rechten Seite ist zumindest zweifelhaft. Bleibt eigentlich nur die Dritte. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Dann editiere doch bitte selbst die Datei gemäß deinen Vorstellungen. Ich kann dir gern das tif zusenden. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass den von dir angelegten Kriterien zufolge die wenigsten der Bilder z.B. hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier und hier bei Commons sein dürften. -- malenki (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Restoring file File:Telugu bala Satakam PDF File.pdf
It seems that File:Telugu bala Satakam PDF File.pdf has been deleted, though proper reason has not been quoted. The book is uploaded by the copyright holder himself. Could you please check into this? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the enWikiSource admins and have been working through a list of empty Index: namespace pages. Our Index: pages rely on the presence of a File on Commons. On investigation I have found that several of them were deleted by you on 19 August. Could I please request the undeletion of the files in this list? I undertake to add licencing information (and whatever else is missing) to them within 24 hours. If any of them can't be licensed appropriately for Commons, I will reequest transfer to Wikisource and re-deletion. Many thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally I believe that all djvu/pdf files should be undeleted. That files of at least two years holding and in use were deleted within a week is simply poor process, and shows Commons diregard for the sister sites. If such processes continue, the place of Commons as a central repository has to be questioned. Commons administrators need to be more amenable to the sisters, and provide adequate opportunity to know that files are up for deletion. In this situation, the enWS community had no knowledge and no means to act. — billinghurstsDrewth03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to ask you that if it is okay to upload these images of Dennis Stock and James Dean here. First this image was taken between 1954 to 1955, as Stock meet Dean in late 1954 for life magazine assignment. Anyways it is older than September 30, 1955, the day Dean dies in car accident. The second image is from 1952, when Stock went to Ethopia as stated as source here, in any case he looks younger then his image in 1954 or 1955 with James Dean. So it's given that it is also before 1955. So both these image can be uploaded at commons under this liscence, I am copying the text
This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice. Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.
I would be really grateful, if you answer me back. I am not going to upload it until I know for sure that it is okay. Regards--Jockzain (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been referred to you by Anna over at wikipedia. I have a problem. An image that i have taken of a train has been deleted from commons based on a claim about it being a derivative work. I have read the derivative work page but believe that my image (1 out of more than 1200) does not fall foul of the requirement [44]. I needed an independent opinion. Could you help me out ?
Hi Hedwig! I saw that you deleted an image I uploaded. The image, as I noted in the file description was a) a screenshot b) from a video produced under Crown Copyright c)which had been posted on Youtube. As Crown Copyright is compatible with our license requirements, I'm not sure I understand what was missing here. Could you help me understand please? Thank you, Jake Ocaasi (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Following up on your deletion of images I mentioned in a previous message. I have not heard anything back from you yet. Would you mind looking into it?
Hallo Hedwig in Washington, bitte sieh dir die Uploads, auch die gelöschten, des Benutzers einmal an. Soweit ich sehe, wurden drei Bilder, die der Benutzer, wie ich annehme, in gewerblicher Absicht, immer von der gleichen Person, hochgeladen hat, gelöscht, weil keine permission kam/Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu vermuten sind. Weitere zwei stehen an. Vergleiche die globalen Beiträge, in denen er seine Bilder unterzubringen versucht. Wie verfährt man mit dem Benutzer? Ich spreche dich in deiner Adminfunktion an und mein aktives Englisch ist nicht soo gut. Vielen Dank, --Stefan Bellini (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The article "Flag of the Islamic State" was created despite the fact that the main article had (still mistakenly) been created with a redlink to Wikipedia:Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This article is now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of the Islamic State. The proposal for delete is almost unanimously supported with one of the few objections coming from an editor now banned for sock puppetry. The reason for the deletion of the article is that the flag is a version or the genuinely notable Wikipedia:Black Standard flag with this particular version being in use by a number of groups.
Can I suggest a name "Black Standard variant as adopted by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or "Black Standard variant as adopted by ISIL" or any other appropriate option as chosen at your discretion.
I am trying to re-upload some images that you deleted because of lack of licenses and was wondering how to do so. I had planned on uploading the images with more detailed license information using the "upload wizard" but it won't let me because those files have previously been deleted. Do you know what the proper procedure is?
Hi Hedwig in Washington. First of all, thank you for sharing your thinking to me and wiki's reasons. There are some reasons I would like you teach me to avoid same thing happened and please you release my blocked account. It's so cruel of me.
1. I am just starting and studying how to write wiki and use wiki. There are most of conditions I don't know. So there are something wrong, please you think about I am not old wiki like you or others.
2. I am foreigner, I am not talking English in my country and not really good in English. So some place is not really understand how to operate in wikimedia commons.
3. How do you know and verify the foreigner company is small or famous? Can you review our local language? I think it might be unfair. Will you ever visit Taiwan or China to see the real famous company or store?
4. I have one one request, please release my blocked account, I will modify other picture to obey wiki's conditions. Can you release my account?
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tacoma in Pierce County.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Tacoma in Pierce County.png]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
The file had the information in a note, it came from Wikipedia. The original file was deleted in 2007 as CSDf8, i.e., "identical copy on Commons."[45] I have copied the source page URL information into the empty source field to avoid future confusion. --Abd (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You asked the source of this image-- the source information was provided in the file description-- the image is from a cookbook, "The Epicurean" by Charles Ranhofer, published in 1894. The illustrator is unknown.
This disappearance is worrisome. The user was globally active, up until September 9, 2014, [46]. No particular slow-down, routine, it seemed, then nothing. Does anyone watching this talk page know Hedwig? Is Hedwig okay? --Abd (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
kannst du diesen Löschantrag einer IP bitte zumachen? Die "Begründung" entbehrt jeder validen Grundlage. Danke!--AVIABavaria15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I spent two days in Fremantle Prison when it was still operational, with the Prison's authority, together with an architect and photogrammetrist to prepare a report to the Western Australian government on future uses for the prison after decommissioning. My photographs were published in the report. I took the pictures and own the copyright. My authorship was acknowleged in the report. I made sure none of the inmates are recognizable. I invite you to visit my website at www.malewiphotos.com to see it and other photos with a brief explanation of their history. I am an amateur photographer, and a retired lawyer: my word has never been doubted in my whole career. Please confirm immediately that you withdraw your allegation.
M A Lewi (iwelam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by iwelam (talk • contribs)
I can personally verify this person is the photographer, he also a member of Wikimedia Australia and there is no doubt of the authenticity of the images he has uploaded... I would suggest that in such similar situation you take moment to actually discuss your doubts directly with the user before throwing out such a poor nomination. Gnangarra11:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Iwelam: As a lawyer you certainly understand that we have to protect our users from repercussion of copyright owners. Sorry you fell through the cracks of the system. DR closed by Gnangarra, no problem there. I archived the URL of this image here: web Archive
@Gnangarra: Next time please close the DR and add the kept template to the file's discussion page. There's an automated script for that to make it a bit easier. I finished the closing. :-) Thanks for speedy-closing, tho. Much obliged. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
hmm I did use the automated script, first time it hasnt done it properly me thats why I never checked to see it was completed... thanks for cleaning it up Gnangarra23:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Seems like we are having some issues with scripts currently. I get a lot of script-error messages. Well, it will repair itself as always... :-)) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the file, which was a surprise for me, since it has never been nominated for deletion and is perfectly covered by freedom of panorama in Brazil. Indeed, in the FFD nomination it is cited as an example of a file which should not be deleted. Would you please restore it. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
J'ai tenté ce matin de mettre une photo me représentant pour la placer sur ma page. Ces photos ont été faite par un ami photographe qu'il me les a faite gentiment. Que dois je faire pour la diffuser ? Ces photos sont libre tout comme celles la plupart dejà sur la page faites par mon papa jean claude FONTAN.
Hello Hedy:
"Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself"
All the files you've deleted are photographs I created myself.
If you wanted to update Amy Hill's photos, that's okay with me since she's had a brain tumor since I photographed her in 1983 in San Francisco and she doesn't look that that anymore.
But thanks for looking out for her.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wong aka Edmunddantes May 23, 2015
the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:
File:Amy Hill with novelty chocolates.jpg
The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:
use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.
Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.
And also:
File:AMYHILL.jpg
File:DIMSUM29.jpg
File:Laureen Chew, Cora Miao and Amy Hill.jpg
Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmunddantes (talk • contribs)
Hello! Thanks for your reply! If you have a few minutes, please read about our OTRS-System here: OTRS. Maybe you want to take advantage of this feature and send permission to use here via email. Thanks for your work! :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted a number of images that I've uploaded. I've appreciate a notification before to start the deletions, but well, I want to note that the gallery of Deviantart where these images are is mine [47], if the problem are the licenses I can modified them. I hope you can help me with this. Cheers, --Rextron (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, why did you delete this image:[48] The uploader gave it a free license on Flickr, which is where you have to look. It seems you are misunderstanding Commons copyright rules. If you are in doubt about the license of a photo, you need to put it through DR or tag them as copyvios so they can be evaluated, you cannot just delete them on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Right, I missed the Flickr part. My bad. Thanks for noticing!
@Rextron: If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could make it more clear that those images are yours and put a CC note on Deviantart? As they were, there was no indication that the images are actually yours. It's hard to tell for us admins sometimes and mistakes happen. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I must been more careful with the licenses. Is ok if I put a CC license 3.0 in Deviantart, or must be 4.0? also, I'll put the indication in my gallery that these images are in WikiCommons.--Rextron (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The photo File:Mayordomos ramos.jpg is a photo of mine, taken for "circulos de tradiciones de huamanga" page (here: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/huamanga/). Its a very old angelfire site. I dont have way to unload the photo there.
The photo File:Morochucos 40.JPG and File:Semanasanta40.JPG are snapshoots of a documentary taken in 1940. I guess the copyright is already expired, dont it?
Hi! Simple photographs have a copyright term of 70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the taking of the photograph (Art. 144) I assume you are from Peru or the photos have been take there. The first photo (angelfire....) is not verifiable. No author is given and there's no license either. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedy,
RE: File:Amy Hill with novelty chocolates.jpg
No problem: you can still see the photo when you do an image search for Amy Hill on Google.
Best,
Nancy Wong
aka Edmunddantes
5/26/15
Hello Edmunddantes,
the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:
File:Amy Hill with novelty chocolates.jpg
The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:
use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.
Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.
And also:
File:AMYHILL.jpg
File:DIMSUM29.jpg
File:Laureen Chew, Cora Miao and Amy Hill.jpg
Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, reviewing the uploaders talkpage page and I see the issue was needing explicit permission from the photographer. Never-mind than. Strongjam (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a Commons and WP:en admin who responded to a protected edit request at en:Talk:Brianna Wu to use these images, which the subject apparently released with the express purpose of use in Wikipedia, therefore I'm aware of the problem. From my point of view, the assertion by the pictured person that she releases the images as CC-BY (and, we assume, has obtained the rights to them or the photographer agrees) should be enough. My understanding of our usual practice including at OTRS is that with PR photos or headshots submitted by the depicted persons, we tend to take it as a given that the depicted people have obtained the rights to them. It's not as though we could realistically verify the existence or contents of the agreement between them and the photographer (and that person's identity) in any case. I don't think that there's any particular need to deviate from this practice here and let the subject jump through additional bureaucratic hoops. Would you reconsider your deletion of these images? Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Sure will. First of all, I didn't tag the files. I just deleted 1 week after the tag has been placed without any reaction by the uploader. The files have been in the pile of media missing essential information. We don't have time to check and search the web for each and every file. Yes, some generally valid fall through the cracks. The problem is that uploaders just make to many mistakes and don't follow up. You probably know. :-) Another problem was that the uploader only gave the url to the original photographer, therefore the file has been tagged by another user (a sysop as well) as no permission. I found the file on her website. I'll restore and change the source. That should take care of it. Will leave msg on enwiki as well. Thanks for letting me know about the discussion on enwiki. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to request for more extensive reasons for your recent deletion of file:CanisAfricaAfricangreywolfgoldenjackalSenegal.png, file:Journal.pone.0042740.g005.png, and file:Journal.pone.0042740.g006.png. All of which are images from PLOS ONE, which states that all of their material, unless indicated otherwise, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. You might be suspicious because of the copyright symbol on the top. But did you actually contact the authors of that journal for the copyright status? Some CC licensed works, for example free online journals, including PLOS ONE, does use a copyright symbol on them.
{{Talkback|MPF}} - I checked the source, and they are indeed cc-by-3.0, it is just that the original uploader hadn't cited the license correctly on the files - MPF (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC) :Done --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Very simple: The file has been has been missing essential information for a week, thus is subject to deletion. If would have read the reason for deletion you would have known. Again this was the reason: Media missing permission as of 20 May 2015. Instead of barking at me you should have checked your uploads and follow the simple rules for uploading media Commons. And no, I didn't contact any author, the uploader ->YOU is responsible for providing the necessary information. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig in Washington/Archive 1,
the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:
The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.
Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.
Hi, I suppose you checked that I cropped these images to avoid the background posters. Not sure it was sufficient, so nothing specially against your deletions. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes I did. That's why it's taking so long. I check every file and do my best with the crop tool. If I can't crop enuf of the background out, I delete the file. With some I try to save at least the face. Doesn't always work. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)11:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you asked for a file to be restored on en:Wikipedia after it was deleted on commons. But I cannot tell what file you are talking about. Which one would you want restored? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Movie posters are usually too recent to be in public domain and therefore still under copyright. Please refer to Com:L for more information. Also, there's a list of copyright rules by territory here: Com:CRT. Look up the country of origin for more info. Thanks for contributing! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig. In this particular case the author/copyright holder of the poster (Jacobo Penzo) authorized its free use by sending email to permissions@wikimedia.org Message transmission details are From: Jacobo Penzo <jacobo230@gmail.com> Date: 2015-05-15 9:27 GMT-04:30 Subject: Poster The House of Water To: Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org> Such a permissions request was responded with [Ticket#: 2015051510016016].Is this not sufficient? Thank you
Further question: should the author/copyright holder of the above -referred poster send a second request? His original request indicated that he agreed to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Was this the wrong rule? I now realize that the new template advices to send such requests under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Commons:Email templates Could this be what was wrong in the first place? PLEASE HELP..!!
This is good to know Hedwig. So if as I stated above Mr. Jacobo Penzo (the author of the poster under discussion) authorized its use through the email referred above, and a [Ticket#: 2015051510016016] was issued, why dont we (you?) kindly go ahead and proceed to replace the image as it was before you deleted it ?. Do we need to wait for anyuthing else? Alternatively would the author need to repeat his email? MAY I BEG FOR YOUR ACTIVE HELP, PLEASE Thank you.
Hi Hedvig: Further to the above below is the data corresponding to the email received by poster image author (Jacobo Penzo) in response to his permission request.From: Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org> Date: 2015-05-15 9:27 GMT-04:30 Subject: [Ticket#2015051510016016] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Poster The House of [...])To: Jacobo Penzo <jacobo230@gmail.com> I hope this helps to retrieve the corresponding conversation file and to take a final decision as to whether or not the image may be used as intended. Otherwise, please indicate what additional moves would be needed to achieve the intended purpose. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for whatever effective help you can provide regarding this case. Best wishes.
I can´t believe you are still forgetting Hedwig, what is going on? When can I upload the poster again being sure that it will not be deleted once again? PLEase..!
Wooohhooo! Hold your horses! I am only a volunteer. Meaning: I donate my time here. The response we have in our OTRS system is not as expected. I consulted other volunteers to decide if the information provided is sufficient. I will get back to you in due time, please relax. BTW: We will restore the deleted file if everything checks out ok. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the update, Hedwig. I am glad to learn you will restore the file yourselves if all checks out ok. Cheers.
J'ai tenté ce matin de mettre une photo me représentant pour la placer sur ma page. Cette photo ont été faite par un ami photographe qu'il me les a faite gentiment. Que dois je faire pour la diffuser ? Ces photos sont libre tout comme celles la plupart dejà sur ma page était par mon papa jean claude FONTAN, et également libre de droit.
Merci d'avance pour m'indiquer la marche à suivre.
May I ask why the hurry in deleting File:Elodie FONTAN.JPG, File:ELODIE FONTAN.JPG and File:Portait officiel.JPG? User Jcfontan says the following on his talk page: "Je suis jean Claude Fontan, papa d'elodie Fontan et chargé de la communication de ma fille, de ses photos officielles et gestionnaire de cette page depuis plusieurs années..." which translates as "I am Jean Claude Fontan, father of Elodie Fontan and in charge of the communication of my daughter, of her official pictures and of this page since several years...".
Therefore, the comment unlikely to be own work looks a bit excessive, it looks very possible to me that the actress's father is the real owner of the picture and knowingly put them under free license on Commons, so I would suggest to restore the pictures and hold a full Deletion Request discussion.
It's OK if you're not comfortable with French, you can probably get help from a French-speaking admin (I saw you tried and got no response). PlaceClichy14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Place Clichy: Oh boy, my French is waaaay to rusty to have a meaningful discussion. Could you advice the uploader to use OTRS? I like to err on the side of caution, especially when prominent people are involved. As you probably know, there are a lot of fans out there, claiming to have the (c)rights. So IMHO OTRS is the way to go. You can let me know as soon as the user got a ticket number and I'll process the ticket in a hurry. A regular DR would last 7+ days and probably will result in the same request. Could you let me know what the uploader thinks? Thanks, or merci!
I asked on French Wikipedia for someone familiar with republication/OTRS to assist them if they want to go through the process. I won't go further as I'm not involved in any way with original poster, but I still think your original deletion was a bit harsh. I understand what you mean by erring on the side of caution, but for all I've seen the poster acted very much like a good-faith stranger to Wikipedia's intricacies rather than a fan. And this actress is not that prominent anyway. PlaceClichy10:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! I don't doubt the good faith of the user. Not at all. Prominent or nor - the license requirements are the same. We don't have the luxury as some wikis have, we have to follow several copyright rules. The country of origin, country of the photographer. And the US-copyright laws because the servers are located in the US. Copyright can be a real pain in the butt. Thanks for your help! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, ich hoffe, Du kannst mir helfen. Ich möchte gerne zwei Musikdateien bei Commons hochladen. Was muss ich da beachten, bzw. wie lade ich ein Musikzitat hoch? Ich danke Dir im Voraus für Deine Hilfe. Liebe Grüße --Animagus (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Animagus: Moin, moin! Als erstes muss die Datei in einer kompatiblen Lizenz vorliegen. Siehe Com:L. Dann sind nur gewisse Dateiformate zulaessig. Siehe Com:FT. DAs ist eigentlich alles. Oh ja, Kategorien sind wichtig. Ansonsten findet kein Mensch Deine Arbeit. GGf. kann auch eine Gallerie angelegt werden. Lade mal hoch und sag Bescheid, ich schau dann mal drueber.! Und keine Angst: Wenn es schiefgeht, wir haben den beruehmten Loeschknopf. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Guten Morgen Hedwig, danke für die Antwort. Ich lade es hoch und sage Bescheid :) Grüße aus dem Taunus --Animagus (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, zwischenzeitlich habe ich mir die Infos angesehen, die sich hinter Deinen Links verbergen. Leider weiß ich dennoch nicht wie ich es hochladen soll. Es handelt sich nicht um Bilder. Es geht um folgende Dateien, die bislang bei WP Deutschland hochgeladen sind: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Alle_V%C3%B6glein_sind_schon_da.png und https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Freunde.PNG. Der Inhalt dieses letzten Musikbeispiels ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und steht nicht unter einer freien Lizenz. Er stellt allerdings ein Kleinzitat im Rahmen des UrheberrechtsgesetzesBKL dar, dessen Verwendung unter den Bedingungen des Zitatrechts gestattet ist. Deshalb darf es bei WP Deutschland genutzt werden. Könnte ich diese beiden Dateien bei Commons hochladen und wie? Liebe Grüße --Animagus (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Info Freunde.png kann nicht auf Commons gehostet werden. Vgl. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (8); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (8). Weil: kein unwesentliches Beiwerk. MMn. ist das in den USA (wo die Server stehen) nicht frei. Du kannst das gerne mit der Truppe diskutieren: Com:VP#Copyright.
Vielen Dank Hedwig! :) Ich muss gestehen, dass ich mich mit dem Kategorisieren nicht auskenne. Ich wüsste auch nicht welche Anmerkungen noch ergänzt werden könnten. Ansonsten steht unter Commons:Lizenzen: "zumindest in den USA UND im Herkunftsland gemeinfrei sind". Insofern wird das mit der anderen Datei offensichtlich nichts. Ich wünsche Dir einen schönen Tag. --Animagus (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Mit den Kategorien ist do so eine Sache. Einfach ausprobieren. Da kann nix zusammenbrechen, also einfach rantrauen!! :) Wenn's klemmt: einfach melden! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington,
die Löschung ist ganz ok. Die Datei habe ich in den Anfängen meiner Veröffentlichungen bei Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen. Ich habe mittlerweile zwar eine Genehmigung für das Bild von Professor Ding, diese ist allerdings in chinesisch. Ich werde zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt von ihm ein paar Bilder hochladen, mit Genehmigung in chinesisch und deutsch. Für deine Arbeit vielen Dank! Herzliche Grüße aus Bayern!--Alexander Callegari (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hedwig you protected the File:Ethnic Macedonian Flag.svg: to prevent edit war but you left the vandalism that removed information about it's status as a Greek symbol. It is necessary to keep this information since the vergina sun is an ancient Greek symbol and is recognized as symbol of Greekness. So there is no point to leave this information out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.132.44 (talk • contribs)
Hello! Yes, there's an editwar brewing. If you want to discuss the description, please use the talk page of the file. Oh, and please sign by typing four times ~ Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)11:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: would you like to comment on the image's TP on what you think? Because I believe that on 8th June (9 here in Australia) the IP will revert to putting that unnecessary info there. Also never pinged a user on there tp before, and also thanks for that. LuxureΣ11:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig! I don't understand why the image of Contador was deleted? I took it on flickr with the 'Creative Commons' thing on. I'm confused, it is discouraging to try to upload images. It sometimes seems it takes a phD Mattsnow81 (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think, that being a contestant of photo competition is not a reason for keeping a photo. For example, look Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - April - Back side/Voting#Storm Yard (16970242126), which was deleted for bad quality. And if you look the same big page, then you can see a lot of contestants deleted for various reasons. That said, if you do not change your decision to keep, then I will not protest it, because this was really a borderline case. Taivo (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Taivo: To be honest: I wasn't sure at all and thought about this one for a while. I don't really know what to do with those rear-end photos. Overall the composition here wasn't to good either. But not bad enough to use quality as a reason to delete. If you want, tag it again and I'll stay out of it. Maybe someone else can enlighten me/us --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you please help with restoring the picture you deleted of Henry Katzman and Carl Sandburg? I contacted another editor about contacting OTRS, and he said that since I own the image myself and it hasn't been previously published and there is no other copyright involved, then contacting ORTS is unnecessary and they will be upset that I am wasting their time and probably won't want to help. So now I don't know what to do without making things worse. I am very new to this so I could really use a hand. Thank you. Kyndcat (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure can do. Nobody at OTRS will be upset. That's cow cookies. What I need to know from you:
The photo was taken backstage at a rehearsal for a radio show in September 1955 in New York City (CBS radio shows were taped at Radio City Music Hall, but I cannot confirm that's the exact place the picture was taken). It was taken by Henry Katzman's wife, Bertha Katzman (my grandmother). The photo was kept in her possession until her death in 2007, at which time it was bequeathed to me (along with the other photo of Henry Katzman that appears on his Wikipedia page). She never shared the Carl Sandburg picture with anyone, and it has never been published in print or online until I recently uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons.
Thanks again for your help, and let me if there's any other details I can provide. Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs)
Question 1953 or 1955? You just said 1955, the infobox says 1953. No biggie tho.
I changed the infobox and the license a little. You can use this one as a reference for all the others, if applicable that is. Just noticed, I made a mistake. Correcting right now. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain it's 1955 - I've been researching its origin for a while and trying to track down the specific date - I never got the chance to ask my Grandmother anything about it. I'm hoping that someone sees this picture on Wikipedia and can provide documentation of exactly when this was taken. I've even tried tracking down the radio broadcast that featured the two of them, but that's even harder to find. It would be even better to find someone who was there that day - that would be something! :) Let me know if I need to do anything to help the process along, like fill out a form or sign another waiver. This has definitely been a learning process! Kyndcat (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I was aware that VFC had a delete option, but hadn't actually thought about using it. I'll keep it in mind... crap for a 2014 movie is blatant. Revent (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Mein Englisch ist schlecht, darf ich deutsch schreiben?
Bei all diesen Fotos handelt es sich um mein Eigentum: Fotos, die ich selbst gemacht habe, inc. mein Passfoto oder Fotos, die meine Schwester gemacht hat.
Kunstbilder, die Sie auf einem der Fotos gesehen haben, sind Bilder, die mein Vater - Tichomirow Leonid - gemalt hat (s. Artikel über ihn - er ist ein weltberühmter Mahler). Das heist, dasss der Autor der Bilder auf ihrem Hintergrund sich fotografiert hat. Dieses Foto habe ich auch direct von meinem Vater - Leonid Tichomirow erhalten, mit der Bitte, die für sein Artikel bei Wiki zu nutzen.
Ein Wiki-Administrator Yann aus Paris, der für Fotos bei Wiki zuständig ist, hat bereits diese meine Fotos freigegeben: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann, section "Photos Grafboris"
Ich bitte Sie meine Fotos zu gestatten und ware Ihnen dafür sehr dankbar :-)
Ich persoenlich sehe da kein Problem mehr. Eigentlich ist die Aussage fuer Wiki nicht ausreichend. Ich gehe davon aus, dass Leonid Tichomirow mit freier Lizensierung seiner Werke einverstanden ist. Vielen Dank fuer die schnelle Rueckmeldung! Von den Bildern, die ich bisher gesehen habe, ist Заснеженная Москва mein Favorit.
Question Was noch nachzutragen ist: Wer hat dieses Bild File:Тихомирова Ольга Вячеславовна.jpg gemalt? Der Author muss genannt werden. Liegt ein Einverstaendis zur Veroeffentlichung vor?
Hello, I've saw all your deletions due to OTRS ppermissions. I've obtain the authorizations to upload these photos and ask to photographs to write a mail to the OTRs (i don't now if they had make that or no) and asked few times if i could, if necessary, make screnshots or transfer the mails with the requests to use the photos on Wikipedia and the answers of photographs, but i'd never obtained an answer. Could you please answer me? Thank you in advance, good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi! The files I deleted have been without essential information for a while. What's the name of the author? I can have a look, maybe he/she did write to OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The author was Gianpaolo. I'd asked him (like to all the others peoples who had authorized me to upload their photos here) to write a mail to the OTRS, but i don't know if they make it or no. I've re asked him. Good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Found it. Ticket closed for no response and insufficient license. Please read Com:L and OTRS about the license requirements. A statement like he send in his email upload to wikipedia is ok is not enough. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
File:Genkakuji.JPG, File:Hiyokuzuka.JPG and File:Koshinto Raikoji.JPG
File:Genkakuji.JPG, File:Hiyokuzuka.JPG and File:Koshinto Raikoji.JPG are my own work. I have created myself and do not need permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akanekage (talk • contribs)
(talk page stalker) I doubt Hedwig was claiming that it should not be deleted, just that it wasn't 'obvious' enough to be a speedy since you didn't give the original source (and the original that was linked at the DR didn't show up, at least for me, in image searches). A copyvio CSD is generally when you can point at objective 'proof' that is image is a copyvio. Revent (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, Du hast bei dem Benutzer Ein Werler eine Anfrage bezüglich eines Fotos gestellt. Da der Benutzer nur selten online ist, antworte ich Dir. Joseph Wäscher ist 1993 gestorben, als Adresse ist für einen Joseph Wäscher die Unnaer Str. 41 [49] verzeichnet, bei dem abgebildeten Haus handelt es sich um die Hausnummer 39. Ganz in der Nähe bin ich aufgewachsen und mir ist in Erinnerung geblieben, dass Wäscher da irgendwo lebte. Genaueres kann ich Dir leider nicht mitteilen. Vielleicht sollte das Foto auf Unnaerstr. 39 umbenannt warden, die Information zu Wäscher kann aus der Beschreibung entfernt werden. Es grüßt --Siegfried von Brilon (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke erstmal. Dass es das Ticket gibt, bezweifle ich nicht... nur, ob das Ticket eines Wagner-Erben auch Werke von Presber abdeckt. --тнояsтеn⇔20:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hab im falschen Ticket geschaut. :-) In der vorletzen email stehts: Uploader = Erbe von Harald Wagner und im Besitz der Urheberrechte. Das bringt uns mit den Passfotos nicht wirklich weiter. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ich kenne die Mails ja nicht. Ich war nur davon ausgegangen, dass der Erbe von Wagner (der Abgebildete) zwar im Besitz des Portaits ist, aber wohl nicht auch der Erbe von Adolf Presber (der Urheber; gest. 1997) ist. --тнояsтеn⇔05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ja und nein. Ich in meiner grenzenlosen Guete gehe davon aus, dass mit dem Portrait auch das (c) uebergeben wurde. Die beiden Herren waren befreundet (steht jedenfalls so im dewiki artikel) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kaganer: I can't find a list of donated photos in the ticket. Unfortunately my RU-language is pretty much 0 now. Could you please help me out and ask the uploader if a list exists or anything I can use to justify the OTRS-tag? Anything that specifies the files? Is there a discussion somewhere? I really need to get my ru to ru-1 at least. But when? Argh, otherwise I might have to transfer the ticket to a RU-N OTRS volunteer and have her/him write an email to Hmizgir. That would probably take a few days. Could you let me know? Thanks and sorry for the delay. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hm. I did not know that the ticket still open. I'll ask Rubin16, what he expects.
These three permissions are written using the same template and means following: "I, <author>, authorize User:Hmizgir to publication of reproductions of my works in the Internet (including Wikimedia Sites) under the license CC-BY-SA <and some others>...". There is no list of images since refers to any reproduction of any works by these authors. --Kaganer (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note - this permission is granted for publication is not anyone, and given to one particular person. This is analogous to the power of attorney or guarantee letter. In Russian it is called a "Доверенность". According to the permission, this person acts as an authorized representative of the author (not going beyond what is listed in the permission letter). This is not a notarised power of attorney, but it is sufficient for the purpose of confirming the intention of the author. --Kaganer (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: sorry for the late answer. I consulted with OTRS admins about such issues probably ~3-4 years ago and it's not easy to find direct proof of it... But the meaning was that such "open" tickets without particular list of works are quite acceptible in case the right to publish is given to particular person, the topic of the works is set, etc. It is, for example, similar to permission for the whole site example.com: though works published after the date of permission aren't directly covered by the already accepted OTRS ticket, we can accept them to avoid bureaucracy with the additional tickets for every new piece of content rubin16 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you've deleted this file, but the deletion was already done by User:Taivo and the file was restored due to an error because the request was to dlete only an old version of the file and not the one currently. Could you please restore it?Thank you in advance. Good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Unauthorized photos in Housatonic Area Regional Transit page (RE: Question)
The two photos that AceYuki (talk·contribs) for the Housatonic Area Regional Transit page and claim them as his own do not actually belong to him. Here's the links to the original photos in Paul Bateson's Flickr page:
Hi Hedwig, I was wondering if you could take another look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg. While it is correct that an image featuring Jim Morrison was published without a copyright notice in Billboard magazine and thus became public domain, the image at File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg is not that image. The image that was published without a notice is this image, which is a derivative, not a copy. Please see Carl Lindberg's delete vote for a more thorough explanation. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Both files had a derivative work (translation into English), which I added for deletion. Please decide something about these files. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain this closure? It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the discussion. The sign contains text, which is clearly exempted from FOP, and you made no comment about the text, only about the image which was never questioned. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
'Not copyrightable' under Swedish law means that someone else writing a sign about the same building would include approximately the same information - but the person who wrote the Swedish text chose to include slightly more information than the person who wrote the English text, showing that there is a choice of what information to include. That argument does not hold. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not true. What information to include is of course not a copyright question. The text could have had information about owners, color and more. As long as it is only a short, formless note it is not original enough to be protected. A great number of such notes can still be protected if they are considered a database. Edaen (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That's true. But it still isn't compilations of a great amount of information, or being the result of a considerable investment Not that I want to fight it, but on what do you base your opinion on? Do you speak/read Swedish? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What you are quoting sounds like Article 49 (database right). That was a right created in 1961 because it had been discovered in 1927 that a list of people and companies with addresses and professions didn't meet the threshold of originality (see NJA 1927 p. 357) but still needed copyright protection, and because a couple of other court rulings had resulted in similar outcomes. Databases were given a copyright protection of 10 years from publication (or 10 year from creation if not published within 10 years from creation), and the European Union later extended this to 15 years. This copyright term is mainly interesting for databases which do not meet the threshold of originality as databases which meet the threshold of originality get the full copyright term (70 years from the death of the author of the database). As an example of a database which meets the threshold of originality, there is the 'Number Bank' (Nummerbanken) which is a list of products and a seven-digit number for each product (see NJA 1995 p. 256), and the 'Iron Traders' Catalogue System' (Järnhandels katalogsystem), which apparently lists catalogues and identifies in which catalogue you can find certain products (see NJA 1948 p. 414). This sign is not a database, so Article 49 is completely irrelevant.
With respect to this sign, there's NJA 1913 p. 520 (short notices about various legal matters, not protected) and NJA 1946 p. 371 (food recipes, not protected) which maybe could be interesting, but I don't know how 'complex' those things were. It's necessary to go to a library to read about those very old court rulings and they are not available at all libraries. There is also the 'search engine case' (w:Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening) where the European Court of Justice ruled that short fragments of eleven words from various texts sometimes were sufficiently complex (but without giving any examples), with the effect that the search engine operator therefore needed to obtain permission from the authors of the search texts before presenting the search results. As an ECJ case, it is of relevance for all EU countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm very sorry we gave up on this. Should have asked some admin to get involved. I know Swedish and the law is being interpreted with bias in this case. This type of text is not covered by any copyright anywhere. You are perfectly right about that. Is there any way we can stop this kind of over-zealous deletion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I think that the way we are proceeding right now is very inefficient because you spend time on the file upload and I spend more time on correcting file descriptions. My main problem with these file deletions is that someone has to put a lot of effort into something purely technical and, let's be honest, relatively unimportant. Image transfer is a trivial bot task. I could easily write such a bot months ago, but there are two problems, one on the Commons side and one on the other side of this dichotomy.
On the Commons side: bot can't determine whether the file is deleted because there is no freedom of panorama, or FOP is simply mentioned in the deletion discussion. Consider also that some people write FOP, some people write "freedom of panorama", and there are people who have their completely own way of filing deletion requests. Not to mention that the deletion request may be about one file, which is placed in the section title, or about many files compiled in a list. Altogether, parsing deletion requests is not trivial. Doing it with the 100% efficiency is impossible at the moment, and we don't want mistakes on either side, because we don't want to transfer real copyvios, and we don't want to miss images.
On the Wikipedia side: two of the images that you uploaded do not belong to Russian Wikipedia because they were used in Ukranian Wikipedia and perhaps somewhere else but not on the Russian wiki. This problem could be easily rectified by checking the file usage log. However, there is a non-trivial part as well: the fair-use policy on Russian Wikipedia requires that the minimum number of non-free images should be used. I can't write a bot that will be smart enough to decide which files conform to this restriction and which not. Additionally, one has to write the fair use justification for each file. In Russian Wikivoyage, we merged this justification into the template because the justification is always the same. It may be more difficult in a bigger project like Wikipedia, and the community has to decide on how to do it.
I tried to raise these questions in Russian Wikipedia and on the Russian forum on Commons. The result on Commons was null. The lengthy discussion on Russian Wikipedia generated many different opinions but no immediate result. At the moment, I see no solution because I do not see enough people who are concerned and able to do something. Manual file transfer is not an option. I don't want to spend all my free time on that, and I am sure that you don't want either. My personal solution at the moment is to download files and file descriptions and store them offline. Of course, I quickly pre-select which images may be relevant to my work, and I only upload them to Russian Wikivoyage, which is my main project here (I am not related to Russian Wikipedia beyond the fact that I am a native Russian speaker).
What renders this problem particularly difficult is the very narrow 7-day time frame between the deletion request and file deletion. The different policies, practices, and opinions in different wikis are a serious problem too. In my opinion, the only viable and general solution is tagging non-FOP files instead of starting deletion requests. After a bunch of files is tagged, bot makes announcements in all wikis that use these files and invites people to share their opinions about organizing file transfer. When we know which templates should be used on each wiki, and whether a wiki accepts automatic image transfer at all, bot can transfer the files and they can be deleted from Commons. This will be a reasonable and transparent procedure that, of course, needs support and understanding here on Commons. --Alexander (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit of work. Your idea isn't bad. Problem is that too many people tag files and they all do it in a different way. I would volunteer to operate a transfer bot. I don't mind having to make small list, .txt comes to mind, that the bot could work on. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it has to be a template with at least one parameter, the country where FOP does not exist or is not applicable to the object in question. Then tagging becomes uniform. I see the main problem in re-directing people from filing deletion requests to the tagging process. The majority of these massive no-FOP-in-Russia deletions last month is simply an activity of one person who has no better thing to do and fails to hear any arguments. This has to be a rather general decision, basically a policy change, but I don't know who can effectively support and implement it. --Alexander (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but then you have very little chance to reach any local community on any wiki. When files are deleted so quickly and without proper notification, half of the community will just tell you that Commons people are destroying other projects and should burn in hell (which is what happened on Russian Wikipedia, of course). This is not a good start for a delicate discussion. --Alexander (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
For me the problem is not in following certain rules, but in the way how you do it ('you' means the Commons community in general). In my opinion, the current deletion scheme here is neither efficient nor considerate of other projects. This can be changed, but this requires cumulative effort from both sides. --Alexander (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Your deletions was not according procedure. NoFoP DRs must have category like Category:Ukrainian FOP cases/pending. Some users watch such categories. In some DRs which you deleted today there were no such categroy, and users did not see these requests in time, and cannot commented them. So, I'll restore file for one week more to give users possibility to discuss them.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahonc AFAIK, I don't think there is is actually a policy that requires that (though it is good, and common, practice). It would probably be worth explicitly stating it somewhere. Revent (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to categorize them so we can discuss them properly and maybe transfer them to a FU wiki, where applicable. Meaning, I won't oppose reinstating the DR's at all. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please undelete the file LOL_logo2_FNL.jpg
I have already submitted permission from the logo owner. Please see permission request [Ticket#2015062210013263] I can forward you the permission letter as well from logo owner.
The company is not a local veterinary clinic. They are all over the country, 40 states. Owners are award winning and speak nationally. Company has been covered in NY TIMES and Huffington Post (see references) This is not a business card repro.
--Sktpa (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to leave a ping; I left a comment on COM:UDEL regarding your kwangmo unblock. (tl;dr: I disagree with your action.) — regards, Revi05:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Me, and certainly me! has taken all those pictures you deleted because of copyright. I sed my own camera to take them! Im the webmaster of http://iamt.tums.ac.ir/ webpage which also includes this picture. How can I prove that I took this picture? can I send 100 other pictures of this event (from other camera viewpoints for example) to prove that these are all my pictures and I just choose the best one to be uploaded both on wikipedia and http://iamt.tums.ac.ir/? Or maybe I can change a tag on the webpage to ensure you that I am the webmaster of that webpage you cite as the source of this picture? Fowlia (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Not that I expect a comment, but since you had replied at AN/U to the original complaint (and totally correctly) I though I'd point out File_talk:DemoBIH2006a.png#request_for_comment, where I think I've sorted out a solution that will at least move the edit warring about 'versions' off of Commons to the local wikis where it's being used. I've poked a couple of other people on IRC that agreed it was reasonable, I really am just waiting to see if there are major objections brought up by the disputants (and to see if Siebrand has an issue, since it would involve undoing an action of his). Revent (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pong: I always try to reply. Sometimes I forget, even I am only human in the end. It seems that your approach is right on the money. I don't think there will be any major objections. Respect! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I recently contributed an article about actor Manuel Arvide and It seems that you deleted the pictures:
File: Manuel Arvide2.jpg
File: Manuel Arvide.jpg
File: Manuel Arvide3.jpg
File: Manuel Arvide actor.jpg
File: Manuel Arvide militar.jpg
The son of the actor, owner of the photographs, sent an email authorizing the use of them according to the model provided by Wikipedia to me and to permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org. I enclose a copy of the authorization could you please restore the pictures?Marjotsy (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC):
Por la presente declaro que yo Manuel Arvide Gracian soy el propietario de las fotografías de mi padre, subidas por el usuario Marjotsy (J. Margarita Otero Solloso) a Wikimedia Commons: Manuel_Arvide2.jpg, Manuel_Arvide_militar.jpg y Manuel Arvide3.jpg y Manuel_Arvide_actor.jpg, Manuel Arvide.jpg y que soy titular de los derechos de autor de las mismas, y consiento en publicar dichas fotografías bajo la licencia CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar este contenido en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos morales sobre el contenido, es decir, el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para estas fotografías.
Soy consciente de que la licencia libre sólo afecta a los derechos de explotación (reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y transformación), y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas.
Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que el contenido puede o no ser almacenado permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.
File:Clerk Saunders, 1857-5348297183.jpg free yes or no?
Hi Hedwig, from your recent post on my discussion page I conclude that you are a bit of a copyright specialist on Commons. I have a question for you: a few days ago I uploaded this file from flickr: Clerk Saunders, 1857-5348297183.jpg. The flickr license was ok, but according to the metadata of the file the picture is copyrighted (I thought this was about the text under the picture). However, the artist has been dead for over 70 years (1862) and it is a two-dimensional picture of a two-dimensional work. Can this file remain on Commons or not? --Judithcomm (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Headwig ! Trying to send you SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT legal verification info so as to un-edit our Platinum Blonde Band photos (2) that I hope are attached here at member (ChrisSteffler). May I make a $100USD donation in your name to wikipedia for your help in re-posting our unjustly deleted images? Can you direct me as to where I can send our letter with signatures attachment from SONY's vice president of legal affairs to "OTRS" as we can not make our way through this labyrinth of bureaucracy even with IT help.
Hello Hedwig in Washington, was ist denn hier wieder schief gelaufen (also nicht nur dass es keinen DR-Seite gibt sondern alle Einbindungen anscheinend noch existieren)? Und wie kann man das jetzt am besten beheben? Grüße ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)05:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ich habe das script jetzt nicht benutzt, sondern zu Fuss geloescht und die Einbindungen mit AWB aus den Dateien entfernt. Die anderen Einbindungen erledige ich schnell von Hand. Normalerweise ist das Script sehr gut und zuverlaessig. Keine Ahnung warum da was geklemmt hat. Moeglicherweise durch all die Loesch- und Wiederherstellungsantraege. Immer erst die Software beschuldigen. . LG --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As you closed the Undeletion Request I made regarding this essay, I thought I'd ask you first. Would you be willing to temporarily undelete it so I can move it to a user subpage of mine on Meta (where I agree it would be more appropriate than on Commons, as it's not specific to Commons or images). Thank you. JesseW (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Hedwig, I see you followed up on my speedy deletion nominations of several files by Nuevosaires. You are fast! Two things: 1.) I just looked through my own "Contributions" list and I do not see my own nominations of these files for speedy deletion— I found this very strange. Usually each nomination I make shows up as a record, even of a file that is eventually deleted, in my list of contributions, but not this time for these files. Do you know why this might be the case? 2.) I see you marked the user's talk page with a "last warning" template for copyright violations. I doubt the account will ever be used again for anything anyway, butI wanted to ask if this rather harsh level of warning might not have been a bit strong-armed, given that all of these images were the user's first contributions to Commons and that, as far as I can tell, he/ she had never been formally warned before about their unsuitability (but maybe there is a sockpuppet involved or something else I do not know about— or maybe some previous files had been deleted and, like my own contributions page, had not created a record of being deleted). I am asking for my own edification, not to doubt your actions: if I am ever an admin myself someday I want to be able to explain placing such a "last time" warning on a user's talk page that never appears to have had a "first time" warning. Can you help me out with this? Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Sure can do. 1) It is in the log: [52]. 2) Well, yes and no. <- Good ey? I could have given a first warning, sure. But from the feel of it I thought it's a one-time account uploading some images found somewhere. Sometimes those come back with a vengeance and reuploading the same stuff or even new copyvios.
So, the final warning is in, nobody can say blocked outside proper procedure. Summing up: Some things just go be gut-feeling, comes after some time using the admin-buttons automatically. I guess it is some kind of profiling as well. Not by race, rather by theme of upload. E.g. one actor photo -> deleted, forget about it. A whole bunch, warning if first time or block if second(+) or a lot of uploads. A lot is measured by gut again. Wow, „self analysis complete. Functioning within established parameters.“ --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Excellent! I added the source, license, and archived the website via wayback machine. Maybe you could some more categories? Birth year/place, political party, and and and... Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)08:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, this specific logo seems bellow the COM:TOO, considering the Communist emblem consist just in common forms.
I suggets to be more careful when tagging for speedy in mass, some false positives would appear like this (specially if is tagged with {{PD-Textlogo}}); in these cases, I think is better a DR (unless the logo is too complex). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
مرحبا،انا لم أقصد إنتهاك حقوق الطبع هنا انا فقط كنت اريد تحميل صور لاستعمالها بمقالات بويكيبيديا ولكن للاسف كل مرفوعاتي يتم حذفها. Los phino (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded some old images and I have licensed them as well but I'm not sure that Wikimedia accepts them or not. These images are very important for Kurdish people history and in order to use them on wikipedia. Can you please take a look at them and tell me if I have done it the right way or not? because I want to upload many images from the same source which is (The Foundation For Kurdish Library & Museum) and all of these images's copyrights have expired that is why I'm free to upload them. Please inform me about them, Thanks. --Diyar Muhammed (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I changed the infoboxes and the licenses a little bit, please have a look. The photo of Cigerxwin from 1975 can't be 70 years old, can it? You have to be more careful with the licenses, if the photo isn't taken 70 years ago, you can't claim it is. Same with photographers: If the photographer is unknown, you can't say he died 50 or 70 years ago. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The archived discussion with "per nom and Jim" occurs on Commons:Deletion_requests/2015/07/17 at least three times. Please fix this since my hardware can barely load that page and editing it is a distant dream. The first four batches are under identical subtitles and located on a subpage with the same title. Subtitles should have differences if only to check if they're transcluded too many times on the daily rfd page. --Pitke (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Undelete request for file Michelle Beautiful Picture.jpg
As a matter of fact, that photo was not ever shown on Michelle Chen's FB pages, at least not on the pages open to the public. My opinion of this fact is that the description of "FB" as a source was just a casual mindless mistake. Maybe the uploader should have specified it as "own work" or other types of description. This could result from a lack of skills in using computers. If that photo was an original work, and it was uploaded to be a free content on commons, the technical mistake should not have been used to disqualify it. The author/copyright holder of that photo was specified as Michelle Chen when it was uploaded. I assumed that claim is a true claim. JW19335762743 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Fact is, the source given was Facebook and FB is not a valid source. There's no compatible license associated with this image. The uploader has to proof that free license exists, author named or not. The only way to undelete this image is to contact the author and ask for permission. See OTRS for information/instruction. Sorry --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't expect a reply either. The tag is in there so the next time there's a copyvio any other admin can see that they already got a last warning. That's all. Thanks for the link, it's an interesting read. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington. Dein zweiter Satz ist (im dortigen Zusammenhang) schlicht falsch: Rastergrafiken werden nicht per se gelöscht, falls eine SVG-Grafik vorhanden ist. In einem DR ist dies jedoch kein Argument mehr, dort wird der individuelle Fall berücksichtigt. Wie auch für Nicht-Chemiker unschwer zu erkennen ist, handelt es sich beim obigen Fall zudem nicht um eine Vektorisierung, sondern um eine Neuzeichnung. Übrigens: Schau dir mal die JPG-Grafik (bei welcher zudem der DR-Baustein noch enthalten ist) in voller Auflösung an. --Leyo16:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Moin Leyo! Ja, selbst ich kann das sehen. Die Datei ist grauenhaft eben in halber Aufloesung. Ich hab gestern mal nach einem Ersatz im jpg Format gesucht, ohne Erfolg soweit. DR-Baustein ist raus. Ich versuche heute nochmal Ersatz zu finden und melde mich bei Dir. LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Danke für deine Antwort! Inhaltlich verstehe ich sie aber nicht, sorry. Du willst doch nicht ernsthaft behaupten, es sei sinnvoll, aus einer Vektorgrafik eine Rastergrafik mit JPG-Kompressionsartefakten zu machen? Dies trifft auch für die PNG-Grafik zu, auch wenn dort „nur“ die fehlende Skalierbarkeit da ist. Als unnötige Duplikate sind beide schnelllöschfähig. --Leyo20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you already blocked User:Zij4 for copyvio. I think that same person appeared as User:Zizo6789, according to his/her recent uploads. Please check if you can.--C3r4 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No, they didn't upload the same image, but both uploading files w/o permission (I guessed that it could be the same person 'cause user:Zij4 used file(s) uploaded by user:Zizo6789 in articles on bs.wiki). It's up to you what to do with him/her.--C3r4 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, MGBiblio hat bezüglich seiner Uploads von Bildern des Malers Willy Fries mindestens zwei Emails an permissions-de geschickt. Kannst Du bitte mal nachsehen, ob das alles zusammenpasst, und die Lizenzen ggf. bestätigen? Gruß, De728631 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Done OTRS Ticket 2015070410007034 hat allerdings nur diese 5 Bilder in der Freigabe:
Vielen Dank für's überprüfen. Sofern sie nicht irgendwann in den USA registriert wurden, sind alle bis auf ein Bild von Righini jetzt gemeinfrei und auch dementsprechend gekennzeichnet. Ich gehe auch davon aus, dass hier PD-1923 greift (zeitnahe Veröffentlichung in der Schweiz, keine Einträge in den USA nach 1978 [53]).
File:Nacht in Bellinzona.JPG ist allerdings ein Problem. Es wurde 1932 angefertigt und war also 1996 noch nicht gemeinfrei. Hier hat das URAA zugeschlagen und das Bild wird frühestens 2028 in den USA freigegeben. Die einzige Chance sehe ich hier, wenn diese Zürcher Stiftung auch die Rechte an dem Bild erworben hat und es entsprechend freigibt. Wenn man es ganz genau nimmt, müsste man auch für File:Selbstbildnis im Atelier.jpg noch eine Lizenz des Fotografen verlangen, weil da ein bisschen von dem Bilderrahmen zu sehen ist. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Wie gesagt, nur die o.g. Dateien wurden genannt. Den Rest muss der Uploader ggf. nachholen. Willst Du Ihm das verklickern? Und das es keinen Sinn macht taeglich eine email an OTRS zu schicken? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig in Washington, this uploaded PDF is a promotional, self-published product brochure to popularize a specific dental treatment. Per Commons:Scope: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: ... Advertising or self-promotion.". Could you clarify please, why this file has been uploaded, and should I just nominate it for deletion again? It has already been deleted once. Thanks for any information you can provide (I understand of course, that specific OTRS-ticket details can not be shared - no problem). GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure can do. The deletion wasn't done because of scope (or lack of) but no permission. IMHO the file is in scope, fitting the criteria of being educational. The whole thing comes from the University of Dundee, not from a local dentist. If you think it's out of scope, feel free to start a DR. Have a great week! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hedwig in Washington! I've added information about the source of the map. I'd thank if you could give me back a feedback about it, concerning to if the information is enough or not and, in this case, what further information shall be added. Thanks a lot for your attention. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
You apparently deleted - without notice - the photograph of the Teddy Rasson article. Did you properly consider my response to the deletion request, and what were your conclusions, and motives for deletion?
Hello,
This concerns your deletion earlier this month (on the 4th I believe), following a request by user steinsplitter, of the photograph in the Teddy Rasson articleTeddy Rasson. This was done without notice, and I have no indication that proper consideration was given to the lengthy arguments I gave in response to the deletion request. Is this normal Wikipedia procedure? What is your expertise on copyright rules? It took effort to build my article, and later defend it against Mr. steinsplitter's initiatives, and it is, I believe, legitimate to expect equal effort in justifying decisions that challenge my work. I intend to get to the bottom of this matter. Looking forward to your comments.
--Urrr10 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
We on Commons are only a media repository, we have little to do with the other projects.I absolutely believe that you put a lot of effort into your article, but your blood, sweat, and tears have nothing to do with the copyright. Further: proper notice was given that the file is under investigation for copyright violation. If you still think the deletion was unjust, you can do two things: 1) Request an undelete review. Given the evidence so far I see not much chance of success. 2) Give me some more information: How did you obtain the photograph? When exactly was the photograph created? Who is the photographer, where did this person create the photo, and last but not least, what nationality is the photographer? Let me know which way you would like to go. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I need to stress again, as I wrote in my response to the deletion request, that the information given by user "steinsplitter" was not clear at all, that he proved unable to communicate in proper English, much less French, that his behavior bordered on hostility, and that he made no effort whatsoever to clarify his request, using half-sentences and cryptic jargon that may have been understandable to someone accustomed to Wikipedia parlance, but not to a regular user.
I wasn't aware of the "(c) Monique Rasson" stamp. Well you might be interested to know that she is Teddy Rasson's daughter. Monique Rasson is my mother. I am Teddy Rasson's grandson. After her divorce my mother took back her maiden name. There should be a number of genealogy sites enabling verification of this, if necessary (i.e. in case you ask, am I really who I say I am?) I can provide a link.
There had been considerable interest in the life and actions of my grandfather and commemorations to honor him in Alsace in the past few years up to the 70th Anniversary of the Armistice in May this year, and I helped my mother and local actors a good deal with research and other things, including on the Internet, which my mother could not do. The picture has been in my grandmother's papers since 1944. As stated in so many words in the description, it was taken at the Liberation of Paris, Place St-Michel, on August 24, 1944. Quite obviously, the author - anonymous - was French, and "created" the photograph in Paris. This should be self-explanatory, provided one can read French - hence the perils of attempting to censor articles in languages one doesn't understand; steinsplitter went so far as stating the photo's description was not clear: the description specifies who, where and when and could not be clearer, unless of course you don't know French. Which, as you will certainly agree, is anything but professional. At the same time, big words are brandished such as "under investigation for copyright violation". Proper notice may have been given about that fact, but it does not seem like anybody bothered to read my lengthy response to that notice.
How did we come into possession of the photograph? Quite simply, the anonymous author, a Parisian who had come to greet Leclerc's soldiers at the Liberation, sent the photograph at my grandparents' address at the time (given to him by my grandfather) once the picture had been processed. It has been in the family ever since, and that's all there is to it. Finally, the photograph was published previously in the periodical Pays d'Alsace, issue N° 239, May 2012, referenced in the Wikipedia article. For your reference, large sections of the Pays d'Alsace article, including the contentious picture, are reproduced with permission at http://2db.forumactif.com/t1283-capitaine-teddy-rasson-dit-robert-trevoux.
Considering the above it is my sincere hope that you will positively consider restoring the picture. I remain at your disposal should you require additional information.
Sincerely,
We are having several problems right now. The author is unknown, but still retains the copyright for 70 years after first(!) publication. First publication in 2012 (still under copyright!) + 70 years = protected until the end of 2082. The 25 year protection for posthumous works is not valid because we don't know if / when the author died. We can't claim no author disclosure according to EU law either, since the image hasn't been published more than 70 years ago. Last, and in this case least: The photograph wasn't in the public domain in France on the URAA date (1.1.1996), therefore it is not free according to United States copyright law. We on Commons have to abide to the local AND the US copyright laws (the servers are in the US)
Two things you can do:
Dig a little and find an earlier publication date that might enable us to restore the file earlier.
You can upload this photograph on certain wikis that allow fair use. Here is a list that should be pretty much up to date: Fair use wikis Unfortunately the French wiki doesn't allow this kind of photographs, but the English one does.
@Urrr10: We have a solution: Since neither you or anybody else in your family is the true copyright holder, the 2012 publication is not a legal publication and can't be applied. In 2012 the photo was still under copyright. Therefore the copyright of this photograph expired 2014 (1944+70). See, you've been tooooo honest! URAA doesn't apply either, since, technically, it wasn't published. I'll restore the photo and make the necessary changes. Thanks for a great addition to the collection! Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah I don't know what to say!!! Thank you so much, it means a lot to me. Yes I'd waited for the +70 deadline to accommodate the very cautious Wikipedia rules - in all likelihood, the author has passed away, or would be over 100. Sorry I was a little abrasive and congrats on a good job. So as I understand the Wikimedia Commons status is secure now, no chance somebody else will request a removal? --Urrr10 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
We all get abrasive from time to time. No harm done. Yes, the image on Commons is secure but anyone still can request deletion if they wish to do so. But since it is 70 years old, there's little chance that it will go through. The only trap I see is that someone claims that her/his relative took the picture and died for France afterwards. That would make a mess, see w:fr:Mort_pour_la_France. For the time being, I sleep soundly at night, knowing we covered everything we can very thoroughly. BTW: A translation for the English or German Wikipedia would be nice. hint, hint... --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, an English translation has been on my mind for a long time and I will get around to it eventually, but unfortunately I'm helpless with the German language. "Mort pour la France" I believe generally applies to war combatant victims so unless the anonymous photographer (most likely not a military photographer) went on to enlist and fight for the remainder of the war or in Indochina, Algeria or on one of the other colonial theaters I think we're pretty safe on that front... --Urrr10 (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You deleted this morning the following 7 pictures that I placed on Wikimedia Commons :
Vins Margnat-1950.jpg
Vins Margnat-1952.jpg
Vins margnat -1965.jpg
Vins Margnat - 1965.jpg
Vins Margnat - 1952.jpg
Vins margnat - 1950.jpg
Vins rémillons - 1947.jpg
Each picture shows an old advertisement on "Vin MARGNAT", a wine which has been distributed in France from 1900 to 1980. These advertisements have been designed by a wine distribution Company owned and runned by the MARGNAT family. Today the MARGNAT family owns the "Vin MARGNAT" registered trademark. Does this property gives right to the MARGNAT Family, to use these pictures, even though they have been found on Google Images ? The answer seems obviously to be "yes". Can you confirm and tell me which type of licence to use in Wikimedia Commons ?
Thank you in advance for your help (I have been appointed by the MARGNAT Family to write an article in Wikipedia on the MARGNAT wine distribution Company. Therefore I need to place the pictures in the article).
--Bécassin (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There's a thing you need to do. The copyright owner needs to send us permission. You can find the instructions here: OTRS. And no, it is not that obvious. Using an ad doesn't automatically give the company the copyright of the artwork. One license combination you can/they can use is: {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and {{GFDL}}. As soon as they send an email to OTRS they'll get an automated response with a ticket number. If you like you can post the number here and I'll process the ticket asap. Sound good? Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! As about Cheboksarova image, I simply took it from ruwiki. If you think this is a copyright problem, please delete. I am not sure about that one. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
He has sent me this permission today. Please email me at bekhruzbekochilov@yahoo.com, I will forward you his message, then you can restore these photos, because now they are under a free license. Thank you in advance! --Ochilov(diskuto)15:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
I can wait, but I don't have to. Clear copyright violations can be (and usually will be) deleted on sight. We are deleting between 1,000 and 1,500 files a day - no way to contact that many people, sorry. Nothing personal, *hit happens. And please: Don't use CC-4.0 when the file is ARR or CC 2.0 or whatever. How are we supposed to know? Now the fun part: OK, files is restored, could you do me a favor and check if you can add some info? Photo taken in Category:Villena? Anything about the festival? Thanks for your upload! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! You deleted my photos yesterday about Alpàa voice. It is old photo made by my father that i scan last week. The license is free because it is my and only my work! Can you reload these photos please? Thank you!
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Well, you contradict yourself. A photo made by your father can't be your own work, can it? Which photo are you exactly talking about? There are 9 deleted files. Let me know and then we can work on a solution together. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me for my bad english, i wrote by phone yesterday. The files are:
These are old photos made in 1970s and 1980s years by my father. Last week i found these and i scanned to upload to attach Alpàa voice. I didn't stole copyright about these photos because these are family memories. I hope i was clear now. I wait your response. Thank you! --AAE86 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, your English is much better than my Italian! I have to ask you one more thing: Is your father still alive? Then he is the copyright owner and only he can release the photos. Or in the sad case that your father passed on, did you inherit the photographs? Either way, one of you needs to send an email with permission. See instructions here: Com:OTRS/it. Thanks for your work here and on itwiki. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I undestand! Can you give me your e-mail please? My father will send you "release?" (in italian "liberatoria") about these photos. Thank you, bests regards! 95.232.69.21712:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)AAE86
Perfect, my father sent e-mail as you tell me. I hope that solve this problem. I wait your response, bests! AAE86 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)AAE86
Ok, the ticket number is ticket:2015080110011274, my father found this on subuject mail. I hope that it is correctly! The two maps made my father around 30 years ago! Now as i will find the photos that you have deleted? Thank you for your availability!AAE86 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)AAE86
Hi Hedwig - should these be restored and just closed regularly? Almost all (>95%) files you nominated were, in fact deleted... now will the deletion log reference a redlinked DR? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
[[::File:20040220서울특별시 대테러대비 관계관 회의 DSC 0014.JPG]] per scope, unidentifiable people.
The DR log might show a red link, I don't think that's a big problem since nothing happend there. I started the DRs in order to have a records, but except for Fae nobody cared to have a look because the lists are just endless. If you like, I can restore the DRs and close them as withdrawn. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I generally think a record is good, especially for non-copyright related deletions. And it is likely that many more people care and read than necessarily comment. But either way, it's not a huge deal... Best regards, Storkk (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, could you protect File:Untitled.PNG? You protected it against creation last month at my request, but when you created it a few days later, the protection stopped working. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, vous avez supprimé l'illustration ci-dessus désignée. Sans doute parce que, lors de sa création, je ne me suis pas retrouvé dans l'extravagante quantité d'autorisations à signaler et que j'ai en conséquence mal rempli la fiche de cette illustration. Il s'agit d'une gravure - anglaise sans doute - datant de 1850-1860 ({{PD-UK-unknown}}?), dont j'ai effectué moi-même une reproduction photographique ({{tl|PD-user|PODZO DI BORGO}}?). J'essaie de recréer ce fichier, mais l'ancien (supprimé par vos soins) m'empêche de le faire. Comment s'en sortir? Que, quoi, comment faire, et où?! Si vous me répondez et m'indiquez comment procéder, je vous en remercie d'avance. Sinon, je laisserais tomber, au détriment de Commons et de Wikipedia France pour lequel est destiné ce fichier. Cordialement.--PODZO DI BORGO (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Il existe plusieurs problèmes:
Comment déterminez-vous l'âge de l'original? Si il est 1860, elle est certainement domaine public.
Aucune licence a été utilisé, voir le message sur votre page de discussion.
PD-UK est pas valable si vous ne connaissez pas le pays d'origine.
Le tirage original en votre possession? S'il vous plaît vérifier l'arrière pour toutes les marques ou écrit.
Hello. Too much business for that. I take another picture from WikimediaCommons for the french page about Eadweard Muybridge. Thank you.Bye.--PODZO DI BORGO (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Easy! On this talk page you either be polite or you'll be thrown out. You have enuf edits on fiwiki to know how to behave. Clear enough? Regarding the file: If there is an email in the OTRS queue, and if everything checks out, the file will be restored. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I get photos from authors and copyright holders to upload on wikipedia, please tell me the right process to upload them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr shida (talk • contribs)
Hello! You need explicit permission from the copyright holder in order to upload here. The owner of the copyright has to agree according to Commons requirements. Have a look at Com:L for licensing, Com:Scope for project scope, and OTRS on how to permissions work. If you need further help you can always ask me or at the village pump Com:VP. One example of: www.teacupgin.com states all rights reserved, you uploaded and stated a Creative Commons license. Writing in the description that you have permission doesn't mean anything. John Klonowski, who might be the copyright holder, didn't give Commons permission. How can we know that you are telling the truth? NOT saying you don't, ok?!! To wrap it up: If it is not yours, don't upload without having the owner of the copyright send permission to OTRS. Hope it helps, otherwise fire away with questions! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
About the fossil Aegirocassis_benmoulae : file deleted [54]
Hi ! I had created this drawing and you said it's not free. Conclusion : I'm no more free to draw fossils and prehistoric reconstitutions ? Generally the scientific drawings, mine like all other's scientific illustrators, is necessarly inspired from the more recent drawings, photos or schemes in many other sources : if not, we go to the fantastic worlds of the dragons and clangons. We can't much modify the fossils or the reconstituted species, if not, we move away from what demanding the scientists... I have believed than my redesigned Aegirocassis benmoulae belongs to me, newest artist, and the succesive future versions will belong later, to the next designers, inspired by my drawing. I have believed than this wasn't plagiarism because my new design is something else that a copy of the previous. I was wrong, because my drawing have imited and follow photographies of the fossil, made by other persons... too bad, henceforth Aegirocassis_benmoulae will have no more illustration on Commons. Excuse my rocky english. Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem that user Funkmonk identified is this: You created a collage without stating the source of every single piece you used. The photos and the drawing are different elements that need to be properly sourced. Please have a peek at Com:DW for a little more info. Let me know where the single elements came from and I'll be happy to restore the file. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
OOPS, just found the original: [55] It is not only NOT yours, it is also marked as Creative Commons NON-DERAVITE. We can't host a) a copyright violation and/or b) non-derivative licensed items. Please have a look at Com:L --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't get why people just tag those file instead of cleaning them up. Sorry, this one I missed while doing a mass deletion of files without source. Thanks for the info! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Cancellazione immagine luigi gioli cavalli in bocca d'Arno
Buonasera, con spiacevole notizia ho riscontrato la cancellazione del file di Luigi giovi, Cavalli in bocca d'Arno.jpg, da me caricato. avevo inviato una E-Mail come permesso per poter ottenere autorizzazione OTRS. perché è stato cancellato prima di ottenere detta autorizzazione? quale tipo di licenza e autorizzazione dovrei richiedere? per cortesia gradirei una risposta per dare un senso al lavoro che sto facendo, dedicando molto del mio tempo. grazie
Lorenzo Pacini — Preceding unsigned comment added by LORENZOpacini (talk • contribs) 13. Aug. 2015, 14:09 (UTC)
Done Restored and ticket# added. Please have a little patience with us, the Italian OTRS team is doing what they can as fast as they can. Sometimes it is not fast enough. Thanks for all your uploads! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
a) First one: license according to OTRS ticket added. Sorry, my bad.
b) Second painting: Has a license - template w/o license. I added the CC license to the template according to the website, no license given in OTRS ticket A little oversight there. (CC mentioned, tho) I archived the webpage from artgate stating the CC-by-sa-3.0 unported license: [56]
And thank you for the followup regarding the use of the 1803 Gilbert Stuart portrait of Samuel Miles.
I have included the Washington DC National Gallery of Art website and copied the
fair use commentary which I hope will be of value in your making a decision.
I will continue to monitor my email and follow-up - straight away - with any additional information, should it be required.
OPEN ACCESS POLICY FOR IMAGES OF WORKS OF ART PRESUMED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
With the launch of NGA Images, the National Gallery of Art implements an open access policy for digital images of works of art that the Gallery believes to be in the public domain. Images of these works are now available free of charge for any use, commercial or non-commercial. Users do not need to contact the Gallery for authorization to use these images. They are available for download at the NGA Images website (images.nga.gov). See Policy Details below for specific instructions and notes for users.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 10boniface (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13. Aug. 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your file got caught in an automated deletion process after you've been informed a week ago that some essential information is missing. In your case two thingsa have been missing: A verifiable source (web link to image @ nga.gov AND a license. Next time please seek help at the village pump -> Com:VP, there are always people available to help out. BTW: Fair use is not permitted on Commons, that's a potential trap you might fall into at some time. . 'nuf said, I restore the file and add the proper license. Thanks for all your work! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Please reload the photos you erased from this page immediately. They were handed to me by the original photographer for this purpose and your deletion is therefore unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliePlan (talk • contribs) 15. Aug. 2015 (UTC)
Why are you claiming own work on photographs you didn't create?? Anyway, have the photographer sent permission to OTRS from an official email address .hotmail,gmail, etc don't cut it. If everything checks out OK, we'll restore the files. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You are excused. Well, the file got tagged, rightfully so, as missing essential information. After a week without change the file can be deleted. It just got into a big bucket of stuff to be deleted and the only two notifications you'll get is the initial tagging for missing info and the final deletion. Sorry mate, we delete ca. 1,000-1,500 files a day, there's just no way to ask again. Usually those files are copyright violations anyhow, hence they get deleted. That's enuf on how things work.
I assume you talk about the signature? Yeah, shouldn't have been tagged in the first place. You should have gotten a request on your talk page to come up with a source or replacement. Technically you did, but .... Well. I try to get a source or replacement for this. I'll get back to you asap. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Danke, dass Du das Bild auf enwiki hochgeladen hast. Allerdings brauchen wir dort keine fair use rationale. Template:FoP-USonly erklärt warum. Für diese Liste der Leuchttürme in Island hätte man sowieso kein unfreies Bild nehmen dürfen. Das ist nur bei Volltextartikeln erlaubt. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington, Gerhard Mester hat von mester-kari@gmx.de noch einmal eine Mail mit dem Betreff: "Ticket 2015081610002845" an permissions.commons@wikimedia.org gesendet:
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. August 2015 um 22:43 Uhr
> Von: "Gerhard Mester" <mester-kari@gmx.de>
> An: permissions.commons@wikimedia.org
Ich habe keine persönliche Webseite von Gerhard Mester gefunden. Folgende Links sollten zeigen, dass mester-kari@gmx.de, die offizielle Mail-Adresse von ihm ist:
echt komisch: Könnte es sein, dass GMX-Mails als SPAM verworfen werden? (schau' bitte mal in Deine Mailbox.) Danke --Molgreen (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Alles moeglich. Ich habe Herrn Mester direkt aus dem System angeschrieben, Kopie an Dich. Wenn das nicht klappt, muss Herr Mester die Genehmigung in Stein meisseln und per Spedition schicken. . --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington, zumindest bei mir ist die Mail angekommen. Ich hoffe, er antwortet und die Mail kommt auch an . . .
Mal Spass bei Seite: nicht in Stein, aber auf Papier: gaebe es einen Kanal/Weg per Post?
Snail mail? Ich glaube Du kannst das ueber die Chapter erledigen, oder nach San Francisco mailen . Macht aber wenig Sinn. Besser einscannen und als Anlage senden. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ich kann es auch noch nicht glauben . . . Herzlichen Dank! Das war mein bisher spannenster und kompliziertester Wikpedia/Wikimedia-"Fall". Hab' Dir einen Orden verliehen und hoffe, dass es Dir rcht ist --Molgreen (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that the google text is not free and not the claim of Google. File of the user that nominate the files was deleted See her, and that was the reason he nominated the file. -- Geagea (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Some users choose to create confusing licenses. As long as there's one free license you can add whatever you like as a second or third. It makes it very difficult for other projects to reuse those, mostly unusable for commercial use. That's how you circumnavigate the project scope of free media and promote your own little agenda. Does it make sense to allow that here: No comment, this user is probably still sore from losing one of his other incompatible licenses to a deletion request. ..... --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig: Could you help me understand why all the Paintings from the Met (and a few from other museums) are in Category:Media without a source as of 10 August 2015? I looked at the uploader's total work; he has a lot of images and these were obviously taken on a trip to New York (and possibly other trips). The images are all old enough, they have meta data. It's entirely possible he took them in the Museum. I feel like I'm missing something because I know you are a very careful nominator. So clue me in, please... what am I missing? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Those paintings are not own work, that's why I tagged them. The photos taken with the Coolpix cam (made around the same time) may actually be ok. Others probably not. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I went through all of them. If we had a better image, and the file was not in use, I put it for duplicate at DN. If we didn't have a better image and I was able to find the creator, I modded the templates to show the creator's name and also the date of painting. If I couldn't find anything at all about the image, I nominated it for deletion. You might send me an industrial strength baklava and 2 cups of tea because that was 53 images!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Much obliged! After reading your post I thought I go ahead and have a peek in depth. Than RL happened. Sorry Ellin! I don't think a baklava would cut it, tho..... THANKS SO MUCH! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig in Washington, on 17 August, I believe you deleted this file of mine (local deletion log) as well as several other files of mine, all of which have OTRS permission ticket numbers. I'm only figuring this out as I go along (and thank you for your patience). However, in the instance of this file, I have provided the wiki permissions Ticket Number on the talk page, after you deleted it. Could you help me figure out how to get the file (and the other files you deleted) restored? Thanks in advance. WriterFly (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Update:
I just realized how to find all the deleted files... here they are:
It would be great if it were possible to restore these-- please let me know if you need something else from me- thank you! WriterFly (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! We need to wait for the peeps who work on the enwiki-queue. I have no permission to work there. But I checked the first ticket and I see trouble ahead. Very likely the ticket will be declined as it is right now, since the permission is not an original, but cc'ed from your email-account. And why/how Peter Sklar is the photograph and the subject of the photographs isn't quite clear either. There's definitely a problem with naming the author. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The rules clearly state that either the owner can provide an email directly, or that I can forward an email from the owner- I was following these rules precisely, no? Regarding your second question, I didn't realize that I couldn't name the author- I don't mind changing the name of the photo if need be. Finally, how do I initiate this process that needs to take time with enwiki-queue? Thank you. WriterFly (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of such rule. You can certainly try to shortcut and just use your email-address. But it is more likely than not that the ticket will not be processed. The file-name doesn't matter, we need to have the author of the photograph.
Summing it up:
Peter Skalr needs to send permission for the photographs he took himself or have been work-for-hire with the name of the photographer.
All other photographs need to have separate permissions from the photographers.
Can you please go back to www.jeffdanna.com to see the newly added copyright license? I am in direct contact with Mr. Danna's website designer and I'm sure you will find the photographer's copyright info along with proper attribution. I appreciate you looking into this matter and undeleting the original upload. Thanks! Brooksball86 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit puzzled by the deletion and redirect of File:The Scottish Women's Hospital - in the Cloister of the Abbaye at Royaumont. Dr. Frances Ivens inspecting a French patient. Art.IWMART3090.jpg(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The IWM and Google Art versions appear to be different archive quality photographs of the same painting—in this case very similar but the bed blankets appear to be different saturated reds to my eye, though I have not run a digital comparison. In past comparisons of Google Art's photographs with other archive material, or seeing the work in person, I have found the GA photos to be bright and slightly oddly saturated compared to the same painting seen under ordinary daylight. Could you take a look at this again?
My understanding of our shared best practice is that if we have multiple photographs or scans of a painting then we keep those alternatives where there is some possible value to be had for future research/education. The same painting taken with various different lighting and digitization techniques will have value in that variation.
BTW, I have only looked at the painting on the IWM site as it exists today (a zoomify copy), I have no idea about the resolution of the original as I have no access to deleted material. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are different, possibly Google Art has normalized the colours of the same photo or the IWM has done something odd. You can tell by flicking between them and comparing the saturation of red of the blankets or the brown stone colour of the arches. As a tangent, since I uploaded the original IWM image in March 2014, the IWM have stuck ghastly distracting watermarks on all downloadable images, this is a good reason to be cautious about removing our old copies of IWM material even if their resolution is not great. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they were closer than they currently appear, the original differences might just have been compression oddities. The current more visible differences are probably due to there being 4 images on the IWM site (confusingly for us, these are all found via the same source link), which have different crops and lighting. One of these was used by Google Art, and a different one I have now uploaded. It's late, I'll see if it is worth revisiting this example (though I might not have time before my holiday break). --Fæ (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. While up in the night, I had a look and created IWM alternate above. This is nearly twice the resolution of the Google Art version (making it realistic to study brush-stroke detail), and is different again to the previous two. It appears to be taken to deliberately avoid pin-point light reflections, possibly using a very large ring diffuser? The result is more saturated than the IWM original and avoids the dusty look that pin-points give the photograph. --Fæ (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In sechs Fällen hat "Hedwig in Washington" dafür gesorgt, dass zwischenzeitlich gelöschte Karikaturen nach über 5 Wochen aufwendiger Kommunikation, endlich die OTRS-Freigabe erhalten konnten. Vielen Dank dafür. Molgreen (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You have processed FoP cases in Georgia as speedy. At least this file qulify, in my opinion, as De-minimis case, but ther was no proper DR that I can comment. So please make a proper DR for the cases thet others may consider them as de-minimis. Also we are adding this DR's to Category:Georgian FOP cases/deleted for the ti,e that they may restored. -- Geagea (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that you have nominated many of my files for deletion and may be you are right that I made a mistake to give the proper license to these files, because most of my contributions are in Wikipedia project and I rarely use Wikimedia Commons so could you just help me to give the correct ones, because it really took me a long time to finish them and many of topics in wikipedia using these files and they make a valuable addition to them, and I will be grateful. here are some of the files,
_ File:مخطط مدائن صالح.png this file I entirely did it by myself (from this source, base on the images here and here), and I have write the source in the native language (Arabic) and you can check it.
Thank you. I really appreciate what you did, but I don't know why the file (File:مخطط مدائن صالح.png) still marked with the template of no source, could you change it.
@MrJoker07: Madina portal:There's a big problem. The file File:1 amana-logo.jpg has been deleted because it was taken from http://araby-logo.com/vb/showthread.php?t=71 without permission. Unfortunately this renders your files as copyright violations because you used some copyrighted material. Argh. I hate to delete it, 235 times in use. Could you create something similar without the copyrighted part?
The Makkah-Portal images are fine, you created them yourself. No problem there.
How did you create the maps? Did you use the actual images from rofof.com, alrahalat.com, and almrsal.com? That would be a problem. I really don't want to delete any maps, I think they are informative and very useful. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hallo. Du meintest unlängst, man könne bei Massenkategorien von flickr2c Uploads bestimmen, ob die ein oder andere Datei irgendwo benutzt wird. Wie ist das eigentlich möglich? Nach meinem aktuellen Kenntnisstand müsste hierfür jede einzelne Datei angeklickt werden, das ist fernab der Realität. --A.Savin21:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Wo habe ich das genau gesagt? Kopfkratz. Was geht ist z.B. VfC benutzen und dann kann man die Einbindungen sehen. Geht auch in Kategorien, ohne VFC. Musst Du allerdings erst in Deinen Einstellungen erlauben.: Einstellungen -> Benutzeroberfläche: Dateien und Kategorien ->Global Usage Badges: Hier mehr: Help:Gadget-GlobalUsageUI/de. LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Not what we call a free source here, there's a clear copyright notice posted. You need to add the sources accordingly into your files, which wikipedia, which file, etc. Please see derivative works for more information. The weblink is not valid, just a generic link to the main page. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added the sources to the SVG and PNG maps and added speedydelete on the logos I know to violate copyright. I really hope that is sufficient. Byzantium Purple (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Buongiorno, Le scrivo in merito alla cancellazione della fotografia File:LORENZO_DE_PAOLIS_SERAFIN.jpg presente sulla pagina https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_de_Paolis ed in risposta al suo messaggio lasciatomi in data 12 agosto. Vorrei specificare che il materiale caricato si riferisce alla collezione fotografica storica della mia famiglia, che trovasi in mio possesso. Vorrei pertanto capire come posso fare ad ottenere il permesso di pubblicazione della stessa, dal momento che la fotografia, risalente a circa 100 anni fa, non è evidentemente di mia creazione, ma è tuttavia in mio possesso esclusivo.
Buongiorno! Si prega di leggere COM:OTRS/it e Com: L. È possibile sostituire la licenza di default cc-by-sa-4.0 con cc-by-sa-4.0-eredi per le foto che avete ereditato dal fotografo originale. Foto fatte da altri devono essere abbastanza grandi, di solito almeno 70 anni dopo la morte della fotografia. C'è una sola eccezione nella legge copyrighty italiana:
"Questa Fotografia e nel Pubblico dominio in Italia nel Quanto Pubblicata per la prima volta in Italia e il Suo Termine di Copyright e scaduto. Secondo la Legge sulla Protezione del diritto d'autore e di Altri DIRITTI connessi al Suo Esercizio n.633, 22 aprile 1941 e successive revisioni, immagini di PERSONE o di Aspetti, Elementi o fatti della vita naturale e sociale, ottenute col Processo fotografico o con Processo Analogo, Comprese le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa ei Fotogrammi delle Pellicole cinematografiche (art. 87) Sono Protette per un Periodo di 20 anni Dalla Creazione (Art. 92). Non Sono Comprese le fotografie di scritti, Documenti, carte di affari, Oggetti Materiali, disegni tecnici e prodotti Simili (Art. 87). La legge italiana fa un ' Importanti Distinzione fra "fotografie premuroso opere d'arte" e "fotografie Semplici" (art. 2, § 7). Le fotografie premuroso opere d'arte Sono Protette per 70 anni DOPO la morte dell'Autore (art. 32-bis), MENTRE le fotografie Semplici Sono Protette per un Periodo di 20 anni Dalla Creazione. La fotografia Semplice non DEVE Avere Merito artistico o Riflettere la creatività o Personalità del fotografo. "
Questa licenza si chiama PD-Italia.
Si prega di andare avanti ed elencare le fotografie per nome e di collegarli a tua email per permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Fammi sapere quando si riceve la risposta automatica e registra il numero del biglietto qui.
Buongiorno, poiché non conosco con certezza l'autore della foto, non posso certamente attribuire la licenza cc-by-sa-4.0-eredi. Tuttavia, secondo la legge italiana che mi ha pubblicato e, in particolare, Art. 92, cioè Sono Protette per un Periodo di 20 anni Dalla Creazione (Art. 92), penso sia a me consentito pubblicare questa fotografia, risalente a circa 97 anni fa ed essendo la stessa una fotografia "semplice" e non certo opera d'arte, in relazione alla definizione della legge italiana.
Posso pertanto procedere alla pubblicazione? e in quali termini?
Mi scuso per il disturbo e ringrazio anticipatamente.
cello.buby
Ciao! Nessun inconveniente a tutti. Per questa fotografia si può usare: {{PD-Italy}} e {{PD-1996}} insieme. Questo indica lo status del copyright in Italia e negli USA. Se non si conosce l'autore, si prega di utilizzare autore = {{tl | author| unknwon}} nel blocco di informazioni. Cordiali saluti, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Brianna Wu, head of a video game studio, had several photographs in Commons that were deleted over copyright concerns (see [57]). Those concerns having been addressed, she's trying to upload them again in support of her bio page at en.wikipedia, but of course the system objects that they've previously been deleted. The ways of Commons are strange to me: How is this done? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Was something missed on the licensing attestation for the upload? I'm not familiar with the Commons upload interface. When she asked me to update the photo for her infobox, I asked her to have her photographer upload and release through the Wikipedia upload interface. Not sure why it was uploaded on Commons, but I assumed the upload interface was similar. I've been a volunteer on Ms. Niemietz's Bio for several years, I can assure you that this is not a random fan uploading an unauthorized copy. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The Official Facebook page was updated at roughly the same time this (identical) photo was uploaded [58] -- 009o9 (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, in this case I'd like to have permission from the author Julien Garros send to OTRS. Esp. photos taken from Facebook are under scrutiny here, 9 out of 10 times the upload is a copyright violation. I am really sorry when legit uploaders get hit with a big bunch of bureaucracy, we just try to protect a) us and b) the author's rights. Btw: It doesn't matter if the photo get's uploaded on enwiki, eventually it will find its way to Commons. If I can be of any assistance with OTRS, please drop me a line. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ehm... actually I'm not the uploader, merely the user who signalled the thing. :) Moreover, I found out that the uploader is a SP of another it.wp user who did exactly the same thing, publishing 3-4 times the same image with the very same watermark, but with different dimensions. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop13:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention and response. I will get the corrected permission shortly from the copyright owner. Please give me a few days. I would appreciate it if you could put the photo back up until I get the official form filled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 173.49.216.116 (UTC)
How do i add changes to a picture after they been marked as a possible copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogmad (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26. Aug. 2015 (UTC)
I sent permission emails 2 weeks ago. I didnt get any answer. (only for permission of fotos of mister bernreuther). the most fotos are my (owner or fotografer). yesterday I sent it again. more I can not do. some of the fotos are free (law-papers). If you want, you can delete all. I asked my "mentor" how to do it - and I have done in this way. but when he doesnt know and nobody ansers to my mails - it was wasted time. for me. please delete all. so I also can get my own fotos back to me. Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
ach ja, ich hätte das auch deutsch scheiben können. habe gestern abend einem "Yann" die kopien aller emails an commons geschickt.
benutzer "philbrick" von commons hat auf die bernreuther-permission-emails geantwortet und ich habe ihn gebeten, mir doch einen text zu schicken, den ich für die emails verwenden kann und der dann auch akzeptiert wird (offensichtlich haben die anderen zusangen zur veröffentlichung den bearbeitern vielleicht nicht gefallen). den habe ich vor 2 tagen bekommen. da brauchte ich mehrere anläufe, um sozusagen ein formular zu kriegen.
gestern habe ich dann eine email (für wenigstens meine eigenen fotos) mit diesem formular NOCHMAL abgeschickt - an mister "philbrick".
herr engelke, dem die zwei engelke-fotos gehören, hat die permissionmail vor ca 2 wochen abgeschickt und es folgte ein längerer mailwechel, den er dann aufgegeben hat, weil er dieses komplizierte englisch nicht verstand. sagte er mir am telefon.
wäre überhaupt die frage zu stellen, warum wir das nicht in landessprache "dürfen".
tut mir leid. irgendwie komme ich mir komisch vor. das war wie in der ostzone, wo keiner die regeln preisgegeben hat und wenn man was wollte, haben sie immer mit den regeln ( die man nicht wußte) gewedelt. nun spreche ich ein umgangsenglisch und kein juristenbritish.
wiegesagt, was mir mein "mentor" gesagt hat, das habe ich getan - nun mit dem ergebnis der baldigen löschung.
ich werde in zukunft einen link machen und die bilder auf meine website stellen. geht ja auch. dann bleiben das sogar noch meine.
und noch was persönliches: das sind zum teil historische fotos. die freizugeben, da gehört ein großes stück vertrauen in die "gute sache" wikipedia dazu. aber wie hier umgegangen wird, find ich nicht gut. das sieht ja so aus, als wäre ich in kleinkrimineller, der heimlich illegale fotos hochlädt. Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
OTRS braucht halt seine Zeit. Wir belassen Dateien mit fragwuerdigen Angaben max. ca. eine Woche. Danach werden diese geloescht um unseren Benutzern nur Medien anzubieten die absolut frei sind, zum Schutz des Urheberrechts und der Autoren der entspr. Medien. Das hat nix mit Ostzone zu tun. Das Du einen nicht erreichbaren Mentoren bekommen hast ist wirklich nicht gut und tut mir aufrichtig leid. Hinterlasse mir hier bitte die OTRS-Ticket Nummer(n). Ich schaue mir das an und erledige das/die Ticket(s) umgehend. Fair? LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hedwig, erst mal danke für ihre mühen.
der einzige, der auf meine permission-emails geantwortet hat und mir auch eine art "vertragstext" gemailt hat, war ein stephen philbrick. dem habe ich dann auch nochmal die infrage gestellten fotos-permissions zugestellt bzw. die rechteinhaber gebeten, ihn anzumailen.
Re: [Ticket#2015082310006088] permission for the fotos of werner bernreuther: betreffs dieser fotos besorge ich eine schriftliche einwilligung, weil der herr keine email besitzt. das ist mit herrn philbrick abgesprochen.
[Ticket#2015081010015593] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission for: Kai [...])
dieses ticket: herr engelke hat nicht begriffen, was von ihm wollten und aufgegeben. ich habe ihm eine email zukommen lassen mit dem "vertragstext" mit bitte um weiterleitung. das wird er machen.
sowie File:Klepka Wladyslaw.jpg und File:Leipziger Liederszene Katrin Troendle.jpeg, sowie (bereits gelöscht) ilona_schlott.jpg
Betreff: [Ticket#2015082310006088] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission for the f […])
[Ticket#2015081010014996] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission for the f [...])
[Ticket#2015081010015235] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission for the f [...])
[Ticket#2015081010015511] Confirmation of receipt (Re: portret permission [...])
die beiden deutschen gesetzestexte sind frei, die kopie der BSTU (stasiunterlagen) auch.
Hallo Hedwig, vielen Dank für Deine Arbeit hier, ich bitte Dich allerdings Deine Entscheidung bei obigen DR noch mal zu überdenken.
Du hast die Löschung abgelehnt mit der Begründung „Solange sie (die NASA) das Copyright beansprucht, sollten wir damit weiterkommen“. Allerdings beansprucht die NASA nirgendwo Urheberrechte an diesem Bild, weder hier noch hier. Zusammen mit der eindeutigen Zuordnung des Bildes zum Juri-Gagarin-Kosmonautentrainingszentrum über die Seriennummer der Kamera spricht das für einen Fehler der NASA. Bei den Kriterien hier reichen schon berechtigte Zweifel für eine Löschung, in diesem Fall wissen wir zu 99,9 %, dass das Bild von Roskosmos, also nicht frei ist. Wie Du weiter oben so schön schriebst „… werden diese geloescht um unseren Benutzern nur Medien anzubieten die absolut frei sind, zum Schutz des Urheberrechts und der Autoren der entspr. Medien.“ Genau das passiert hier nicht. Sorry, Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Touché! Habe mir die Quellen nochmal angesehen und muss eingestehen: Du hast recht. Allein die kyrillischen Aufnaeher haetten mir den Wink geben sollen. Delinker beauftragt, Datei wird geloescht. Danke fuer Deine pestilenz, ahm hartnaeckigkeit. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Photo de Claude Verlon sur le terrain afin de pouvoir illustrer sa page Wikipédia autre que celle actuelle moins appropriée
Bonjour Hedwig, Je comprends vos contraintes concernant la photo de Claude Verlon que vous avez decide de supprimer. Cependant, pouvez-vous m'aider ? En effet, je souhaiterais mettre en ligne sur la page de l'article Wikpédia sur Claude Verlon une photo le représentant en mission sur le terrain car celle qui a été mise initialement est inappropriée selon moi (on y voit plus la brasserie et la moto que Claude lui-même...). Concernant la photo que vous avez supprimée, je l'avais choisie car elle a été reprise par beaucoup de médias lors du drame notamment aux journaux télévisés et dans la presse (il a été assassiné à Kidal le 2 novembre 2013 avec la journaliste Ghislaine Dupont). Aussi, selon moi, cette photo serait aujourd'hui de fait tombée dans le domaine public d'autant plus que Claude est tristement devenu un homme public du fait de son assassinat. Cette photo est celle qu'il avait choisie pour son profil facebook et qu'il aimait particulièrement. Ci-dessous le lien du site de google avec toutes les images de Claude : https://www.google.fr/search?q=claude+verlon&biw=1920&bih=984&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI8tHe3bvGxwIVRT8aCh3m3Q0j Peut-être y en a-t-il une de lui qui pourrait être reprise plus facilement sur Wikicommons afin qu'elle puisse servir à illustrer sa page Wikipédia ou encore mieux ce lien vous permettra peut-être de valider que la photo que vous venez de supprimer est bien de fait tombée dans le domaine public du fait des circonstances de cette tragédie largement médiatisée au moment des faits ? Et dans ce cas, si vous validez que cette photo est bien tombée désormais, du fait des circonstances tragiques, dans le domaine public et qu'elle peut donc bien être mise en ligne sur Wikicommons afin d'illustrer la page Wikipédia de Claude, pouvez-vous m'indiquer ce que je dois faire pour qu'en la remettant en ligne sur Wikicommons, elle ne prenne plus le risque d'être supprimée à nouveau. Et si vous sélectionnez une autre photo qui pour vous serait plus du domaine publci que celle-là, merci de m'indiquer la méthodologie à suivre pour qu'elle ne soit pas supprimée. Par avance, merci beaucoup pour votre aide dans ma démarche en mémoire de Claude. (En attendant votre réponse et vos conseils, je vais recharger la première fois photo de lui avec la moto et le restaurant bien qu'elle soit, à mon sens, inappropriée). Cordialement.--Wikimalin (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour! Il ya très peu que je peux faire. La photo sur Facebook ne vous appartient pas de publier. Le photographe de cette image doit nous permettre (communes) de l'accueillir. Depuis le propriétaire du droit d'auteur est mort, nous aurions besoin d'obtenir la permission de ses héritiers. Si vous pouvez obtenir la permission de ses héritiers, nous pouvons accueillir la photo sur Commons, sinon il ne sera pas autorisé. Le fait que l'auteur est décédé ne change pas le droit d'auteur. Selon le droit français la photo est protégée pendant 70 ans après l'auteur est décédé. En outre, le fait que quelqu'un publie une photographie ne permet pas du domaine public soit. Sinon, aucun photographe professionnel serait d'être payé. Est-ce logique ? Certains permettent Wikipédias contenu unfree vertu de la clause Fair Use. S'il vous plaît voir ici: [59].
hi. as you can see, i uploaded a second version of the file:T-La.jpg which included only some cornices of the background building, so the file has got copyright free. i would ask you to undelete it. thanks, Ppong.it (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, just saw you deleted File:Red dragon.jpg for copyright (and in the same time deleted from wp:fr...logical). You are certainly right, but I can't remember the picture in fact. Was it this one by any chance? ;P Triton (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig, hast du diese Entscheidung auf Basis der FoP-Regelung im türk. Gesetz oder aufgrund der in deiner Summary erwähnten, mehr allgemeinen Erwägung getroffen? Mir ist das konkrete Plakat völlig egal; aber bisher haben wir Wahlplakate, z.B. aus Deutschland, regelmäßig unter genau der Rationale gelöscht, mit der ich diese DR begründet hatte. --Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Ja, mehr allgemeine Erwaegung. IMHO ist hat ein Wahlplakat ein Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum. Im normalen Wahlverfahren ca. 1 oder max. zwei Wochen nach Ende der Wahl(en). In besonderen Faellen, z.B. Todesfall eines Kandidaten waehrend der Wahl, ein besonderer Skandal , kann dieses Datum natuerlich verschieben. Unter extremen Umstaenden kann ein Plakat auch als so wichtig angesehen werden, dass es kein Verfalldatum mehr hat und die normalen Fristen einsetzen. Soweit meine Ueberlegung. Fallig foelsch? . --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Nein, um ralsch oder fichtig geht es mir weniger, sondern darum, wenn deine Rationale einer etwas breiteren Diskussion standhält, könnten auch in Deutschland aufgehängte Wahlplakate bleiben (jedenfalls solange bis das EP die FoP abgeschafft hat). Es geht also um nichts weniger als einen Paradigmenwechsel. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Stehe vollkommen dahinter. Es ist einfach eine logische Schlussfolgerung. Ich muss aber gestehen, dass ich vermutlich Wahlplakate frueher geloescht habe. Das wird mir sicherlich um die Ohren gehauen. Wir sollten das oeffentlich diskutieren und dann Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Permanent_vs_temporary entsprechend erweitern. Stecken wir das auf com:VP/C oder eine eigene Projektseite? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Da wir in der :de-Community einige versierte Juristen haben, würde ich das Thema erst einmal nur :de-mäßig diskutieren, weil es sich dann auf 3 Jurisdiktionen (D, A, CH) beschränkt. Das könnte man direkt auf :de machen oder auf Commons mit einer ausreichenden Einladung auf :de. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Ich wuerde Commons bevorzugen. Es betrifft uns hier mehr als dewiki und die meisten dewikindianer sind ja eh hier. Bin gespannt was Histo diesmal ablaesst. . Nochwas: Unsere Policy wuerde sich ggf. aendern, wenn auf de diskutiert muessen (muessten) wir das hier wiederholen. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Wurde Dein Urlaub genehmigt? Wo ist die RfVacation Disc? Wenn ich dazu komme, bastel ich etwas auf einer Unterseite zusammen. Ich wuerde Dich gerne bei der Diskussion dabei haben. Schoenen Urlaub!! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
These can be renamed and cropped. They have use on a Wikipedia article that needs an illustration of 1980s Dallas. I believe they are appropriately licensed as CC BY 2.0. Cheers Sizeofint (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The license isn't the problem (wrong template used). The quality is the issue. What article are you talking about? Do you have a link, pretty please? I am not asking the photolab for assistance if it ends up being unused. They'll kill me :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
MDMA was widely distributed in Dallas and Austin between 1983 and 1985. Those were the closest images of Dallas to that time period I could find freely available. Sizeofint (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
In an incident regarding Fry1989 and poco 2 poco, you typed in "Now everybody has to write kB of text, you included, instead of working with media." What is this mean? Also, wasn't Fry1989 had been aggressive before that happened. I tried to revert a file one time but he didn't respond. FrankieL1985 (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It means exactly what I said. Writing tons of text nobody want's to write instead of doing other stuff on Commons. Bur let's keep the discussion where it belongs. OK? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have deleted picture Ilya-Goryachev_3.jpg here. It's a mistake, I know for sure that there is no violation and this picture doesn't belong to Moiseev. What was the reason for deletion? If it was reported, I assure you that it was done deliberately, as the whole campaign against Goryachev, since he belongs to Russian oppisition and is politically persecuted.--TanyaK1 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Prior to your (I assume you are the same person) upload, the photo was available here: [61] since 09 May 2014. Further: The metadata shows the authors are Ivan Moiseev and Julia Moiseeva. There is no mistake, it is a copyright violation, the uploader also claimed it to be own work, which it is not; that is fraud. You need to get permission from the authors. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig in Washington. A few weeks back you deleted File:The Work Magazine.JPG as a copyright violation. Since I can no longer see the file, I am not sure whether the same uploader has just renamed it and reuploaded it as either File:TSU the work publication.png or File:TSU publication the work.jpg. Would you mind checking to see if either of the two is the same as the one you deleted on August 14. Finally, the same editor has also uploaded quite a number of images as "own work" for which they are probably not the original copyright holder. This was probably done in good faith, but they still continue to do so despite user talk page messages advising them to be more careful in the future. Do you think it would help to add another "please be careful" kind of message to their user talk or would that be overkill? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a reupload. Two files nuked, user blocked for one day, and warned on talk page. That should get some attention. If this continues, the block will be much longer. Thanks for the info! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Kinda sorry it ended with a block, but perhaps they'll take the time to learn why such images are not allowed on Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't mean to kick somebody when they are down, but File:Tarlac City official seal.png also looks "non-free" and is another one uploaded as "own work" by the same editor. Do you think it's possible to create a free version of this seal because it contains some "heraldry elements"? The reason I'm asking is because the possibility of creating a free equivalent would preclude it being used as "non-free" on Wikipedia per en:WP:NFCC#1. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be arranging for my photos to be deleted from Commons. I have uploaded dozens of phots of my own work, all properly described and so on. Why? And why no attempt to contact me if there was a problem, which I doubt there was? Emeraude (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any "arranging" going on, merely the process by which the project attempts to protect the rights of the creators. I looked at your talk page and you were notified of each change of status in these files. When you get those little boxes on your talk page, it's a really good idea to go discuss the file on the nomination page! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That's good news! Works on the assumption that I daily look at Commons - I don't. I work regularly on Wikipedia and very occasionally upload files to Commons, so the first I knew of this, having been away from the computer for a few weeks, was an edit noet on a Wikipedia page I watch. It should have been obvious to you that the other images for Fort de Valros (etc) were by the same person, but you don't seem to have deleted them! I'm afraid I've no idea what information was missing (how could I now they have been deleted?) so I will request undeletion though I don't. as yet, know how.
However, I think this has all been rather hasty. The Luceram file used in someone's advert for their holiday apartment has obviously been pinched from here, not vice versa, and I'm sure my upload would have contained sufficient details to show this. The Valros diagram was drawn by me. Emeraude (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing hasty. How is anybody to know that your are not watching your talk page? The uploader has to provide evidence that the media is free and compatible with Commons. You can request an undelete here: COM:UNDEL Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You've deleted that image, as 2 sources were missing. What I remember is that both of them have been taken from the Italian Wikimedia. I will provide those sources but please could you replace the image, as I took a lot of time to make it. Thanks. --115ash (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I ask the courtesy to erase the image shown below compared to the maestro Adriano Franceschini. I had loaded the image just to explain where he came from the portrait that was later deleted. I am grateful if it will be possible. I apologize for the trouble that wreaked. Thank you.
[this is the image
--Lungoleno (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
the photo is not wrong. But now, no image, no longer makes sense. also I had loaded only for that image, not because it was canceled exactly that. In this condition, the picture changed and obscured, I find little to correct Adriano Fraceschini, person I met who does not deserve such treatment. only out of respect to him I am asking to be removed. I am that I loaded it with other purposes. I do not know if I explained, and I'm sorry my English not very fair. Thanks for your attention, again.--Lungoleno (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that you had merged a few duplicate files. However some of them were left with an unconventional title. So could you please rename the following files so that they can have titles which are in line with other titles in the series:
have the same origin, we are a group work at the University, whit six students. They created their images are therefore free to use. But they're working to improve them, in short climb new versions, but they will upload at wikicommons themselves to avoid creating confusion. Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. --WOLY (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington, erst mal vielen Dank für die Erledigung meiner Löschanträge auf meine überflüssigen Fotos. Weil mir das schon mal irgendwo anders begegnet war, frage ich aber mal neugierig nach: Das File:Unidentified green fly 02.jpg steht hier als gelöscht, wird aber bei mir noch blau angezeigt und ist aufrufbar, ich kann aber nicht erkennen, dass es von irgendwem wiederhergestellt worden sei. Ist das einfach ein Versehen (was ja passieren kann) oder ist es ein technisches Problem auf Commons? Wegen anderer ähnlicher Fälle (mit fremden Bildern) hatte ich schon mal letzteres in Verdacht. Am Cache scheint es aber nicht zu liegen. --Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Falls es nur ein Versehen war, ist es in der Sache erledigt, danke. "13:56, 7 September 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Unidentified green fly 02.jpg (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unidentified green fly 02.jpg)" --Biodehio (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig in Washington. I saw you deleted File:Tarlaccalogo.png and File:TCA camiling logo.jpg uploaded by Jcmpineda. The same editor has uploaded a number of other logos and photos, claiming them as "own work" each time, and some of these might also be copyright violations. I tagged the ones I thought needed verification using {{Npd}}, but I was wondering if you could take a look at them when you get some time just to check whether I might have tagged an acceptable file by mistake.
Thanks for taking a closer look. I didn't realize the files in questions were re-uploads of stuff that had already been removed from Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. The user Dcc1000, of whom I tagged his picture File:MonumentoLeonCortes.jpg as not meeting freedom of panorama, uploaded a new file on the same page and under description she added allan aguilar viejo verde, which is an insult (“viejo verde“ is a vulgar way of insult which might be translated as “sexually pervert old man“).
I inform this to you since you started a deletion request for the old version of the picture, and I sincerely do not know what to do next. Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I am sorry for the inconvenience. Allan Aguilar (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I blocked the user for 6 months and deleted the photograph. There is no room for insults on Commons. Since it wasn't a really big insult, he only got six months, the next time he will be blocked indefinitely. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear ‘’Hedwig in Washington’’. The file HELLENIC TERRESTRIAL TV - DIGITAL MAPS.pdf you deleted is a piece of "The Newspaper of the Greek Government", a free file to everybody, that writes all the laws that voted in the Greek Parliament and all Minister Decisions. It is a publication of the Greek National Printing Office and is giving free to everybody via its Website http://www.et.gr. I downloaded from the address: (HELLENIC TERRESTRIAL TV - DIGITAL MAPS.pdf)
Please, it would be very kind of you, if you restore the file HELLENIC TERRESTRIAL TV - DIGITAL MAPS.pdf in the Wikimedia Commons. Thank you very much !!--Ivanois (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! The file has been deleted because a valid license wasn't added. Rationale: Media without a license as of 2 September 2015 That's why you got notified. Could you please provide me with a weblink? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
erstmal danke für die Infos und die Nachricht (sry, hab s als Neuling leider erst jetzt gecheckt), zweitens ich hoffe, deutsch ist ok?
Nachdem es auch andere deutsche Beiträge gab?
Ich muss leider gestehen, wir sind unerfahren und haben s wohl verbockt, aber die Fotos und Logos gehören alle FELMI-ZFE und
wurden von hauseigenen Fotografen (brauchte man früher sowieso für die Entwicklung der mikroskopischen Aufnahmen) gemacht, bzw. die
Logos erworben für die Nutzung.
Die Frage, die sich mir stellt, was jetzt? Bevor wir den nächsten Fehler machen :(
Ich habe auch ein Mail mit Urheberrechtsinfos von der Verantwortlichen an permissions@wikipedia geschickt.
the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:
File:Graz research center.jpg
The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:
use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.
Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.
Aha. Die email ist schon in guten Haenden. Was jetzt passieren muss ist folgendes: Zu jeder(!) Datei muss ein Autor genannt werden. Dieser Autor muss(!) die Datei freigeben. Das Urheberrecht bleibt nach Oesterreichischer Rechtssprechung beim Fotografen, auch wenn es eine Dienstaufgabe war, ein Foto zu erstellen (§ 23 UrhG). Eine Uebertragung ist nur mortis causa moeglich, per Erbschaft also. Soweit dazu. Weiterhin muss eine Quelle genannt und eine Lizenz gewaehlt werden. Das kann alles innerhalb des offenen OTRS-Tickets erfolgen. Ich hoffe damiot sind alle Klarheiten beseitigt? Wenn's klemmt bitte Nachricht! LG --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig, I am unclear why the pictures I uploaded to Wiki Commons have all been deleted. Each one was a picture that I personally took. I believe that I clicked the free license button in each case. Is that not adequate? I am new at this and trying to understand. Specifically, here are the deleted files:
File:Lindsey Buckingham, July 31, 2012.png
File:Imelda May and Jeff Beck, March 28, 2011.jpg
File:Keb Mo with Hamer guitar.jpg
File:Robert Randolph and Eric Clapton, May 31, 2008.jpg
File:Eric Clapton, May 1, 2015.png
File:Eric Clapton, Keb Mo and Buddy Guy.jpg
File:Nathan East, June 8, 2014.jpg
File:Nathan East and Eric Clapton, May 3, 2015.jpg
File:Ricky Skaggs and Sharon White, Charlotte, August 19, 2015.png
File:Ry Cooder, Charlotte, August 19, 2015.png
Hi! The photographs seem to originate from Steve Proctor. If you are Steve Proctor, you need to send permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please see OTRS for the procedure. Let me know if I can be of anymore help! Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am Steve Proctor and will contact the OTRS. Just a thought - if I change my username to Steve Proctor, would that avoid future confusion and eliminate the need to involve the OTRS? Sdpmd (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hedwig. I did submit a request to change my username to "Steve Proctor." I had been considering this anyway. If it is OK, I can upload the photos again, perhaps with a different name and without the photo credit. Thanks for your help and I apologize for the confusion. Sdpmd (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all. The rules on Commons can be a confusing. Basically it is all about protecting the copyright of the original author. If you like I can have a peek when you're done. Just let me know. Happy uploading! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
My username has been changed to "Steve Proctor" and I uploaded the photos again. If you would like to have a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Steve Proctor (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks great! I changed a few things around. No need to add the categories music and musician to Eric Clapton. That's already in his category. But that's minor. I added some categories, created new categories for Crossroads 2010, Sharon White, and Fourplay. Thanks for your uploads! :-)) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Hedwig, today you have removed the file "Prof. Pavel Belov.jpg".
Would you please clarify the reason. The file has copyright permission (Prof. Pavel Belov.jpg) (also corresponding OTRS tag has been added).
Also why didn't you give time for the case consideration? The file has been removed without preliminary notification.
Regards, --Maodit (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem was the OTRS ticket. It showed OTRS pending for at least a week. Those files get automatically categorized to be deleted. I restored the file and changed the OTRS tag. You can take that as a template for further uploads. Thanks for your contributions! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The subject of a Wikipedia biography, Wu wished to help editors replace some inferior images in her biography and the Gamergate Controversy with better images to be placed in the public domain. Those were deleted some months ago, having gaps in their metadata [62].
The subject’s administrative assistant has tried to re-upload the images with corrected metadata, but the uploads are rejected. I don’t follow the affairs of Commons (for they are subtle and quick to anger :) ); could you provide guidance on how best to address this? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help you out. Here is the list of deleted files. Which one(s) are not cooperating? :-)
Yes, there is, but that's not important, because the same person uploaded it both places. He's free to tag his photos as he pleases on Flickr. I don't think there's any question that he uploaded the file in good faith to Wikipedia, regardless of what the license on Flickr is. - Eureka Lott13:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no complaints. I have not noticed that on Flickr they are under license: Some rights reserved (Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0))
Could you please explain what I did wrong with the majority of the photos I uploaded? In all but one case I used {{PD-US-no notice}}, which appears to be the tag you recommend in your nominations. The text reads "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice," which to me is appropriate. Only "McBurney.jpg" was done with a different tag, and I am quite sure I messed that one up. My concern is that there is no activity on the discussion and I assume that at some point the files just get deleted. Rikster2 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the files will be deleted. The problem is that we have no evidence that the photos actually have been published at any time. There's no evidence to the contrary either. I want to keep the photos, so I tagged them to discuss the issue. Doing it this way I know of the deletion request. One messed up license tag will not be a problem at all. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Todas las fotos que he subido son originales mías, no entiendo porque las borras sin siquiera explicar como se pone lo de la licencia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarapgv (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14. Sep. 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Liebe Hedwig, beim Löschen und Wiederherstellen sind jetzt die {{Delete}}-Templates in den erhaltengebliebenen Dateien noch drin und zeigen auf den schon geschlossenen DR. Schönen Tag noch! Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hedwig, I wonder why the picture I uploaded for María Luisa Elío's entry in the Spanish Wikipedia–which I borrowed from the file used in Elío's article in the English Wikipedia–has been deleted, whereas the picture is still being used in the English entry?!--Gerardo Noriega (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you a question? If I scan a book picture of a work of ancient art, but not a two-dimensional object (a sculpture, a building etc.), then I can upload it to the commons? Thank you--Never covered (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, the 1st. source is the book itself. the second one is your work. You name the book as precise as you can in the description. In the source section you enter this template: {{Self scanned}} For the license you need to know how old the book is, or better: how's the author, preferably with date of death. Do you want to upload for a test? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Now I do not have a scanner at hand, so I could not do a test right away, but it's a good idea ... but we do a hypothesis: if I wanted to do the scan of this photo from the book that contains ... the book is titled “Palazzo Magnani in Bologna” (2009), the author (of the book) is Sergio Bettini ... who died in 1986 (I assume that the book is a reprint of 2009) the author of the frescos in Annibale Carracci who died in 1609... is ok?
Thank you very much for your time.
PS: I am able to make myself understood in English?--Never covered (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, since the book is at from 1986 or earlier, the photograph must have a similar age. Since it is not an artistic photo, its copyright expired 20 years since creation. The license tag would be:{{PD-Italy}} It would be good to know when the photograph was taken and who the photographer was. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your kind message. The mentioned user (Marco Riggi Nettunense) was blocked on it.wiki for his campaign in favour of en:Nettuno, NNPOV and misuse of sources (here the local procedure). This is the reason why I and other it.wiki sysops removed his edits across the wikis as precautional measure. Speaking about this specific file, I checked his remarks (that don't justify a speedy deletion anyway) about the current version of the file with a book (Atlante Storico Mondiale, published by Touring Editore in 2001 in Milan) and I have to admit that two of his remarks are correct (number 2: Pantelleria was really comprised in the Province of Sicilia; and number 3 Terracina was really called Tarracina during Roman age) so, in my opinion, the actual version of the file needs some small minor corrections, but the speedy deletion is completely unjustified. Regards.--Caarl 95 (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I created a correct version of the file in my pc. Unfortunately my file is .png while the version on commons is a .jpg. How can I solve the problem? (Yes, I'm a bit awkward in this matter...) --Caarl 95 (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You recently deleted File:Griselda Blanco.jpg but I don't see what was wrong with the image. The image was claimed to be the work of the uploader, who had supplied a license and other required information so what was missing? Dman41689 added the deletion tag to it, but I removed it because I couldn't see the problem. He restored the tag so I asked him what the problem was,[64] but he didn't have the decency to respond and just deleted the question that I asked,[65] so I don't know what his issue was. Can you please clarify since there are thousands of files on commons like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't claim anything, as I wasn't the uploader. The uploader claimed it was his own work, so there's the source. Why was that unlikely? Commons:Essential information says "If you are uploading a file or image that you have created entirely by yourself, you should mark the source field as source=Own work" and the uploader complied with that. I did a search for that image and couldn't find it anywhere. As a low resolution image it's unlikely to have come from a commercial source. As for permission, the uploader did seem to have provided permission as required by Commons:Licensing. Am I missing something? Your response hasn't clarified what else the uploader needed to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm really just confused as to what the uploader needed to provide in addition to what he had already provided, but sure, a DR might clear that up. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You wrote on my talk page that you have reviewed the OTRS tickets sent by Stephencase504. I guess the tickets were not valid since you did not restore the files. In addition, you deleted his other uploads, like File:12th Man Flag 2015-pres.png and File:12th man.svg. I do not think these 2 images can be deleted for copyvio reason, since "12" on a purple background is a too simple design to be copyrighted (see COM:TOO), in particular in the US. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about copyright of the above referenced group of photographs.
All of a sudden I was bombarded with 75 notices that the 75 photographs I uploaded to Commons were incorrectly documented. To my view point, that would seem as if someone was trying to deliberately sabotage the work that I have added to Wikipedia.
What is it that you want me to do? Write 75 requests? If so, that would take me a month. I can't do that. Yes, I write books, yes, I own the copyright to the books I write, & I do own the publishing company.
Please advise. Chaos4tu (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Why would anyone try to sabotage your work? If you do own a) the publishing company and b) the company holds the copyright, just send permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org You can find a template here: Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries. You can just copy and paste the list above, partly or whole. I'll make a note in the deletion request that you send an email. Please use an official email account if possible, not a free account like gmail. That's all that's needed. If everything checks out, your files are safe and sound. Best --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig, I noticed you just blocked the bloke who left me a series of insults in my user page (I'm sorry for the insults towards you, not all Italians are like him). Personally I don’t care of his insults, but they show his non-cooperative attitude.
An admin on it.wiki told me he was banned on the Italian pages, so If you care for my opinion I think that you may consider safely terminating the user here. Anyway it’s up to you. Regards. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)13:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
You have deleted from Commons the picture Achille_Naftalis_a_Roppentzwiller_le_13_mai_1940.jpg because of "Missing [[:c:COM:EI|".
This picture is of my father and I took it from my personal family album. I fully hold the rights to this picture, and am ready to release it as needed to the public.
Please let me know how to handle this situation.
Same question for the Docteur_Naftalis.jpg and the Salomon_Gluck_25_Fev_1941.jpg pictures that were also deleted by you.
Thank you,
Mnaftalis (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You repeate the error which some years ago were deleted all my photos. I was not very happy and even went out of participation in the project Commons. But over time, the administration Commons apologized and restored my photos. So please restore the deleted photo File:Каток Снежинка.jpg. In my LiveJournal, I wrote a post about the authorship of my photos. I hope no one else will be questions and suspicions about the authorship of my photos!
It is written on my page in Russian Wikipedia.
P. S. if you also removed and some others, like File:Каток Снежинка.jpg, then restore them, add to the pages where they were placed and get it all apologize. I apologize for my poor English, best regards -- Донор (✉) 17 September 2015
Thanks, glad that the photo was restored. I hope that other administrators will also be very careful before making any deletion. Best regards -- Донор (✉) 18 September 2015
The owner (Ms. Samantha Rhodes) explained that this content has been released under the public domain license.In fact, the author sent the consent letter to OTRS a month ago, stating that she has a permission to reuse her content from her website (please ask any of the OTRS agent for confirmation).Therefore, she has an authority to reuse this file from the above-mentioned website.--RenRen070193 02:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig! Du hast leider das falsche Video gelöscht. War wohl meine Schuld. Meine Absicht war es, Karl Johansslussen video 2015.webm zu löschen und durch Karl Johansslussen video 2015a.webm zu ersetzen. Karl Johansslussen video 2015a.webm ist die lange, korrekte Version. Kannst du die wieder herstellen? Gruss --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The agreement from European Center of Solidarity (ECS) is perfectly OK. They provided us a list of 35 pictures we can upload, as they bought or get donated copyrights from photographers or their heirs (docx file), and sent us a proper CC BY-SA 3.0 license agreement for all of them (pdf file). Marta has uploaded the deleted picture some time before the others, as it was used to check if templates created for mass upload are OK. Then she uploaded all others in one go, and then I added OTRS template. The first one was simply forgotten by me. Sorry about it, but would be nice if you could undelete this picture, so I can add missing OTRS template. The GLAM cooperation with ECS is described here: Commons:European Solidarity Centre. Category of pictures donated by ECS can be found here: Category:Media contributed by the European Solidarity Centre. Polimerek (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the File:Strajk sierpniowy w Stoczni Gdańskiej im. Lenina 12.jpg :-) This makes me think, also, that it's a good idea to provide a one-paragraph english description of such filesets from GLAM partners - and a link to the projectpage... so, a productive outcome :-) thanks! --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. The problem was you uploaded the files claiming own work, which it obviously isn't. You can scan something or take it from the web and say it is yours. You need to say where the photographs came from, who made them (if possible), when the photographs have been made, and when they have been published. If you can give me at least some of the information, I'll try to help. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Under Czech law the author of the photograph has the copyright for 70 years after(!) his death[66]. For anonymous works in the European Union the works are copyrighted for 70 years after first publication. That means for all the photographs before 1945 we need to have permission from the copyright holder / author. The only file is Nr.1, but there is no source. Where did you get the photograph, who made it (why did you say professional photographer?). All others are either to young, have no date, or are (c) (the 1929 University document is not free, 1929 + 70 = 1999 = not free in the US and the Czech Rep. on 1.1.1996, copyright holder until 1999 was the University). Sorry, without more information and / or permission from the copyright holder we simply can't keep the other files. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could explain deleting the above file. The photograph is in public domain to my understanding and posting it as a part of a biography of a historical person in Wikipedia should not create a conflict of interest. M.Neshat, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20. Sep. 2015 (UTC)
Sure. The file's license was PD-US. There was no proof why this photograph should be in the public domain. The deletion request was files on 21. August 2015 without any reply. See Cornell U - PD for details about PD. Further: The photograph needs to be free in both the US and in the country of origin. This hasn't been established either. What is needed now is more information: Name of the photographer if possible, date of creation, first publishing date, country of origin. I'll be happy to restore the file if someone can give me enough information. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
To my understanding there is no basis for the deletion of this item based on the above statement. This photograph is in the public domain based on: the date it was taken. You have not gone over the background of this file aside from a single strange profiled request. The photograph was taken in the United States as part of Mr. Benedict’s publicity portfolio as an actor and has been circulating freely since in one way or another till today by consent of the photographer as well as the photographed individual. While the photographer is unknown to me at this time, the photograph was taken in Hollywood, United States. It might be that I am unfamiliar with this process, but I don’t see why additional sited requirements are requested when not applied in other cases. Please correct, or inform me of what my error is in understanding of the exact issue. Respectfully, M. Neshat, Ph.D. Mneshat (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, that makes it a little easier. You state that there is consent of the photographer. Do you know this for a fact or do you assume it? Brooks Benedict died in 1968 and was active from 1923 - 1958. Therefore the copyright tag you entered can't be correct. The photograph was created in the time frame that would allow us to apply {{PD-US-no notice}}, IF the photograph hasn't been published with a copyright notice. According to copyright.gov the photograph hasn't been registered, the photograph itself doesn't seem to have any writing on the front. I'll restore the file right away. Thanks for your persistence! Much appreciated. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed the Wikimedia terms and conditions, and it appears that the terms offered by the content owners, i.e. non-commercial use of the file, are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Should I (can I?) delete the file myself, or submit request to have it deleted?
Only sysops can delete files. But what we try to do is to keep everything, if at all possible. Do you know how old the drawing is? If it is before 1923, or the author died 70 years ago the drawing would be in public domain, no matter what the owners put on their website. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi I have applied for OTRS permission for every picture I have uploaded, can you please retrieve all pictures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiivhynuysed (talk • contribs) 09:15, 22. Sep. 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 says that stuff that was still under copyright protection as of the date that the law came into effect will be absorbed under the terms of the new law in lieu of the 1911/1914 one but with the original date being retained the same. See the last page, section (4). I'm not disputing your decision on the file as it appears to be in line with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India-table which I looked at now, but I just wanted to get some clarity on this as the Commons page and the 1957 Act appear to be in conflict (at least it looks that way to me). Am I wrong, or do you think we might need to discuss this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff14:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You have deleted all the contents I've had uploaded on Commons. All the images (except one of Coluche) are mine. The artist himself gave me all the rights needed. I am also in charge of his website : alberthirsch.com where you'll be able to find all the images.
Could you restore them ?
For the coluche, I'll put directly the link to the website.
Here are the list of images that needs to be restored.
File:3 arcs fermés.tif
File:Sculpture d'eau.jpg
File:Swing Time.jpg
File:Le Ring.jpg
File:Deux traits de lumière.jpg
File:12 Le grand Eploiement.jpg
Hi Serge! Taking a photograph of a (c) work doesn't give you the whole copyright. You own it for the photograph itself only. The sculpture depicted is still (c). Please have a peek at Com:DW. You need to have the owner of the copyrighted works to give permission to release his work under a free license. Please have look at OTRS on how this procedure works. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
English: Hello. I made an error with the wizard, so they have been wrong in name and data. The CC-licence is shown on this page, so I think, that they can be uploaded, but of course with well data and names. Antonsusi (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Deutsch: Sehe garade, dass du deutsch sprichst und schreibst... Das macht es einfacher. Ich denke, dass der unter http://www.signbank.org/iswa/ veröffentlichte Lizenzhinweis ausreicht. Vorrausgesetzt, ich mache keine uploadfehler mehr, müsste das funktionieren. Einige Dateinamen werden ggf. neu benutzt. Antonsusi (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Fein. Dann kann ich ja weitermachen. Die schwierigkeit besteht in der Windows-Standardsortierung, welche die ursprünglich von mir angedachten hexadezimalen Dateinamen (gemäß dem Codepoint in Unicode 8.0.0) schlecht handhabbar macht. zusammen mit der Nummerierfunktion beim Kopieren im Wizard, welche idiotischerweise voreingestellt ist, gab es halt die unerwünschten "Umbenennungen". Jetzt habe ich die auf der Webseite veröffentlichte dezimale Nummerierung genommen. Es sind jetzt 261 Symbole der ersten Kategorie "Hände" und es sollen insgesamt mind. 512 werden. Das geht nur per Wizard und ich werde wohl eine Vorlage für die Texte benötigen. Antonsusi (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Raphael Tsitalashvili at home. Oct.24, 2010, Moscow, Russia.jpg
Hello, i don't understand why you delete this image. It has been sent to me by the daughter of this man and they wrote me a letter saying they agree with uploading photo at wikicommons. Please answer how can we restore this image. Raphael was a remarkable soviet illusionist artist, had a lot of shows at Soviet circus and some TV-shows. This image was one of his last pictures before his passing. - Zac Allan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no permission to use the file as you say, OTRS was pending since July, 4th 2015. Do you have an OTRS-Ticket number? You should have gotten one from the system after you sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please let me know, I try to help all I can. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:IrfanView Logo2.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
Hello, it a is well known fact between el@wiki users that User:Πρώτη Σερρών, User:Γιάννης 4 and User:Γιάννης 10 are the same person (thanks to the duck test). Since all these users seem to have lots of problems with copyright matters it seems to me as a good idea to block them since they don't seem to care about Commons local policies. Thanks in advance. --Glorious 93 (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's say that this user (on el@wiki) has the bad habit, once his relation with his main account is proven, to create a new account, so it seems to me as useless to ask for a checkuser every time he creates a new account. Especially since the stewards seem to be a little reluctant to accept my requests as I'm not an admin on el@wiki. By the way, he's back today under the account name of Giannhs 626.--Glorious 93 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know what's happening because you seem like you want to delete almost all the images in the "Astroblème de Charlevoix" article.
I want to tell that all the images of landscapes and rocks are of my own work and I thought I put these in the article the way they should, freeing the rights for the educative purpose.
The only one that's not of my own work is the one from seismic activity that's from the "Ressources naturelles Canada" site. It is an educative site, with a citation of where it is from but if it needs to be deleted, feel free to do it.
Please help me doing the right thing, it is sometimes complicated just to contribute the way you want it.
Thank you very much for your understanding.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmgas (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4. Okt. 2015 (UTC)
You Deleted Two Images Linked in the 'Lucas the Game' article, which had clear licensing/permissions.
Please correct ASAP. You improperly deleted two images from Commons. I'll assume good faith, as the permissions for those images were clearly sourced, and should have never been deleted:
Please review the licensing for the images you deleted, and correct your actions:
Seem you already re-uploaded the images. Is the account Blythwoods related to your account? If so, you might want to use this template to avoid others to assume you're using sockpuppets: {{User Alternate Acct}}. A good idea in general is it to use our OTRS system to establish a papertrail for licenses and permissions. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This is copyfraud. This may perpetuate it; deletion discussions can go on ad infinitum. As has been explained at length, this is not CC licensed, so I removed the CC license. Please participate in the main discussion. Can you please explain there why this doesn't qualify for a speedy as a copyright violation - why falsely tagging something with a CC license is not a copyright violation? Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you and another member on Wikimedia Commons have pended some of my Microsoft Chicago images for deletion. I know that they were screenshots of copyrighted software. I know that only free content can be uploaded here. However, this is unfair because I took those screenshots right from my very own computer. I have ISOs of Microsoft Chicago builds 58s, 81, 122, 189, and others, and I can upload them to my Google Drive and show them to you if it is at all necessary.
There are some points I'd like to make. First off, Windows 95 (and the Chicago builds) are over 20 years old now. If Microsoft or anyone else didn't want images of 20 year-old leaked builds of their software on any website, even if the person who uploaded them took them himself, then I would have noticed something a week, maybe two, after I had uploaded those images. But noooo, it took two people over nine months to do something about it. Also, I don't know whether my images looked like someone else's, or if you think I stole those images from an outside source, but I don't think it's viable that someone's tiny little images be taken off a host without asking for source. Had someone done THAT, and I would have given the info, but no one even did that.
Once again, I have the leaked builds, totally legit, and I can give you some of them if you still don't believe me.
Commons doesn't care if the build is 20 years old. Microsoft still holds the copyright. So, if you know it's (c) Microsoft AND you aren't only free content is allowed on Commons: Why are you complaining? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. The problem was you uploaded the files claiming own work, which it obviously isn't. You can scan something or take it from the web and say it is yours. You need to say where the photographs came from, who made them (if possible), when the photographs have been made, and when they have been published. If you can give me at least some of the information, I'll try to help. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Under Czech law the author of the photograph has the copyright for 70 years after(!) his death[69]. For anonymous works in the European Union the works are copyrighted for 70 years after first publication. That means for all the photographs before 1945 we need to have permission from the copyright holder / author. The only file is Nr.1, but there is no source. Where did you get the photograph, who made it (why did you say professional photographer?). All others are either to young, have no date, or are (c) (the 1929 University document is not free, 1929 + 70 = 1999 = not free in the US and the Czech Rep. on 1.1.1996, copyright holder until 1999 was the University). Sorry, without more information and / or permission from the copyright holder we simply can't keep the other files. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could explain deleting the above file. The photograph is in public domain to my understanding and posting it as a part of a biography of a historical person in Wikipedia should not create a conflict of interest. M.Neshat, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20. Sep. 2015 (UTC)
Sure. The file's license was PD-US. There was no proof why this photograph should be in the public domain. The deletion request was files on 21. August 2015 without any reply. See Cornell U - PD for details about PD. Further: The photograph needs to be free in both the US and in the country of origin. This hasn't been established either. What is needed now is more information: Name of the photographer if possible, date of creation, first publishing date, country of origin. I'll be happy to restore the file if someone can give me enough information. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
To my understanding there is no basis for the deletion of this item based on the above statement. This photograph is in the public domain based on: the date it was taken. You have not gone over the background of this file aside from a single strange profiled request. The photograph was taken in the United States as part of Mr. Benedict’s publicity portfolio as an actor and has been circulating freely since in one way or another till today by consent of the photographer as well as the photographed individual. While the photographer is unknown to me at this time, the photograph was taken in Hollywood, United States. It might be that I am unfamiliar with this process, but I don’t see why additional sited requirements are requested when not applied in other cases. Please correct, or inform me of what my error is in understanding of the exact issue. Respectfully, M. Neshat, Ph.D. Mneshat (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, that makes it a little easier. You state that there is consent of the photographer. Do you know this for a fact or do you assume it? Brooks Benedict died in 1968 and was active from 1923 - 1958. Therefore the copyright tag you entered can't be correct. The photograph was created in the time frame that would allow us to apply {{PD-US-no notice}}, IF the photograph hasn't been published with a copyright notice. According to copyright.gov the photograph hasn't been registered, the photograph itself doesn't seem to have any writing on the front. I'll restore the file right away. Thanks for your persistence! Much appreciated. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed the Wikimedia terms and conditions, and it appears that the terms offered by the content owners, i.e. non-commercial use of the file, are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Should I (can I?) delete the file myself, or submit request to have it deleted?
Only sysops can delete files. But what we try to do is to keep everything, if at all possible. Do you know how old the drawing is? If it is before 1923, or the author died 70 years ago the drawing would be in public domain, no matter what the owners put on their website. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi I have applied for OTRS permission for every picture I have uploaded, can you please retrieve all pictures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiivhynuysed (talk • contribs) 09:15, 22. Sep. 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 says that stuff that was still under copyright protection as of the date that the law came into effect will be absorbed under the terms of the new law in lieu of the 1911/1914 one but with the original date being retained the same. See the last page, section (4). I'm not disputing your decision on the file as it appears to be in line with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India-table which I looked at now, but I just wanted to get some clarity on this as the Commons page and the 1957 Act appear to be in conflict (at least it looks that way to me). Am I wrong, or do you think we might need to discuss this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff14:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:IrfanView Logo2.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
I just came back from a hiatus and noticed that File:Flat Earth Society Logo.png has been removed by you from Commons back in July due to some sort of inclarity regarding copyright. The deletion request specifies that the logo was "taken from another project" and that the "copyright status [is] unknown". This is most likely my bad for not signposting this correctly, but I'm one of the maintainers of the project that I copied the logo from to here. When I did so, I had strived to ensure that the source link clearly specified the licence under which the file is available as CC BY-SA 4.0, but it would seem that that notice was insufficient.
Could I please ask what I've done wrong, and what I should do in order to be able to put this file back up in Commons, this time without leaving any doubt regarding its copyright status? I can easily obtain a more explicit statement of authorisation from the image's author, as long as I know what format it should take and how to best publish it.
Removal of image file - just one image of a sequence (resubmission)
Gooday - this is a re-submitted section (accidentally deleted 12 hours ago by another editor).
I noticed you removed an image file which I had used on two articles, shown now as File:Bruce Anstey at Selbourne Drive.jpg. This is from a sequence uploaded by User:Harvey Milligan with permission from image owner Dave Johnson. Bulk-tagging can be seen below here The other images have an OTRS ticket applied. Could you please look at this now-hidden file detail and restore it, if still in the system, and the OTRS ticket can be applied, as it is a useful image which Wikipedia benefitted from on articles Quarterbridge Road and List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. Apologies this looks a mess - I'm not experienced in using Commons talk pages and showing Wikipedia links. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
|source=Harvey Milligan
|author=Andrew Bell
I read the ticket and the file isn't mentioned in the ticket, meaning the file isn't covered by the ticket. The other two are galleries only, they don't need OTRS tickets. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
Can you remove the autoblock from Jeff the Obscure? It's blocked my local IP and stopped me from editing with it using my main account. I'm using a Russian open proxy right now... INeverCry06:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You have deleted all the contents I've had uploaded on Commons. All the images (except one of Coluche) are mine. The artist himself gave me all the rights needed. I am also in charge of his website : alberthirsch.com where you'll be able to find all the images.
Could you restore them ?
For the coluche, I'll put directly the link to the website.
Here are the list of images that needs to be restored.
File:3 arcs fermés.tif
File:Sculpture d'eau.jpg
File:Swing Time.jpg
File:Le Ring.jpg
File:Deux traits de lumière.jpg
File:12 Le grand Eploiement.jpg
Hi Serge! Taking a photograph of a (c) work doesn't give you the whole copyright. You own it for the photograph itself only. The sculpture depicted is still (c). Please have a peek at Com:DW. You need to have the owner of the copyrighted works to give permission to release his work under a free license. Please have look at OTRS on how this procedure works. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
English: Hello. I made an error with the wizard, so they have been wrong in name and data. The CC-licence is shown on this page, so I think, that they can be uploaded, but of course with well data and names. Antonsusi (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Deutsch: Sehe garade, dass du deutsch sprichst und schreibst... Das macht es einfacher. Ich denke, dass der unter http://www.signbank.org/iswa/ veröffentlichte Lizenzhinweis ausreicht. Vorrausgesetzt, ich mache keine uploadfehler mehr, müsste das funktionieren. Einige Dateinamen werden ggf. neu benutzt. Antonsusi (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Fein. Dann kann ich ja weitermachen. Die schwierigkeit besteht in der Windows-Standardsortierung, welche die ursprünglich von mir angedachten hexadezimalen Dateinamen (gemäß dem Codepoint in Unicode 8.0.0) schlecht handhabbar macht. zusammen mit der Nummerierfunktion beim Kopieren im Wizard, welche idiotischerweise voreingestellt ist, gab es halt die unerwünschten "Umbenennungen". Jetzt habe ich die auf der Webseite veröffentlichte dezimale Nummerierung genommen. Es sind jetzt 261 Symbole der ersten Kategorie "Hände" und es sollen insgesamt mind. 512 werden. Das geht nur per Wizard und ich werde wohl eine Vorlage für die Texte benötigen. Antonsusi (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Raphael Tsitalashvili at home. Oct.24, 2010, Moscow, Russia.jpg
Hello, i don't understand why you delete this image. It has been sent to me by the daughter of this man and they wrote me a letter saying they agree with uploading photo at wikicommons. Please answer how can we restore this image. Raphael was a remarkable soviet illusionist artist, had a lot of shows at Soviet circus and some TV-shows. This image was one of his last pictures before his passing. - Zac Allan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no permission to use the file as you say, OTRS was pending since July, 4th 2015. Do you have an OTRS-Ticket number? You should have gotten one from the system after you sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please let me know, I try to help all I can. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Vueling A320 and FA-18 Hornet formation flight.jpg
Hello Hedwig in Washington,
Please, take a look on the EXIF data on both images. It's the same composition photographed from a similar place at the Festa al Cel Airshow, but taken by two different photographers. Oriol Federico and Javier Rodriguez EXIF data does not match, so we're talking about two different images.
Hedwig, I can see you are currently logged into OTRS. I have a sticky ticket I wanted to run by you, Template:OTRS ticket. Summary: I got a statement from a person claiming to represent someone famous and releasing the image for use on Commons (in original upload, image lacked adequate licensing info, and had been deleted). In statement, person indicated that subject of photo is copyright holder. I suggest that perhaps the photographer is the holder, and could we get a statement from him/ her. We do, though it is worded oddly and states again that the famous person is the holder. I have verified to my satisfaction that the person claiming to be photographer is who she claims to be, though her website is not operational and I can't track down an original publication date. Here's where I get bent, though: the image has now been used as the cover image for famous person's latest musical track, so has almost certainly been copyright protected (yes?) except that the copyright holder (famous person or photographer) now wishes to release it to Commons under a freer license. Can they do that? If not, can you explain to me why so I can explain to them? What is your quick take? Any thoughts? Please advise, and feel free to check out the OTRS ticket if you like. Thanks!!!! KDS4444 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@KDS4444: At first (and second) glance it seems to be kind of a hoax / fake. The uploader's website is a one page site and I sincerely doubt that this is a professional photographer, representative, or anything commercial whatsoever. No privacy policy, nothing. If you take a peek at the artists website, there's no mentioning of the uploader or his "company." The last straw is that this is a professional artist under contract with a professional company. I really doubt they need someone with a not-working-one-page-homepage. I would ask the uploader to have the company send permission. I doubt you will ever here from this guy again. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Now you've got me thinkin'. My hackles are up. But, okay, then there is this: famous person "tweeted" (I can't believe I just said that) via her verified Twitter account about the photographer by name, and if you follow the @ to the photographer's twitter account, it links to the one-page website again. Plus, I was able to find many references to the two having done photo work together, and any mention of the photographer anywhere that includes a website (many of them do) links to the one-pager. Also, the Facebook page of the famous person (which, I know, might not be official, but still) provides an accounting of the photoshoot that corresponds very well with the date the image was likely taken (according to the image's own EXIF data and with the appearance of the image on the Internet, which also correspond rather well). The photographer's one-pager has been a one-pager for two years now, so I know it wasn't set up last week with the intent to deceive me specifically. But on the OTHER hand (you got enough hands for all this??) the webpage of the first person to contact OTRS as a rep of the famous person is ALSO a one-pager containing nothing but an email address, and it was last modified on Sept. 9th of this year ("modified to include what?" I wonder, as it couldn't be more sparse). Argh. This just seems too elaborate to try to sneak permission of one image past OTRS. The email for the photographer as given on her one-pager corresponds with the email OTRS received, and I am hesitating to go with "hoax" because of the level of detail (both absent and present) I keep finding. It just wouldn't be worth anyone's grief! But then again, perhaps I underestimate the motivations and skill set of some would-be contributors... And the fact that both the photographer's website and the first contact's website contain no meaningful information sets me on edge. If I am gonna call "hoax" on them, I want to be super sure of the call, and I still ain't there. Shoot. KDS4444 (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Good thing you got the ticket and not me! You don't have to call it hoax. Inconclusive is enough to deny a ticket. Meaning the uploader needs to provide some tangible evidence. So far all I see is very vague, constructed by assuming good (or bad) faith. Like I said, I wouldn't give the ticket without somet more substantial information. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And I swear to God that I did not decide to contact you earlier today for any reason other than that I recognized your username from the list of on-line OTRS volunteers, and that the recognition came with a certain positive feeling ("Hedwig... In Washington... Yeah, I think that guy knows what he's doing"), and that I really wanted to talk to someone about the confusion I was dealing with, but it seems that (...drum roll...) you yourself were in fact the very Commons admin who deleted the very file that I am here to now ask to have restored (the coincidence of which seems weird to me, but there you have it— the Wikiworld is sometimes very small, and you and I have interacted over at least one other matter in the past, I forget which!). The file in question was File:Clare Maguire.jpg (deletion record here). I have now identified the earliest version of the image anywhere on the Internet, and it seems to have been published on Ms. Maguire's Facebook page where she (or her team, whoever) specifically credited the photographer, Jessie Lily Adams, as the originator of the image (and apparent copyright holder). I am now at last certain that I have correctly identified Ms. Adams' email and website (brief though it be) and between this and the info available on the plain ticket version of the message that Ms. Adams sent to OTRS yesterday, I am now confident that I have all the permission I need in order to ask to have this image restored (yes?). Though there seemed to be some irregularities at first, I have at last concluded that the preponderance of evidence indicates that nothing is actually amiss. Which is a huge relief for me, because although I am fully prepared to shout, "J'accuse!" at a naughty trickster who tries to slip one past me, I also truly dread the thought of having done so unfoundedly. So, all that being said, please let me know if you yourself have any hesitation in undeleting the file (again, check out the OTRS ticket for the verbose details if you wish). If you do, just let me know and we can hash it up as long as you like. And if you don't, then just ping me to let me know you have taken action. THANK YOU for listening to this extended storyline. I hope that as my OTRS experience increases, I will have fewer moments of hesitation in the future (but thank the god_s) (again) that I took the time to do it right this time!). KDS4444 (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Better outcome than I thought! Another one for the collection. I restored the file and pasted the ticket no. into the description. I'd appreciate if you could check it over and make adjustments as needed. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That works, I guess, but now the category history is split in two. I was suggesting the move (instead of swapping the categories' contents) to preserve that history, but if you don't think that's important then we're good. - Eureka Lott13:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Again the category was deleted without reply on my request to see the last version before deletion. Perhaps if someone see the modifications i made to the last version before its deletion, then all will have no objection on the category. Please ask someone with proper authorization to get the last version of the category before deletion. I know that things can not be deleted without a trace on commons. This is an unfair discussion. Please check the last version before deletion and comment on it to make the discussion fair. One other thing is that i have received a message from someone outside this discussion with vague meaning. Please be straight forward if anyone need to say anything.--Ashashyou (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for this category, the discussion is over and that is that. You might find it unfair not going your way. Sorry about that. If you want to restore this category you need to put in a request on this page: Undelete. Best of luck! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been intending to poke you, but hadn't actually done it until now. You had rejected his last unblock request, a while back. He recently asked again, with an explicit commitment to seeking prior consensus before uploading anything, and I went ahead an unblocked him on that basis, since that would explicitly avoid the prior issue about PRP drama. He's created a subpage for asking for such prior consensus, and been pinging the VP/C when adding things to it. At the same time, he seems to have not really gotten the point about what adds up to sufficient evidence of an existing copyright, so I suspect that if he uploads new files he'll probably merit a reblock. I'd just ask that you keep an eye on User talk:Light show/photos, and be ready to nuke, reblock, and trout me if needed. Basically, I felt he met the 'technical' requirement for unblocking (a reason to feel that the prior issue would be avoided) with that commitment to prior clearance, but I don't really think we can trust his judgement. Other eyes on his submissions would be a good thing, especially given the arguments he's made on that page since. Revent (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just as a further comment, I have his upload log bookmarked, and have been checking it regularly... I'm ready to reblock him instantly (and nuke) if he uploads anything new file that hasn't been assessed by other people. Revent (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ich habe sie selbst erstellt. Die Informationen stammen aus der im Bild angegebenen Literatur. Auch weiss ich nicht, wo ich etwas eintragen soll? Html kann ich nicht. Aber wenn solch wertvolle Informationen in Wikipedia geloescht werden, wuerde das mein Bild von Wikipedia sehr erschuettern. Die Stadtvaeter haben diese Infos sehr gut versteckt, ich habe sie aufgrund meiner beruflichen Erfahrung herausgefiltert und in dieser Grafik auch für Laien zugaenglich gemacht, damit die Anwohner die Qualität des Bodens einschaetzen und sich entsprechend verhalten bzw. ihre Kinder schuetzen koennen. Wenn so etwas verloren ginge, nur weil ich mich im Dickicht von Wikipedia nicht zurechtfinde, wuerde Wikipedia sich zum Mittaeter machen. Finanzielle Unterstützung für Wikipedia fände ich dann falsch. Bitte hilf mir, diese Grafik zu erhalten.
Mea culpa. Wir bekommen 100+ solcher Grafiken pro Tag, i.d.R. sind die alle von irgendwo genommen und nicht ein eigenes Werk. Ja, wie soll man das beweisen? Schwierig, zugegeben. Die einfachste Loesung ist es eine email an OTRS zu schicken, in der Du einfach eigenes Werk bestaetigst. Du bekommst dan automatisch eine Ticketnummer. Lasse mich diese Nr. hier wissen, ich kuemmere mich dann sofort drum. Dateinamen und/oder URL zum Bild angeben, bitte. OK? :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)17:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Danke für Deine Antwort. Leider habe ich sie zu spaet gesehen (ich dachte, ich bekomme dann wieder ein email). Nun ist meine Grafik weg.
Der / die Loescher/in (Ellin B...) hat mir mitgeteilt, dass ich COM:UNDEL (oder so aehnlich) aufrufen und dort meine Wiederherstellungsbitte eingeben soll. Das habe ich nun getan, bin mir aber - wie immer - nicht sicher, ob ich es richtig, vollstaendig usw. getan habe.
Ist Dein o.g. Loesungweg jetzt noch noetig / aktuell? (Bitte sende mir möglichst eine email, wie bei der Loesch-Ankuendigung, da ich nie weiss, ob ich die vielen Seiten, wo ich nun ueberall Nachrichten hinterlassen habe, wiederfinde.
Und: kann das nicht einfacher / idiotensicherer gemacht werden? Ich wollte der Oeffentlichkeit verheimlichte Informationen zur Verfuegung stellen, aber ich bin kein Computer-Nerd und habe auch keine Zeit, es zu werden...
Hallo Hedwig. Hab gesehen, du hast im template Ordnung geschafft: herzlichen Dank dafür! Seit dem ganzen Sommer bin ich mit MetaCats beschäftigt (wie du sicher bemerkt hast). Eigentlich wollte ich mich nur mit denen befassen die Architektur und Kunst betreffen, aber wenn man den verschiedenen Categorien by something nachfolgt bis in jeden letzten Ast, dann kommt man bald ins Unendliche. Was ich getan habe und weiter tue, ich füge den korrekten MetaCat Template bei, denen Kategorien die ihn nicht besitzen (also ich ergänze die relativen Flat Lists); dann ergänze oder korrigiere ich in den Categorien den MetaCat wo er falsch ist. Nun was ich so bemerkt habe, es gibt viele spezifische MetaCats die aber nur in die generelle MetaCat Flat List landen, weil der Template:ByCat nicht mehr auf den neusten Stand gebracht worden ist. Könntest du mir da helfen? Denn ich habe leider nicht genügend Erlaubnisse um es selber zu erledigen.
Meine Vorschläge wären dem Template By Cat die folgende Wörter beizufügen: municipality = city / nationality = country / medallist = creator / musician = creator / writer = creator / millennium = era / association = institution / collection = institution / diocese = institution / religion = institution oder status / area = location / production area = location / common name = name / Latin name = name / christian saint = saint / content = subject / media = type.
Wenn du das machen könntest, das wäre eine grosse Hilfe für mich, und ich wäre dir sehr dankbar. Vor vielen Jahren habe ich / wir gut gearbeitet auf MetaCats als Rocket000 noch aktiv war. Seit dem er nicht mehr tätig ist, habe ich das Gefühl dass die MetaCats total verlassen worden sind. Oder täusche ich mich? Sicher, was ich so sehe, es hat überall tausende von MetaCategorien die den Template nicht besitzen. Für die maintenance ein grosses Handicap, besonders wenn man dann auf den Flat Lists arbeiten möchte um die verschiedenen Categorien zu ergänzen (was ich zum Teil schon tue). Herzlichen Dank für alles was du machen kannst. Liebe Grüsse, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Moin! Gerne gemacht. Ich versuche immer wieder mal den edit requests Herr zu werden. Nicht einfach. Ich bastel nachher in der Kategorie ein wenig rum, im Moment habe ich da nicht die noetige Ruhe. Danke fuer all Deine Arbeit! Fragen: media = type? Was machen wir mit religion? IMHO institution eher als status. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig. Danke für deinen Einsatz. Was religion betrifft, ich hatte da eine Diskussion mit Blackcat, und er schlug mir vor für religion eher status als institution (wie ich dafür vorgeschlagen hatte). Für Respekt zur Meinung von Blackcat habe ich in meinen Vorschläge an Dich auch status beigefügt; aber ich bemerke nur jetzt dass es ein völliger Blödsinn ist: status kommt ja gar nicht vor im Template:ByCat! Also tue nicht desgleichen! Was medium = type betrifft, was ich so gesehen habe, es geht immer um verschiedene Arten, deswegen denke ich dass man medium zu type setzen kann. Wie siehst du es? Oder gibt es da andere Probleme? Was ich dir nicht gesagt habe: ich machte mir Gedanken auch für canton aber es ist sehr problematisch, denn in der Schweiz sind Kantone wie Staten (wie z.B. in den USA; oder die Länder in Germany?), aber in anderen Nationen sind es eher Regionen... Also man kann dieses Wort nicht unter eine Kappe bringen... Vielleicht müsste man einmal eine neue Flat List by canton machen; aber da bin ich auch noch nicht ganz überzeugt. Also wir lassen es. Ok. Nochmals herzlichen Dank für all deine Bemühungen, und alles Gute. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Noch was. Ich bin da über ein paar dramatische Situationen gestolpert, betrifft Templates die nicht recht funktionnieren, oder überhaupt fehlen. Könntest du mir da jemanden empfehlen an den ich mich wenden kann, der solche Dinge sanieren kann? Grazie mille!
First of all, thank you for your work in trying to make Wikipedia better!
Now, I wanted to use this photo for an article, being under the impression that it enjoyed license under license CCO 1.0 Universal Public Domain, all rights waived (Public domain).
Kindly tell me the problem you see with using this photo. Besides the legal issues we are discussing, I think this photo is of historical interest.
I have found the following licenses attached to its use:
Flickr washing is when someone takes a photograph from somebody else, in this case PBS, and loads it onto Flickr claiming own work. The upload on Flickr is a pretty clear copyright violation. Sorry, you have to find another (free) photograph of Andres Segovia. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Kindly see next header "Further research uncovers important photo source info..." Merci! Thank you for taking the time to attend to this; much appreciated. Cordially, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Further research uncovers important photo source info for "File:Michael Laucke with Andres Segovia -PBS TV at Met Museum NY.jpg"
{{Ping|Hedwig in Washington|StarryGrandma|Túrelio|Bgwhite|GrammarFascist}}{{reply to|Checkingfax}}(Sorry, some ping addresses don't work for some reason)
Thank you Hedwig in Washington and Túrelio for looking into this and helping make Wikipedia better, and safer! I understand your concerns, which or course concern us all.
To clarify and help resolve this issue, I have been on a fact finding mission regarding the photo of Andres Segovia and Michael Laucke at the Metropolitan Museum for the PBS TV special. Indeed, I am pleased to divulge what I have learned, in order to expedite a resolution in this matter.
If you go to both the Flickr and the Michael Laucke websites, the personal photo attribution is clearly indicated! On April 12, 1982, this photo was taken by an assisant of Mr, Laucke, called Christine Arenella of New York. The film was produced by Nathan Kroll. Both websites state: "April 12, 1982; photo by Christina Arenella, New York. Press secretary to Michael Laucke."
Upon further research, a pattern emerges where we clearly see that a Christine Aranella was Press secretary to Mr. Laucke from at least 1982-1988 and she is mentioned as having taken these personal photos under Mr. Laucke's emploi.
We can safely say that this photo was created by an employee of Mr. Laucke as part of that person's job (a work for hire). Mr. Laucke has written:
I hereby certify that I own all rights pertaining to this photo. Cordially, Michael Laucke [[User:Mlaucke|Mlaucke]] ([[User talk:Mlaucke|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Of less importance, this photo can also be found reprinted in other newspaper articles, albeit with much lower resolution. There is a further photo with maestro Segovia and Michael Laucke, taken that same evening backstage, after the PBS filming (of less interest), and there are other personal photos with Mr. Laucke and Maestro Segovia on other occasions, such as this one.
I realise wikipedia could have legal problems about copyright infringement, and I certainly dont want to be the one to spur these on! Nevertheless, based on the above facts, the veracity of which can be proved, I think this photo is perfectly safe. Kindly let me know what other proof I need to provide, if any, to make it so.
Once again, thank you for your concern. Kinldy consider making an un-deletion request so that I may have a little more time to contribute worthwhile articles :) Otherwise, alas, "la bataille continue" (the battle continues) ...
BTW, where did that funny claim come from, that Mr. Laucke took his own photo from 20 feet away while playing guitar for Andres Segovia at the same time : ) Merci! Cordially, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Thank you so much for your due diligence in this matter, and for withdrawing the delete request nomination. I think that photo will be a nice addition to my article on the beautiful classical and flamenco guitar and atonal music for this noble instrument. Danke sehr! mit freundlichen Grüßen, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't do much on dewikiquote. I see you already asked there. Maybe you should add a link to the existing article there. Thanks for thinking of me! Best of luck! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Molgreen: Boah, da musst Du Dich an die Bahn AG wenden. Ich würde mit den Jungs vom Eisenbahn-Portal auf DE-wiki sprechen. Die haben das Problem mit Sicherheit schon bearbeitet. Ich stelle Dir eine kleine Liste zusammen und poste diese auf Deiner Diskussionseite auf DE-wiki. LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Zu Deiner Idee: Das wird nix werden, da müssten die Programmier ran und die sind sooo weit im Rückstand mit Fehlerbehebung. Das Problem ist auch, dass wir dann Urheberrechtsverletzungen begehen. Schau mal hier: w:de:Digital Millennium Copyright Act, besonders die EN version. MMn ist die beste Lösung das Löschen der Datei, das ist effektive Quarantäne. Wir können die Datei ja jederzeit wiederherstellen. LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hedwig in Washington, danke für Deine Rückmeldung. Die Urheberrechtsverletzung hatte ich gedacht, durch den Passwortschutz (geschützter Bereich) zu umgehen. Aber wenn die Ressourcen eh nicht da sind ... dann war es halt nur so eine Idee :-)
Hi Hedwig, I've seen that you deleted a bunch of images uploaded by Gerold44 - User_talk:Gerold44. He's pretty new to wiki and is contributing his own work and work from his brother - who died in an alpine accident 33 years ago. Would you help me - to help him get these pictures which are relevant in the topic of alpinism back on commons? Greetings from Graz --E-dvertising (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ich antworte mal in Deutsch. :-) Am 21.9. hat Gerold44 einen Hinweis auf seiner Talkpage erhalten und bisher ignoriert. Die Fotos sind mMn fuer 70 Jahre urheberrechtlich geschuetzt und koennen nicht auf Commons hichgeladen werden. Es sei denn, Gerold44 hat die Fotos nach dem Tode seines Bruders geerbt. In diesem Falle muss Gerold44 eine entsprechende Email schreiben und an OTRS schicken. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
O.k., ich werde das Gerold so weiterleiten (er ist noch nicht so firm in der Kommunikation hier, ist ein "alter Hase" aber hier ganz "frisch"), danke für's erklärende Feedback 'in Deutsch' ;-) ... --E-dvertising (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig, I was surprised to see that the photos was deleted from Dona Amelia Wikipedia. The photographer Mads Monsen sent the coyright to Wikipedia and Wikipedia responded to him to upload the photos. Since he is busy I am supporting him with this. Please refer to Ticket#2015101710004944. Maybe you can send me an email and I can reply with the documents so that you can see that these photos should not be deleted? Thanks for your kind help! Nick (nick.jonsson@gmail.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.Jonsson75 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
--Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, colleague. Why do you want to delete the files in which their authors, sources and licenses have accurately been stated. The following files are my own work and not a copyrighted material, Infact I have complete right to upload them on Wikimedia Commons. So Please undelete these files as soon as possible:-
File:Mig29A Czech air force.jpg
I have been granted the permission by author "Tim Beach" and verified by a Wikimedia Admin "Thibaut Payet" on Oct 20, 2015 4:33pm IST. I Sent the permission and necessary modications were done by Thibaut Payet. Further he sent the following confirmation mail to me which you can also verify.
Hallo Hedwig. Darf ich Dich nochmals stören? Wieder für den Template ByCat. Sagen wir... maquillage...
in der Linie "date" vielleicht ein wenig alphabetische Ordnung schaffen ab "completion date".
(nach decade): die Linie die mit "common name" beginnt, sollte mit "name" beginnen (for coherence with all other lines); die restlichen Wörter alphabetisch geordnet; und zu letzt die Linie weiter hinunten verschoben an die "N" Stelle.
(nach language): am Anfang ist ein Stäbchen zuviel; die Linie sollte mit "location" beginnen und nicht mit "area" (for coherence...).
"municipality" sollte vielleicht in die "city" Linie versetzt werden.
"nationality" müsste vielleicht in die "country" Linie versetz werden.
in der Linie "organization" wäre vielleicht gut eine alphabetische Ordnung ab "company".
Linie "quarter": sollte der Ausgang nicht umgekehrt sein, ich meine "city quarter" in "quarter" landen und nicht wie jetzt "quarter" in "city quarter"? Korrigiere mich bitte wenn ich es falsch meine!
(nach region): die Linie die mit "christian saint" beginnt sollte mit "saint" beginnen (for coherence...).
(nach style): die Linie die mit "content" beginnt, sollte mit "subject" beginnen; und dann ein wenig alphabetische Ordnung schaffen.
Linie "year" braucht vielleicht etwas alphabetische Ordnung.
All das wäre natürlich schön, aber es ist nicht unentbehrlich... Nur wenn Du Zeit und Lust hast. Herzlichen Dank nochmals im voraus! Alles Gute, --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ghana has no COM:FOP but can this simple generic looking plaque be passed on Commons? If not, please consider deleting it as a recent upload. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I don't see any artistic work here. Natural stone, cut and maybe polished, and a list of seven names. If that doesn't pass then I don't know what can. I let the license review pass. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a backlog for updating categories at present- you can see the number of pending updates here under "jobs". There is currently no indication of when this will be fixed, but it is being worked on. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI (since I've seen you adding authority control data) this gadget should now be fixed... edited to use https instead of http when querying. Revent (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Can we please discuss some files you deleted, that I am only and proper owner of? I am absolutely convinced that the files was deleted unfairly, so I would like to discuss the process of restoring them.
Hi, you deleted a couple of other copyvios I'd tagged from the user. This one has an intermediate reupload that I reverted, could you remove that file please? Also, not sure what's done about the intermediate change in licensing (also reverted), so if you could take a look at that, it'd be great. For reference, I came across this today on en.wiki where the user's old account there User talk:Rajeshbiee was blocked for copyright violations such as this. I deleted some of these images from this account today as copyvios and one of them he reuploaded here. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, colleague. Why do you want to delete the files in which their authors, sources and licenses have accurately been stated. They were published over 100 years ago. Here is a list of these files:
Thanks for updating your maps with a source! Unfortunately you use a license that is not compatible with the source license. (Copyright is a bitch, isn't it?) GFDL and CC aren't compatible. Can you change the licenses to {{GFDL|migration=not-eligible}}??
Hi! above files need to be relicend. GNU-GPL and Creative Commons licenses are not compatible. Please change the license to {{GFDL|migration=not-eligible}} You can remove the no-source information when you change the license. If someone doesn't like it, show them this thread. :-) Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, colleague. Please help recover files. I have not been here for more than one day. During this time, Mr. Alan deleted 39 my files. I do not have time to make changes according to your advice.--Asparux Xan Bulqar (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that an admin who has a history of interactions with another user undid your deletion merely because he disagreed with the other user nominating anything for deletion. [73]. You might want to look into that. 2601:154:C101:A20:1CB:A494:9276:13823:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
By which he means me. I cannot believe that you would undo another Admin's decision (a) within about an hour (b) without consulting the other Admin. Accordingly, as I said above, I could only assume that you had seen a previous version of the DR in which I had not commented and whihc had not been closed by the other Admin. This is not wheel-warring, it is correcting an apparent mistake and is nothing at all to do with any other user. Please ignore this trolling attempt to stir up touble where there is none. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
After some digging I found this: File:Holiday Accomodation in Atenas Costa Rica.JPG We had some ~60 seconds lag yesterday. I probably didn't notice the DR or took too much time in VFC. Can't see any wheel war. Lack of caffein? Yes. Wheel war? No. And no, I try not to override another admin, happens sometimes by accident, tho. I usually leave a message before doing anything. In this case it is a clear mistake by me and those should be reverted on sight. Long story short: No harm done, no feathers ruffeld. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I can see you protected File:Lentosotakoulu.svg from the future editing. Please, remove the protection as we would like to go on with the deletion request for this file. Reason: it is incorrect and misleading, uploaded by the sock puppet master WPK~commonswiki. Correct file created and exist. Two more files are both deliberately and intentionally incorrect and inferior and upload by the socl puppets of the same notorious WPK~commonswiki and need to be deleted. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dein Edit hat das Template geschrottet. Bedarf einiges an Aufwand das Templates ins neues System zu übertragen (und damit meine ich Stunden). lg :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to leave nasty comments like "Blatant copyright violation, as it has the non-free works of several authors [...] This work is definitely unfit for this website" like you did in the deletion log for File:BrowserToolbarsInInternetExplorer11.png?
Also, I call bullshit on the following:
Your claim that it's definitely a copyright violation. Microsoft allows you to "use [...] screenshots in advertising, in documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videos, or on websites" subject to certain restrictions per [74]. Even Commons:Screenshots#Software recognizes this. The reason it can't be hosted on Commons is because Microsoft does not "allow derivative works" as stated in Commons:Screenshots#Software. Also, most people would understand "blatant copyright violation" in this context to mean "taking a screenshot someone else had created". I did not take someone else's screenshot. I took screenshot that I alone set up on my own equipment that incorporates some small, ***possibly protected by copyright*** icons.
Your specious equation of "use of non-free works" == copyright violation. Both Google (see [75]) and Microsoft allow you to use screenshots of their non-free software and non-free websites and if you abide by their terms and conditions you aren't violating their copyright because they've granted you use under their terms and conditions. The same goes if they were to explicitly license their images or software (e.g., via Commons:OTRS)
Your specious claim in File:StumbleBarInChrome.png that "Also, it is not the work of the uploader". It is absolutely the work of the uploader. I did not take someone else's screenshot. I took screenshot that I alone set up on my own equipment that incorporates some small, ***possibly protected by copyright*** icons. The problem is that it's a work that incorporates the non-free work of others some of which may be OK to use subject to certain terms and conditions but which we can't guarantee others who use the work uploaded to commons will abide by.
(talk page stalker) Wikimedia Commons requires its uploads to be free for any kind of purpose, including derivatives and commercial reuse. This is clearly not possible under Microsoft's or Google's terms and conditions. And yes, publishing a screenshot of non-free copyrighted software on this free repository (i.e. Commons) is in a fact a copyright infringement. Taking a screenshot is not a creative act, it doesn't make it your work when you hit the Print button and just capture what some original software code produced on your screen. You're not in a position to licence the content of such screenshots. That is why we have fair use regulations on several local Wikipedias depending on the national law of the host country. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your complains: I did not insult anyone. Fact is: The uploads are copyvios. The text in the deletion log was typed by the user who initially requested the speedy deletion. I didn't change the text. The only one calling anything BS on my talk page is me. Refrain from insults. If you need any help in this matter, please let me know. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)18:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. On 18 August 2015 you've deleted a lot of files and between them was a set of over 100 files related to Moldova — this flickr set. Here you can find them in deletion log. Your deletion summary was “Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.” I do not agree with you; in this set was many very good photos (almost all). Please restore this set, many of these images will be used in Wikipedia articles. I have selected from log entries with file names that seems to be related to Moldova and to be part of this set. I list them bellow.
Extended content
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chaprianu -001 (2118079204).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chaprianu -007 (2120261764).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Cleaning feathers (2093013022).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -003 (2110353772).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -019 (2088707634).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -020 (2088707636).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -025 (2088707638).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -027 (2088707646).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -031 (2100345729).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -032 (2100345735).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -033 (2100345737).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -034 (2100345747).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -036 (2100345763).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -036 (2108068702).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -037 (2101134414).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -039 (2108068740).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:On the flight (2071591588).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Pair (2071591586).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Pigeons on the snow (2083761932).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Pond (2071591574).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 001 (2075902180).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 002 (2075902196).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 003 (2075902200).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 005 (2075902206).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 006 (2075902214).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 009 (2100875038).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 014 (2102825829).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 015 (2102825837).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Road in snow (2071167418).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Server House (2100345755).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -010 (2104422029).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -016 (2104586653).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -045 (2105102809).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:55, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Under a snow (2068146981).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chaprianu -003 (2118079218).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chaprianu -006 (2120098316).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chaprianu -009 (2120261778).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chaprianu -010 (2120261780).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 618 (2124591030).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 619 (2124591032).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 621 (2124591038).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 625 (2123904427).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 627 (2123904431).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 628 (2123904433).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 630 (2123904437).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 645 (2126611930).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Chisinau 649 (2126611934).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -001 (2110353758).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -015 (2110353784).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -016 (2109928429).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -018 (2109928431).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -021 (2109928437).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -022 (2109928441).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -025 (2109928447).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -027 (2110043089).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -028 (2110043093).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -035 (2110043099).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -036 (2110043101).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -037 (2110043107).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -038 (2110043115).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -040 (2117456070).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -043 (2117456078).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -044 (2117456082).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -050 (2116831747).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hinku -051 (2116831755).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -037 (2108068722).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -038 (2108068728).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -041 (2108524114).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -044 (2108524118).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -045 (2108524120).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -072 (2107753575).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -112 (2122781748).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -113 (2122781750).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Moldova -116 (2122781752).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:River Raut 016 (2102825839).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Roads of Moldova (2122781756).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Roads of Moldova (2122781760).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Roads of Moldova (2122857208).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Roads of Moldova (2122857212).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -006 (2104422011).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -007 (2104422019).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -012 (2104586643).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -022 (2104879439).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -023 (2104879441).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -027 (2104879445).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -028 (2104879449).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -029 (2104879451).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -034 (2105102797).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -044 (2105102801).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -047 (2108633910).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -048 (2108633914).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca -049 (2108633916).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
19:56, 18 August 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Soroca fortress 3 (2103623426).jpg (Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)
Maybe you think I was shot from a Web site, but in fact the picture was photoed on the site enclosure, only to need to intercept a part, so it looks like the screenshot online.--A2560862780 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed you have labelled most of my uploads as "not properly indicated". My question is, why is my own work need to be verified more? What is lacking from source=Own work label? -Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This logo is a raster image, I doubt you created it yourself. Further: Even if, it is a complex logo and you are not the copyright owner, see Com:DW. It might be in the public domain by age, but you as the uploader have to establish that. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, vous avez déclaré que vous avez créé vous-même tous les fichiers. Quel énoncé est vrai? Si les fichiers sont d'une autorité locale, avez-vous demandé la permission? S'il vous plaît lire Com: L. Cordialement,
Hi, Du hast die beiden im o.g. Ticket genannten Dateien heute gelöscht, das Ticket ist im OTRS aber gesperrt. Für mich sieht das nach einer regulären Freigabe aus, deswegen wundere ich mich, weswegen die Dateien gelöscht sind. Kannst Du mich bitte aufklären (wir haben einen verwirrten Uploader auf de:WP:UF)? Viele Grüße, --Emha (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your help. I need your advice, please. I am trying to clean up this category and move on with creating the missing files and improving the existing, but the category still contains rubbish. Files , File:Finnish Flight Force Staff.svg, , are created by the currently blocked sockpuppet, with the intention to vandalize the content, and are deliberately incorrect and misleading. File is a fantasy, it never existed and not exist. Uploading user suggested it existence but is wrong. I collected all the information possible, translated it from the Finnish language and can tell, that keeping this sort of the files in Wikipedia is counterproductive. It is like creating and keeping the USA flag without the stars. File is created by the notorious sockpuppet master WPK~commonswiki with the intention to duplicate it with this file . Needless to say that it is also counterproductive and only trashes the category. The reason why I am writing to you now is that this category is "my baby". I put a lot of effort in collecting all this information, in correcting the mistakes (both intentional and unintentional), so it is hard for me to see how the content is being vandalized and not be able to do anything about it. Honestly, I did all I could. I nominated for deletion, explained the point (both on the deletion request pages and on the Village pump) and nothing. People just do not want to listen, or just do not care. But I do. Is anything that can be done about it? Sincerely, Kwasura (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Hello and thank you for your participation. I can see full picture now, thanks to the users involved in this matter. I adjusted and corrected your given list according to the information I now possessing.
Files 1 and 2 are fantasies, created by WPK~commonswiki and his sockpuppet. These flags do not exist. According to the book "Puolustusvoimat: Joukko-osastoperinteet" (Unit traditions of the Finnish Defence Forces) by Finnish war museum (2008) Finnish Air Force HQ doesn't have a flag. It states following on page 256: "Esikunta käyttää kielekkeistä valtiolippua. Tätä valtiolippua käyttävät kaikki ne puolustusvoimien esikunnat ja laitokset, joilla ei ole omaa lippua." It could be roughly translated as following: "The HQ uses the Military flag of Finland". This flag is used by all headquarters and institutions which don't have flag of their own. Thanks to Caselius for providing this information;
File 4 , though inferior, is not incorrect per se, but duplicating existing file (which is given). I am advocating the original names of the flags according to the name of unit or institution it was first given to. This is due to the symbolic (coat of arms of the province) used when creating the flag and the battle honors (order of Liberty and the Mannerheim cross) given to the original unit. You can also read my arguments on my talk page;
And finally file 7 is a fantasy or mistake first upload by the Russian user Bingread as File:Finland Air force.svg, but claiming it to be the Finnish Air Force HQ flag (previously explained). 5 September 2015 file was nominated for deletion by the anonymous user. I supported the request and argumented it, but my arguments were ignored by the decision maker and the users participating in the conversation. File was renamed File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg but renaming can not create something which is not exist and never existed. I appealed to the Village pump, but was left unheard. This matter is still unresolved.
Figures in Wikibook, "Introduction to Inorganic Chemistry"
Thanks for your many messages about figures that I have added to Wikimedia Commons for inclusion in the Wikibook "Introduction to Inorganic Chemistry." The vast majority of these figures are original, created de novo by me in Powerpoint and then uploaded as jpg, png, or svg files using the upload wizard. The wizard asked in each case if the file was my own work to which I responded yes.
The message you sent about each of these many figures says, "A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:(filename), is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted."
I apologize for being an unsophisticated user, but I don't know how to edit the file description to include this information. I'd be glad to do it, but it is not obvious how. The link that comes with the message directs me to an editing page, where I see that the source is listed as {own}. Is that not adequate? If not, can you please explain how to fix it? An example is copied below. Thanks very much for your help.
Hi! You used a lot of files not created by you. Many can be found in a textbook made available by UC Davis. There's a copyright notice on the bottom of ever page stating that commercial use is not allowed. Other files could be found on the Pennstate website. You can't upload files that are not free here on Commons. Please have a peek here: Com:L. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If you find specific files that come from the UC Davis site and are copyrighted, please do feel free to delete them. However, any items you find from the "Chemistry 310" website at Penn State were placed there by me and are not copyrighted; they are simply copies of my lecture notes, including figures that were my own work, which were put online for the benefit of students in the class. These notes are now consolidated into the Wikibook. I can provide the Powerpoint source files for almost all the files you have marked as not having adequate source information, from which you could see that they are original drawings. Thanks again for your time.Tem5psu (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)tem5psu
P.S. I took a quick look at the UC Davis ChemWiki website and could not find any images there that resembled those in the wikibook. As far as the Penn State site goes, for the most part, the lecture slides were made and uploaded for the course after the figures were already in the wikibook. That website (http://courses.chem.psu.edu/chem310/index15.html) links to the wikibook, which was used as the textbook that semester. The figures drawn for the wikibook were typically uploaded onto the wikimedia commons shortly after they were finished and converted from Powerpoint. The lecture slides, which contain many of these figures, were uploaded onto the Penn State site weeks or months later.
P.P.S. Sorry to overload your inbox, but the photo at the front of the Wikibook (Chem310 2014.jpg) is a photograph taken with a cell phone camera of the students who contributed to the writing of the book. It is still marked for deletion. I'm not sure what documentation is needed for that photo. It is not published (except in the Wikibook) and is not posted on the course website.Tem5psu (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)tem5psu
There's no overload, no problem. I'd like to keep as many files as possible. So, let's go to work:
The last two are just examples. Regarding the sources: I don't use dropbox, so I can't access your file. Doesn't much matter anyhow. :) What I'd like to suggest is the verification via ORTS. That's where we collect permissions sent to Wiki projects. You can find the instructions here: OTRS. I bet we can sort this out in no time flat. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help with this issue.
(1) Re. the photograph, I took the picture (File:Chem310 2014.jpg), using the camera of one of the students in the picture; the original photo was then digitally cropped. I'll try to work out the OTRS procedure for that one.
(2) Re. lecture slides, they were posted on the Chem 310 website after the figures were already in the Wikimedia Commons, so hopefully no action is required there.
(3) Re. the UC Davis website, as you can see that page clearly acknowledges the Wikibook, meaning that they posted those two figures after the figures were already in the Wikimedia Commons.
(4) Re. the gold nanoparticle aggregation figure, please go ahead and delete it. I will see if I can get permission in due course from Prof. Lisensky, or will substitute an original photograph.
Tem5psu (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)tem5psu
P.S. Checking a bit further on the UC Davis site, I see that they have mapped the entire Wikibook (including all text and figures, except for the end-of-chapter problems) onto their site at http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Textbook_Maps/Inorganic_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Inorganic_Chemistry_Wikibook. It looks like a recent version (within the past few months).Tem5psu (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)tem5psu
Yes, that one is a composite of still images from a Cornell video. I will ask the author (Joshua Judkins) if he can provide permission to use that one. Thanks, Tem5psu (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)tem5psu
In their description I presented the source and their author, also provided the link to the web-site where I found them. Do I have to get the owners' permissions in order to use these files? If so, how do I register it: it should be a license number or something of that kind? Please, help.
{{tl|Autotranslate|1=File:RomanSmogorzewski.jpg|base=Copyvionote}}
Please beck this foto. I work in City Hall Legionowo and this is my foto. President of Legionowo agreed to publish the image.
User:Pke1
I just noticed that you have nominated some of my files for deletion.
All the files are "my own work" and the problem may comes because I have also used them in my
PERSONAL SITES:
Anyway, my tactic from now on will be not to use any of these photos in my blogs before using them for wikimedia foundation.
The three most recent photos:
Boreholes & Lines maps.jpg
Sea areas small el.jpg
Land areas small el.jpg
that are also included for deletion are not mine, they have come from the Greek Ministry of Environment site, www.ypeka.gr (where I work, I am
a director in the mineral exploration sector, http://www.ypeka.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=499&language=el-GR). The strategy for this site is cc-by-sa with the consent of the ministry services (http://www.ypeka.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=487) and I am the one entitled to give the concession. Since all above are written only in Greek, I made some changes in the photos by providing the cc-by-sa symbol inside the photo. I dont know if this is proper for wikimedia foundation, what I know is that there is no distribution problem with the photos.
You deleted images that I created myself using Word
Hi I do not understand why you deleted all the tables I made myself using smart-art in word for my assignment. Since I didnt want to use copyrighted images, the history timeline and cross-over offending percentages..these were all made by me! I don't understand this!--U3059210 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Your deletion of this file was problematic in several respects (such as completely ignoring the previous failed deletion request), and was easily overturned at Undeletion review. It probably would have been better for everybody all around if you hadn't chosen to lend your admin powers to further some of User:Kwasura's personal obsessions. AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: You happened to have all kind of names for me. Fine, I can manage it. But why don't you want to talk about the problem if it is so important for you? Or is it? Seems like it's all a funny game for you. --Kwasura (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with Kwasura. I checked the flags myself and since the fictional flags have been used for false information they can be deleted on sight. Admin power, oh c'mon. Cut me a little slack, will you? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg is NOT a fictitious flag (except according to Kwasura's strange personal definition), and it is not entirely clear that alleged hoaxing images can always be "deleted on sight" (one reason, of course, is to prevent bogus accusations of hoaxing from steamrollering the improper deletion of a file, as happened here). AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you care to provide some minimalistic explanation for your actions, or do we have to go through the undeletion process again? AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Really? "History cleanup" on a file where your decision to delete was recently overturned? I think you owe us a little fuller and more detailed explanation than that! AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: will you stop arguing already? You are not right here. What is your point? @Kwasura: , @Msaynevirta: , @Motopark: and @Caselius: provided enough information about the subject to answer all the questions. You provided NOTHING to support you case. Nothing at all. So you are acting like a troll. --Kwasura (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is copyfraud. This may perpetuate it; deletion discussions can go on ad infinitum. As has been explained at length, this is not CC licensed, so I removed the CC license. Please participate in the main discussion. Can you please explain there why this doesn't qualify for a speedy as a copyright violation - why falsely tagging something with a CC license is not a copyright violation? Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I was specifically instructed to nominate it for deletion. By an admin: User:Jarekt told me, "If license is wrong please nominate for deletion." The license was wrong. So I nominated it for deletion, using the "Nominate for deletion" button. And I get shit for it from the both of you. Lame. I merely follow explicit instructions from an admin, and ask you to participate in the main discussion and instead you accuse me of dumping oil into the fire.
Evidence: diff with edit summary: "Undo revision 173812846 by Elvey (talk) Please do not remove a license unless you replace it with a corrected one. If license is wrong please nominate for deletion.)" Messed up, y'all. How uncivil, speaking of dumping oil into the fire! --Elvey (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It is never a good idea to nominate a file for deletion while the (c)matter is still being discussed elsewhere. If you think you absolutely have to nominate the files, that's fine. Don't be surprised if you get some flak, tho. :-) --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
hedwig, habe ja durchaus verständnis - und geduldig bin ich ja eigentlich auch. nur sind bisher sogar alle fotos von mir selber (permission selber geschickt) nicht "durchgerutscht", nicht eins, immer nur gelöscht (mit dem netten satz versehen: laden sie keine weiteren illegalen fotos hoch!).
manchmal ists kompliziert (da ist der fotograf verstorben), manchmal sind die rechte aufgekauft, nunja, das wird nicht akzeptiert. ok
aber meist ist es monate her. gut, ich warte noch ein halbes jahr... vielleicht klappts ja dann.
vor paar tagen habe ich wieder gemälde hochgeladen. 2 tage später erfolgte schon die löschdiskussion, obwohl noch am tag der hochladung die permission-mail abging. naja, da ist man dann sprachlos. Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz: Ja, manchmal ist es wirklich frustrierend hier. Rechte aufkaufen geht nach Deutschem Urhg nicht, nur Erbschaft ist moeglich. Da haben unsere Politiker einmal nicht aufgepasst. Ich habe da noch 'nen Tip: Beim Hochladen einfach OTRS pendingin die Infobox eintragen, falls noch keine Ticketnr. verfuegbar ist. Gibt es bereits ein offenes Ticket, OTRS received mit Ticket Nr. eintragen. Hier sind die beiden Vorlagen zu finden:
Template:OTRS pending <- bitte beachten, diese Vorlage muss gesubst werden. = {{subst:OP}}
die nummern muss ich mir besorgen, weil ich die mails ja weiterleite an die fotografen und da bekomme ich selber ja keine mail zurück. ich kriege nur die antwort der fotografen:mail abgeschickt. dauert n bischen. Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Das erste Ticket ist jetzt erledigt. Habe ein paar Fragen dazu:
Zum anderen Ticket: Ich habe da nur einen schnellen Blick gewagt. Soweit ich gesehen habe, ist nur noch die Stasi Akte zu bearbeiten. Dazu muss ich die Kollegen um Hilfe bitten, ich bin mir nicht sicher was das Urheberrecht ueber MfS-Akten, etc aussagt. Ggf. greift ja auch noch der Schutz der Persoenlichkeit. Hast Du dazu Informationen? Diskussion hier (DE-wiki): w:de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Stasi_Dokumente. LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)22:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi can you help, you have deleted several photo's from G4(Band) and Jonathan Ansell which was taken by myself and my wife. How do I insert a licence? These photo's may have appeared on the web else where as we may have posted to Facebook Twitter and Jonathan Ansell's forum.
Sorry to be a pain but still trying to learn how to do things on here.
@Zac quantum: Hello! Nah, you're not a pain. Yet Have a look at Com:L and Com:CLIC to find a license that suits your needs/wishes. The standard licenses are available in the upload-form. You can always add a license after the upload by editing the text and just add the template for the license you want. The most popular license currently is CC-BY-SA 4.0, meaning Creative Commons, name author, derivatives must be under the same license. Here is a link to this license: Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0. Photos that have been posted somewhere else before can be a little bit problematic, often people assume that you just copied from Twitter and uploaded here under false representation of own work. The best way to handle those files is to give permission using our OTRS system. I'd suggest you send an email to OTRS, explaining that you took certain photographs and that you want to license them freely. Please state the license you want and a include a list with the filenames here on Commons (deleted or not). No need to send the photographs. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hans555: Moin, moin! Die Freigabe des Archives reicht nicht aus. Ein Foto von 1975 ist urheberrechtlich geschuetzt. Nur der Fotograf selbst oder dessen Erben kann/koennen eine Freigabe erteilen. Die Schutzfrist laueft erst 70 Jahre nach dem Tode des Fotografen aus. LG, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Madam
Uploading the portrait of my grandfather has already been a problem for me. This is not because I am mentally handicapped. I am a graduate engineer (Dr. Degree in Electrical Engineering) and holder of a rather important US Patent (Data communication system between a central computer and data terminals United States Patent 3772656) and I have installed vital equipment in satellite earth stations of Comsat.
The problem is, that I am not a lawyer, possibly a specialist in copyright legislation, and I refrain from dealing with problems outside my professional field of competence.
Therefore I rely on you, and I understand, that the image will be deleted from Wikimedia Commons.
However, I don’t understand, why the same image in black and white is published in Google Image.
I don’t understand the lack of an easily accessible form of technical support and assistance for people who try to upload images or text in Wikimedia Commons. I have been working with companies like Raytheon, Wang, Computervision and our primary concern was to offer a user friendly technical support to our customers.
I conclude with the following observation, without any comment. My grandfathers’ works were banished and destroyed in Germany between 1933 and 1945. My Italian Degree in Electrical Engineering has been recognized in Germany in, applying the law of July 7 1939 of the German Reich in 1982, now there is a good reason (I am not able to understand whether a law or a bureaucratic rule or regulation), that makes it impossible to publish his portrait in Internet.
Eutropius
Paris, November 29, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eutropius (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eutropius: Hello! Working @ Commons can be complicated and frustrating. Please remember that we are all volunteers. Regarding the deletion of your image: You didn't specify a license. Further, Google is not a repository for images, but a search engine. No matter the legal status, Google displays the image and let's the user decide whether it is OK to use or not. Regarding your upload: As I understand from the information given, your upload is a photograph of a painting created by your grandmother in ca. 1930. Questions: Who took the photograph? Who inherited the painting? If you are the legal heir and took the photograph yourself, there is no problem. Just pick a license and let me know. Help on licenses can be found here: Com:L and Com:CLIC. Don't hesitate to contact me if you run into problems. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig. Thank you for your message. I have verified that legally I have the right to carry out the licensing procedure for Wikimedia Commons, nevertheless I decided to refrain from it, because, after thoroughly examining the juridical aspects and consequences of this procedure, I realized that the image could be used for unforeseeable purposes, that can be incompatible with my views and with the respect I feel for my grandfather and grandmother. Yours sincerely, Eutropius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eutropius (talk • contribs) 10:41, 03 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fix News Report: Hello! You didn't specify a license. But never mind that, the poster is not your design, therefore you don't have the legal right to license it anyway. Only free content can be uploaded here on Commons. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, do you remember the User:Πρώτη Σερρών case ? Well he's back, this time under the username of Αχρήστης 103, an account that I suggest you to block since he started once again loading numerous copyright violating files. Thanks in advance. ;) --Glorious 93 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the mentionned before user is, once again, back again under this username. He still hasn't uploaded any files but the quicker you block him the better it is, rather than waiting for him to upload numerous files before doing so. Thanks in advance and I also take the initiative to wish you a happy new year in advance. :) --Glorious 93 (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Aloha! I tagged two with no source, one I changed in to a regular DR. Could you add the sources real quick and maybe comment on the DR? I think we can close ASAP. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. I do not object to the regular DR for commons. Things are done differently here than on Wikipedia in regards to copyright issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig, the source is the "Peabody Essex Museum." Miller removed them because there is no links. There are no links because this is not published digitally.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Through an email correspondence with a curator. Does the PEM hold copyright though or did the copyright expired with the original painting's 19th century creator.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The license is not the essential information but the source of the image itself. This is not about copyright of the painting. The copyright issue was the photo.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't care about the license. What's going on with the source? Why is that so hard to answer? Who took the picture? If you say it was from a person, group or organization that has already published it, it requires OTRS. But you have already clearly stated you don't know the answer and the person that sent it to you does not know who took it.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel like a request delete needs to be file for the user's concern for those two paintings and not a "No source since" and deleting of the sources I continuously try to add to it base on his claiming it is not the source. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The source is not verified. If not, it is like saying I found it somewhere on the internet. Sorry, but that is the bottom line. I feel Kavebear's uploads might need some looking into and further investigation.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Having a copy of an e-mail would be one step. OTRS is the next step. The editor has made a clear declaration that the actual museum is the source. An E-mail from the curator would still require OTRS verification and the name of the photographer...or a declaration that it was a work for hire. If the curator is able to verify this information there would be no dispute over the essential information that is vital to keep on Commons.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have the initial email conversation linked here about the information pertaining to the paintings in their records. I am not at liberty to release the name and personal information of the people involved though. This is a 2-D reproduction of PD work so the photographer or work for hire possess no copyright protection anyway what so ever under US copyright law; the copyright holder under US law is the dead unknown 19th century artist(s) of the two works. I will look into how OTRS works but that's a tool for a creator/copyright owner to release their copyright. -KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No, we use OTRS for a lot of stuff. Account verification and information that shouldn't be public, not only for permissions. If you decide to forward your conversation to OTRS, please post the ticket number (automatic response email) here. I'll have a peek asap. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Hedwig. I still don't understand OTRS. What is available to be viewed in an OTRS ticket number once forwarded and who is allowed to view it? I am ultimately worried about my personal email, my name or the worker's name being revealed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig. I've submitted the conversation to OTRS after forwarding the conversation first to my anonymous alohakavebear@hotmail.com email, although you can see my name and the name of the PEM worker in the record. The ticket number is 2015121410005721.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Now, the question is, does the OTRS ticket confirm that the work is that of museum and that it is confirmed to be a work for hire with the correct attributions required...because I am not above requesting confirmation of all facts.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have been done far too quick. I challenge the OTRS ticket and request outside verification that the museum has actually confirmed the information. I request verification from administration that the OTRS ticket confirms source information to the satisfaction of all Wikimedia policy that is relevant.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Point blank. If this OTRS verification meets the standards that are required, I am willing to drop further dispute. I request independent verification that all source information has been met. All that is required is a non involved admin to verify that an e-mail from the museum curator has confirmed that they sent an email to a commons member and confirms the image as a work for hire with proper attribution in private. If this is not met I request speedy deletion or communication from the museum in some form that can be verified as authentic.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the email. There's not much to investigate, the email is fine. No (c) for the paintings due to age and none for the photograph, due to the fact that it is a faithfuil reproduction. I am an OTRS agentandadministrator on Commons. What more do you want? Since the information is privileged I can't and won't disclose any other details. There won't be any outside verification for sure, because it would contradict our fundamental policies. If you don't trust me, you need to have another OTRS agent. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I undid. A challenge to the OTRS ticket has been made during this procedure. It is the opinion of this editor that the OTRS does not confirm work for hire status from the museum in question. If OTRS is confirmed to have fulfilled Commons requirements, there is no further dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hedwig. I am going to try to step away from this for a couple of days until my exams are over on Friday. Thank you for all the help along the way. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Why did you delete the file Ausweisung_Rimli_19360206.jpg without answering my question? This is an official document (by the Nazis!) and official documents are not protected, see German law here. The corresponding template in German is Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk. I asked what international template I should use. Or should I upload it to the German Wikipedia? --Peteremueller (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hedwig in Washington. Thanks for checking File:AFM-Logo-2014.jpeg. I only added the "No permission since" tag because I wasn't sure if the uploader was who they claimed to be or had sent an email into OTRS. I am not sure why it was tagged as a"duplicate" because there is no File:Aurora Fossil Museum logo.jpg, but there is a non-free en:File:Aurora Fossil Museum logo.jpg so maybe that's what was meant. What should happen to the non-free file after the Commons' file has been verified by OTRS? Should it be deleted per en:WP:NFCC#1? The non-free file has been tagged for a move to Commons. If it's left as is and eventually moved, there will be two files of the same logo on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I shot a quick email to the museum. Seems like someone close uploaded the file here. The file on enwiki can be deleted as a duplicate, but only if we get permission to host on Commons. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I lost it. No other way to put it. That is not your fault, it is mine. I apologize for my behavior and my awful language. There is no excuse. I was being a jerk (although the older language of that essay probably fits me more here, in this case).--69.62.165.17704:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: Didn't make the connection, sorry. Everybody can blow a fuse at some point. No hard feelings on my side. But I'd like to suggest to archive your talk page. . If you need help with that, don't hesitate to ping me. Or any other problems. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)08:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Ich hab den mal in nen anon-only umgewandelt weil sich ein user via OTRS beschwert haben. Sollte das Falsch gewesen sein bitte revertieren :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
To delete pictures because of your interpretation of skydslagen is quite surprising. No one has asked you as far as I know. There was this French military installation which caused quite a stir.[79] This concerns Wkimidia's credibility and independence. Do restore the deleted pictures now. Edaen (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Toutes les images proposées pour mon article sont ma propriété personnelle et j'en cède les droits pour publication sur wikipédia
Merci de votre compréhension
D. A. Chartier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didier Chartier (talk • contribs) 21:49, 04 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you deleted two of my photos. I have written consent to publish these photos online by their authors. I would like this to be reversed. Also, the USA map for the green party primary is entirely my work, but it has been flagged for deletion. Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24. Feb. 2016 (talk • contribs) 02:21 (UTCJp16103)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
File:GREENPARTYPRIMARYFEB2016.svg.png - no source given. .svg.png - .svg.png? Strange ending. Looks like a screengrab of an .svg map. See derivative work.
Hi, I have written consent from Tim Canova and the Green Party to upload those photos. The map was made using the template map on the commons. I simply used :Blank US Map.svg from the commons to create that image. Jp16103 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Sweepstakes wreck 10-12-2016.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
every single image I've uploaded on wikipedia i have permission to use. the copyright info held on wikicommons is incorrect, i haven't violated any copyright laws. these images need to stop being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharMedia22 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Cu hum.JPG OK, Daten koennten mit Infobox ergaenzt werden
Cu congestus.JPG OK, Daten koennten mit Infobox ergaenzt werden
Cumulonimbus.JPG OK, Daten koennten mit Infobox ergaenzt werden
(Woof?) 00:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(Woof?) 00:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Done
Not done Rd232 already added the line, everything works. Case closed :) --Hedwig in Washington 
INeverCry (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 01:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
, Danke für deine ganzen Beiträge. Steinsplitter (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
OK --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Info This is under (c). It seems like the American Dad logo is well above TOO. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
.gif)
Question Could you check the restored files for correct licenses? Thanks a bunch! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
— Ineuw 04:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Bavaria 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Mattsnow81 (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Kurdish Mahabad Republic Was Established in 1947
Mustafa Barzani in Mahabad establishing Kurdish government
Qazi Muhammed wearing Kurdish clothes
Sheikh Mahmoud as sent to exile by Englishmen to India
_Blumenstrauss,_eingeh%C3%BCllt,_1964.JPG)
.JPG)
_Tanzcaf%C3%A9,_um_1920.JPG)
_Bei_Portofino,_um_1920.JPG)
. 'nuf said, I restore the file and add the proper license. Thanks for all your work! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Art
IWM original
IWM alternate
.jpg)
Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Danke fuer den Hinweis! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing and deletion for the file.--Tokorokoko (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Ninja dup killer! 
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Revent!! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Happy Halloween! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
, File:Finnish Flight Force Staff.svg, 
, 
are created by the currently blocked sockpuppet, with the intention to vandalize the content, and are deliberately incorrect and misleading. File 
is a fantasy, it never existed and not exist. Uploading user suggested it existence but is wrong. I collected all the information possible, translated it from the Finnish language and can tell, that keeping this sort of the files in Wikipedia is counterproductive. It is like creating and keeping the USA flag without the stars. File 
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
im System, dann funktioniert so manches.... 
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
. If you need help with that, don't hesitate to ping me. Or any other problems. Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Hope you had a good xmas with a lotta catnip. 
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
![89 "File has no source" bei File:Jadvalش.png](#"File_has_no_source"_bei_File:Jadvalش.png){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
![217.2 "File:The Garrison Savannah Barbados Race Track.jpg](#"File:The_Garrison_Savannah_Barbados_Race_Track.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![597 Further research uncovers important photo source info for "File:Michael Laucke with Andres Segovia -PBS TV at Met Museum NY.jpg"](#Further_research_uncovers_important_photo_source_info_for_"File:Michael_Laucke_with_Andres_Segovia_-PBS_TV_at_Met_Museum_NY.jpg"){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AParam-Vir-Chakra-ribbon.svg&diff=4583767&oldid=4583448){kind=link}
![13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hedwig_in_Washington/Archive_1#c-High_Contrast-2013-08-07T13:51:00.000Z-"File_has_no_source"_bei_File:Jadvalش.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cakkanuraga.jpg&diff=next&oldid=95864758){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greater_Iraq_Ba%27athist.png){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_map_of_Greater_Iraq_(Ba%27athist).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://papata1962.blog.bg/photos/55898/original/Vardarska-Banovina.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ALilioukalaniGardens_Hilo_Hawaii.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:John_Brockman_portrait.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://wilfrieddamman.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Code-Black-press-picture2.png){kind=link}
![[22]](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KeCrHy0itRgJ:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%25C4%25B0hsan_Do%25C4%259Framac%25C4%25B1_1996.jpg+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Desetar_kov_jna.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:General_JNA_insignia.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:General_major_kov_jna.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:General_armije_jna.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[33]](http://www.nojhan.net/geekscottes/strips/geekscottes_124.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[44]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:12431_Rajdhani_Express.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=File%3ATacoma+in+Pierce+County.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Desmatosuchus_mount.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg-1){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
,_film_by_Jacobo_Penzo.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFassade_Westendstrasse_8.jpg&type=revision&diff=164337812&oldid=145802227){kind=link}
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Aegirocassis_benmoulae.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[61]](http://s1.15cdn.lt/static/cache/ODgweDU4MCwxMDB4MTA2LDYyNTU3MSxvcmlnaW5hbCwsODkxMzgwNjcw/ilija-goriaciovas-55a6109a38455.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Microsoft_Office_2003_Student_and_Teacher_Edition.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Microsoft_Office_2007_(x4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[72]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AHoliday+Accomodation+in+Atenas+Costa+Rica.JPG%7CRestored){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[76]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Domingo_Bazzurro_-_Cantera_abandonada.png&redirect=no){kind=link}
![[78]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SovietComputerMC1504KlassnyTakojProstoSuperAga.jpg){kind=link}
