User talk:JuTa/Archive 22

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.

Hello

Hello, I made a contribution by putting Mišarski boj prikaz...I found it in a book about Mišar battle, and I would writte more information about it, but there in the book was no information who made that lithography...I guess it is from Belgrade national museum of history or that its was made by Austrians who watched the battle...The diorama is made by myself and it is going to be putted into Museum of Mišar battle on Mišar near Šabac... So about Mišarski boj prikaz could you tell me how to write this information. I can only mention who wrote the book...Pink Flojd (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed the description page now. regards. --Ju Ta 16:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for the notice about my files. I have a question. Are these sites with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy? File:Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady",1964.jpg Description English: Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady",1964. Photographed by Cecil Beaton, 1964 Date 21 October 1964 Source [[1]] Author Cecil Beaton

File:Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire in "Funny Face" 1957.jpg Description English: Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire in "Funny Face", 1957. Behind the screen Date 1957-13-02 Source [[2]] Author Unknown Permission (Reusing this file) PD-Pre1978

With respect,

Hi, on the bottom of both pages ou linked as source ou see a copyright notice. I'm not sure if PD-Pre-1978 is applicable here. I will convert both cases into a regular deletion request. regards. --Ju Ta 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Licensing

In this image the site where the image can be shared. I saw that the file can be shared, I uploaded the file, but I didn't know scope of licence. Can you help me what i can this topic? YZCTEK (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the source page http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/mineral-putnisite-discovered-video_n_5227826.html clearly states: Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. So: You are not allowed to copy or redistribute that image. regards. --Ju Ta 17:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Piatassinari.jpg

Dearest JuTa, thank for your message!

Please, I need your help, because I never uploaded pictures from other Wikis. Only I upload the pictures I take.

So, I'm not really able to uploade this kind of file. Please, can you help me? I found on the Italian Wikipedia, and in the history I read that

this photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first published in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation. The simple photography must not have artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality.

So I thought that it can be uploaded. But really I don't know how I can put other news, please, can you help me? Thanks a lot for your precious help!

Sincerely

Rei Momo (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the description page now according the original. But I found that it allready was transfered to commons under a different name, and marked it as duplicate - see here. regards. --Ju Ta 02:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Playing the guitar in Washingto Square Park DSC 0040 (5690666418).jpg

This redirect needs to be deleted.

The file was originally called File:DSC 0040 (5690666418).jpg. To give it a more descriptive name, I wanted to change it to File:Playing the guitar in Washington Square Park DSC 0040 (5690666418).jpg, however in my first attempt to do so, I misspelled "Washington" leaving off the "n". So I made a new redirect, with the proper spelling, changed the redirect on the original name to point to the new, correct name, and marked the page with the mistaken spelling for speedy deletion, which, for some reason, you reverted.

I hope you can see that the name above is the intermediate step in a broken redirect, and needs to be deleted. The original name is now properly redirected to the new, descriptive name, and all that is left is the clean up of my error.

Thanks,

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding File:Logo amel.jpg

I'm a bit confused on this one, and am hoping you could clear it up. I've in the past nominated for speedy files like File:Carabosse.jpg, File:Nestpick logo.png, and File:Educare learning.jpg, where it's clear that the image is a copied corporate logo, the logo meets TOO, and there's no indication whatsoever that the uploader is actually someone who's able to release the image under a free license. Those were speedily deleted without issue. Could you please clarify when requesting speedy as obvious copyvio for these is appropriate and when I should start a regular DR instead? Seraphimblade (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, for me it was not 100% clear that this is above COM:TOO. That depends on the country of origin as well, which ever is applicable here. In doubt better a regular DR than a speedy one. No other admin has been picked up that speedy for over 3 days, which is another indication that this is not a clear case. regards. --Ju Ta 18:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Greg Wohlwend headshot full frame.jpg

Hi—please restore File:Greg Wohlwend headshot full frame.jpg. The permission is waiting in the OTRS queue. czar ♔ 19:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For over a month now, which enables the deletion of the file. Is the OTRS permission confirmed now or still pending? --Ju Ta 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bachhaus eisenach.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bachhaus eisenach.jpg, 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.

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!

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Files not in the PD

Hi, JuTa, About the images with URAA problems and the discussion generated, my question is: was there a decission about the latest files uploaded not in the PD in the US? For example, this photo (1975) is in the PD in Argentina but not in the US.

Would be correct nominating this image for deletion? I suppose so, but I have to be sure first.

Thanks in advance, Fma12 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. perhaps ask on the Village pump or similar. regards. --Ju Ta 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Test ArcSoft.jpg

JuTa, you leaved to me a message to my talk page because the file is not properly licensed. As you noted, I uploaded the file for testing purposes only and I tagged for Speedy deletion almost inmediatelly after uploading. Then, as you as admin, please delete them, and see File:ArcSoft_Imagen3.jpg. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Done--Ju Ta 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright notice

Hi

Well, I tried to get in contact with the webmaster about usage rights for the specific content and the mail address not work. I'm searching for some contact form and also tracked the image to http://www.hidalgo.gob.mx/?p=292 to hopefully get the information needed.

--Vicm3 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aquilapollenites_Attenuatus_Funkhouser(1961

Regarding : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aquilapollenites_Attenuatus_Funkhouser(1961).jpg I am attempting to write a biography of J.W. Funkhouser. Recently I emailed Antoine D. Bercovici, PhD - weblink http://www.paleoserver.com/aberco/site/homepage.html to obtain an image of the holotype specimen which Funkhouser found & described.... he emailed me this image... I have contacted him again and explained that I did not provide enough information for you... hopefully he will respond.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Transparent Eye (talk • contribs)

Hi, he should write an email to the commons support team to verify he is the author an copyright holder of that image. He has also to state under which free license he likes to publish the image ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is recommanded). For details pls. see Commons:OTRS. regards. --Ju Ta 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also forwarded the email exchange between Antoine D. Bercovici and myself to Open-source Ticket Request System, this should be sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transparent Eye (talk • contribs)

I have responded to your email. please comply. -- Meisam (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Аверс медали «За оборону Славянска».png

Dear JuTa, I stumbled on this medal and tried my best to provide info upon your request. But please do check on your spare time! With best regards, --Nabak (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, looks OK now for me. Thx. --Ju Ta 03:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too! Ву the way, can I ask you something? I have uploaded several portrait-type «Youtube - CC» screen shots, some of them are already in use. Who can validate their «Youtube - CC» status? Regards, --Nabak (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Include the template {{LicenseReview}} to the description page an some expirienced users will take care of it. But be aware of the backlog in Category:License review needed. It could take days, weeks or months until it will be picked up... regards --Ju Ta 04:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it right away! Best, --Nabak (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Bosweg Rijksmuseum SK-A-48.jpeg

Hello JuTa, Could you please undo the removal of this file? You deleted the wrong file. Thank you. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I switched 2 too files because the kept one has the higher resolution. Why is that wrong? --Ju Ta 07:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one was higher in resolution, but the colors weren't that good. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The deleted one was a little bit darker, I don't see better colours there. (leaving now...) --Ju Ta 07:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The differences were probably down to the Rijks producing more "authentic" reproductions/photographs of the paintings. Some previous scans I have noticed appear to be more like high quality scans of prints rather than photographs of the paintings (high quality photographs will invariably appear darker than scans of prints, however the colours will be much closer to the original painting under natural light). A second difference is the EXIF data, my recent uploads have quite reasonable data added by the Rijks, often there appears to be none on other versions, which creates an issue for off-wiki traceability.

I would take care with interpreting higher resolution as better quality. When the Rijks renders an image on its main viewing website, the image is broken into squares, this helps with zooming in and out. Unfortunately the default resolution for the squares can give a "false" overall higher resolution if these were re-stitched together (or possibly screen-captured), as the zoom ends up being higher than a 1:1 ratio with the original scan. As far as I am aware, my recent upload of 4,000+ paintings ought to be the true highest available resolution anywhere, if there is another deletion candidate, it may be worth creating a DR so that we can look at it in more detail. Unfortunately as I am not an admin, once the file is deleted, doing any analysis would be much harder for me as I am unable to examine the deleted files. --Fæ (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, I realise now I should have done a DR instead. My mistake. Sorry about that.

So far the following files are affected:

File:Bosweg Rijksmuseum SK-A-48.jpeg

File:Italiaans landschap met gezicht op een haven. Rijksmuseum SK-A-49.jpeg

File:Boerenerf. Rijksmuseum SK-A-50.jpeg

File:Italiaans landschap met de Ponte Molle Rijksmuseum SK-A-51.jpeg

Maybe these could be overwritten/renamed? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a closer look at SK-A-49 (my desktop is very underpowered for video work, so this is tediously slow). I could not see any difference between the jpg file and the original jpeg from the Rijks, apart from the EXIF data. Obviously this means that they are not "digitally identical" but they do appear visually identical. I still think the EXIF data is worth preserving, so it would be worth considering writing the current Rijks version over the existing file, this way both will appear in the file history and we have the benefit of the EXIF data which then easily demonstrates this is the "official" scan from the Rijks, and leave the old version easily available in the file version history should anyone want to use it. This solution also avoids have the file automatically uploaded at some later date. Although the API does a checksum verification and highlights if the file was previously deleted, my presumption on uploads is that the file ought to be uploaded as a prior deletion might have been down to faulty licences rather than a duplicate issue.

Anyway, I'm hoping this is an issue for a relatively small number of duplicates. Other versions I have seen are much poorer quality that the Rijks original, so the decision is much easier. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, please. And like I said, I'll be a little more carefull next time. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll undelete those files an will decline the dupe requests as different coulors and different resolution. regards. --Ju Ta 18:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Explicación

Me gustaría que razonaras tus cambios. No entiendes que es un enlace muerto y nulo. ¿Para qué sirve? --Parair (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I still think the redirect can and should stay, but I now completed your deletion request - see here, here and here. regards --Ju Ta 23:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

BSB Ci 313 50v Reichlin A

Hallo JuTa, hier mein Kommentar zur Korrektur auf der disk dieser Datei File:BSB Ci 313 50v Reichlin A.png :

Ich weise nur darauf hin, dass das Original als cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 DE kategorisiert ist. Dort steht, dass man das Bild nur unter dieser Lizenz weiter verwenden darf. Ich habe aber das Original bearbeitet und verändert (Text 15♥87, E?SM?) verschoben und einen Ausschnitt genommen. Daher mein Vorschlag: self/cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 DE.

Wenn der Rechtsstatus geklärt ist , möchte ich noch weitere Bilder in dieser Weise bearbeiten und hochladen. Sonst tue ich mir die Arbeit nicht an, wenn dann alles wieder gelöscht wird. --Hannes 24 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Hannes, da das Originalbild aus den 16ten Jahrhundert stammt, ist es schon lange gemeinfrei und bleibt es auch. Auch eine Auschnittswahl besitzt kein eigene Schöpfungshöhe. Lade dann bitte diese Bilder mit Lizenz {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} und der Angabe des ursprünglichen Enstehungsjahres hoch. Gruß --Ju Ta 14:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

PS: cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 - also non-commercial Lizenzen - sind auf commons und jedem anderen wiki nicht akzeptiert, da der gesamte Inhalt auch kommerziell weitergenutzt werden soll. Gruß --Ju Ta 14:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Werd ich nicht machen, da ich die Urheberrechte der Bayern nicht "verletzten" werde. Wär schön gewesen, weil die scans und die Darstellung sehr gut sind. // Habe die m.M.n "richtige" Lizenz wieder eingegeben. Bitte so lassen oder Löschen ! --Hannes 24 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Nun gut, wie Du möchtest. Ich habe jetzt die deiner Meinung nach korrekte Lizenz {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0-de}} (und nur die) verwendet. Dies ist aber eine Weiterleitung auf einen Schnelllöschantrag. Also wird die Datei also bald gelöscht sein, oder ein andrer Admin setzt wieder die meiner Meinung nach korrekte {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} ein. Die originale Zeichnung stammt och aus dem 16. Jahrhundert, oder? PS: Was http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de da macht, ist übrigens meiner Meinung nach eine Schutzrechtsberühmung. Sie beanspruchen ein Urheberrecht für Werke auf die sie kein Urheberrecht besitzen. In diesem Falle ist as wohl schon lange ausgelaufen, in anderen Fällen mag das bei den (noch lebenden) Künstlern oder bei deren Erben liegen aber nicht bei den Betreibern dieser Webseite. Gruß --Ju Ta 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Du magst recht haben, aber ICH habe das Bild hochgeladen und auf der webseite des Fotos steht ausdrücklich diese Lizenz oben. Daher halte ich mich daran.

Was ist, wenn ich das Wappen freistelle (=Hintergrund ganz weiß mache). Genügt das für die "eigene Schöpfungshöhe". /Ergänzung: Das Originalbuch liegt in der BSB, ob es noch ein Exemplar woanders gibt, weiß ich nicht. --Hannes 24 (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, eher nicht. Ein weißer Hintergrund hat normalerweise keine Schöpfungshöhe. Du müsstest das Wappen also komplett selbst zeichnen, mm besten anhand der Blasonierung, sofern vorhanden, und nicht dieses Bild nachzeichnen. Du kannst aber gern nochmal z.B. auf Commons:Forum oder Commons:Help desk nachgfragen. --Ju Ta 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Was ganz anderes. Gibt es das tool, mit dem man die hochgeladenen Dateien übesichlicher ansehen kann nicht mehr? --Hannes 24 (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also ich kenne nur dieses. --Ju Ta 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bis vor einem Monat? gab es ein Tool, das die Bilder in Form von Dias nebeneinander aufreihte, die Eigenschaften wurden darunter kurz zusammengefasst (Kategorien, Verwendung, Art (Farbbild, Grafik)...) --Hannes 24 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Tut mir leid, kenn ich nicht. Vielleicht auch mal in Commons:Forum danach fragen? --Ju Ta 15:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Redensignmonserrat.jpg

Your closing statement is contradictory. Can you please clarify if you intended to keep or delete the image? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, seems I hit the wrong button. My intention was to keep it. I corrected it. Thx for letting me know. regards. --Ju Ta 21:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As the file is no longer is use, are you willing to reconsider your closure? If not, will you consent to me re-opening the DR? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

... because you delincted it. But feel free to open another DR to it (not reopen it, it would not be listed to the actual daily log an will get forgotten). regards. --Ju Ta 09:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Untd-logo.gif

Hey, why did you delete the logo on the United Online page. It's our current logo 12 August 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyTorrance (talk • contribs) 2014-08-12T21:10:26‎ (UTC)

Because there was no valid license template applied. See Commons:Licensing. regards --Ju Ta 21:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

File information

Hello JuTa,

I'm a Wikimedia in residence at BAnQ where we run a GLAM project : uploading one thousand PD-Canada pictures. You sent a message to one of the archivist I work with, Emilie.lauzon about 2 files :

Would you please indicate me what is missing... because description, author and licensing are filled-up correctly. As per canadian PD : "sie ist eine Fotografie, die vor dem 1. Januar 1949 erstellt wurde, oder". Please let me know how to fix this. Thank you and best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, these were false positivs because they were using the template {{Remove this line and insert a license instead}}. I have fixed that now. Thx for letting me know. regards. --Ju Ta 06:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

GMHöhne.jpg

Guten Morgen JuTa, überprüfe bitte meine Korrektur der Lizens-Angaben und lösche den Baustein oder gib mir noch einen Tip, wie ich dieses Bild von 1944, das sich im Privatbesitz der Familie Höhne/Gudelius (Otto Höhne ist mein Schwiegervater) befindet, noch für Wikimedia Commons legalisieren kann. Der mögliche Fotograph ist nach 70 Jahren nicht mehr zu ermitteln. Dank im Voraus --Jost (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Jost, ich habe die Lizenz nun auf {{Anonymous-EU}} geändert und den "Problem-tag" entfernt. Gruß --Ju Ta 10:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo JutTa, besten Dank für die Hilfe und einen schönen Regentag bei Wikipedia. Gruß --Jost (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Umbenennung

Erkläre doch mal bitte, warum der Wunsch des Uploaders in deinen Augen nicht valide ist... Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Weil es die Zieldatei File:Tentaculites sp. aff. gedinnianus Asselberghs, 1943.jpg schon gibt und auch kein Grund angegeben war. --Ju Ta 21:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Soso. Und deshalb auch das, ja? Weißt du, was du da gerade machst, oder werkelst du mal nur ein bischen blind drauflos? Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ja, ich weiss was ich grad mache. Ich arbeite Special:UnusedFiles ab. Das waren sämtlich Dateien, die (ohne zu verschieben oder zu löschen) durch #redirect File:Irgendwas.xxx überschreieben wurden. Diese Edits mach ich rückgängig. Falls sie binär identisch sind mach ich danach ein "process duplicate", falls nicht lass ich sie so bzw. lehne einen Verschiebeantrag ab, da es die Zieldatei ja schon gibt. Falls jemand der Meinung ist das wären löschwürdige Duplikate darf er sie gerne mit {{Duplicate}} versehen. Gruß --Ju Ta 22:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Haym Solomon

Hi. You recently deleted Category talk:Haym Solomon which was a redirect to Category talk:Haym Salomon, as are the related categories. I did this to ensure that discussion was centralized on the correct category after a move. Is this not proper procedure? Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there never existed a talk page for this category before the move. There is no need to create a redirect to a non-existent category talk page. Those will appear in Special:BrokenRedirects and an Admin will look after it from time to time, which I did today. regards. --Ju Ta 23:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Undoing my redirects

I was told that if it is a duplicate of the other image which was uploaded first then it can be redirected. Otherwise I would nominate it for deletion since there is no reason to have two of the exact same image. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady Lotus, I was working on Special:UncategorizedFiles, where all entries appere to be files overwritten with a redirect, but not previously deleted as redirect. Duplicates should be marked with the template {{Duplicate}}. Then they appear in Category:Duplicate and an admin will look after the details and process them if valid, which means delete one of the files and create a redirect to the other. As "your" files were not binary duplicates (they are i.e. slightly ligher or darker), I left them as they were after my first undo. I will now undo your edits again, but mark them properly as duplicates, that another admin will be able handle them properly. regards. --Ju Ta 18:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! Lady Lotus (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Status

Hello JuTa! I recieved a message regarding the copyright status for a photo I uploaded under the page Te Ata Fisher. What all do I need to provide to show copyright status? The company I work for owns the copyright to that photo, of which I did give credit by linking the photo. Please advice.

Also, I wanted to change the title of the article to "Te Ata" instead of "Te Ata Fisher" can you help me?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMedia (talk • contribs) 2014-08-18T15:10:18‎ (UTC)

Hi, if you are the copyight holder of that image, you should first decide under which free license you wish to publish that image. {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is recommanded, but there are a lot of more possibilities - see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. To verify your copyright you have to send an email to the commons support team - for details see Commons:OTRS. Once you send that mail, you better put {{subst:OP}} to the image description page. This will prevent deletion for about one month. regards. --Ju Ta 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards on Commons

Greetings JuTa. You recently tagged all of the pictures in this category for deletion. I just forwarded the email I received from the copyright owner to OTRS. Please check it as soon as you can and get back to me thanks. You're a volunteer at OTRS, correct? Versace1608 (Talk) 19:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I'm not an OTRS-volounteer. You might like to ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for these images. And I didn't marked them for deletion. Thats "done" automaticly by the template [[tl|OTRS pending}} after it was entered more than a month. A month is normaly enough time for the volounteers to sort out a request, but it might be that currently there is a larger backlog. But I don't know, so please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for these images... Thx. --Ju Ta 19:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. I thought you did. For some odd reason, I saw your username on the history pages of every image in the category. This is why I decided to contact you. Versace1608 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, you are very wellcome. You saw me in the history, because I fixed the paramaters of the {{OTRS pending}} templates some days after your original upload. You "forget" to set the year=, month= and day= parameters. regards. --Ju Ta 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Manish-uppal.jpg

Hi JuTa, Thanks for your valuable suggestion, now I have added appropriate license tags, could you please review it once.

Thanks

User:NishaJainwal

Hi, as the images seems to be previously published in the internet ([3]) I converted the problem tag now to a regular deletuon request. If you ae the copyight holder you should send an email to the commons support team releasing the image under a free license of your choice. For details please see Commons:OTRS. regards. --Ju Ta 07:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, I understood your message, I will send an email to the commons support team releasing the image under a free license meanwhile my related wiki page also will delete due to image?

Hi, no the articel on en:Manish uppal will stay, except somebody there will nominate it for deletion for what ever reason. If the image gets deleted the articel will ust be without the image. regards. --Ju Ta 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Carscallen Kenya printing-315x215.jpg

Hi, JuTa. You notified me regarding the file in the subject line. This file was produced by the Adventist News Network. A credit is given them in the infobox with the Spanish description on the Arthur Carscallen page. The photo is from church's British East Africa mission in Kenya the early 19th century between the years 1913-1921, I would think. There was no copyright implied in the story where it appeared nor any copyright notice placed on the page where the photo is used. The URL for the story is among the references listed for his wiki profile here: http://www.interamerica.org/?p=7656#axzz3AqxkMUjc.

Hi, according Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Kenya works are copyighted in Kenya 50 years past the death of the author. If the photo was created 1921 by a person aged 20, this person would have been aged 64 years in 1965 (50 years ago). There is a goo chance that this person was still alive 1965, so the photo is still copyrighted a fear. You could try to use the template {{PD-Kenya}}, but I'm not sure if its valid in this case. regards. --Ju Ta 19:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Wonder Wings Faires.jpg

JuTa, You tagged an image that I uploaded for copyright. I am not proficient with code to assign a copyright level after the image was already uploaded. It was retrieved from Project Gutenburg, which as I'm sure you know, they publish public domain images. I can provide you with the url to the source, which I likely did in the image. This may have been one of my early uploads before I figured everything out, perhaps I neglected to paste this in as the source. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20366/20366-h/20366-h.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csemerick (talk • contribs) 2014-08-21T00:50:44‎ (UTC)

Hi, I didnt marked it as copyright violation but as "having no license tag at all". The image was then removed 7 days later for this reason. PS: Poject Gutenberg states its in public domain in USA but doesn't state why. PPS: I see that ou allready uploaded another copy of that file: File:Wonderwings by Alicea Polson.jpg. --Ju Ta 07:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Juta about my uploding picture.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%E7%9C%9F%E7%90%86%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8#mediaviewer/File:100%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E4%B8%8B%E5%8D%8A%E5%B9%B4%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E6%A0%A1%E5%8B%99%E8%A9%95%E9%91%91%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C.jpg The picture in this web will be delete in 7 days. So I have a question a ask you.

First: This picture is from http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/07/01/5823.aspx and I didn't have any copyright about it. But I think it could be place in a wiki website. Because it will provide more information about https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%E7%9C%9F%E7%90%86%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8 In other words, If this picture can't put in the web. then ,how can it be place by everyone?

Only can be touched in web link to find it? Truly yours--Cjackh (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

regards --Ju Ta 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that,Dear Juta. So that means I will see my uploding picture die in 7days? First : I didn't have the copyright with it , so i couldn't do anything to place it? Second: like this picture:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B5%B1%E4%B8%80%E4%BC%81%E6%A5%AD#mediaviewer/File:Uni-president_logo_1990.png I think the user also didn't have the copyright with the picture. So how could I do other things to prove my picture won't die? Thank you. regards--Cjackh (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the second image you linked is uploaded to the chineese wikipedia not commons using the so called "fair use" clause, which is not accepted on commons but on some local wikipedias - compare Commons:Fair use and i.e. zh:维基百科:合理使用. You could try to upload that image to the chineese wikipedia with that clause or you could try to find the copyright holder of it and ask him if he is willing to publish it under a free license. If he agrees he has to send a mail to the commons support team ucumenting this - see Commons:OTRS. regards --Ju Ta 04:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Iraq Petroleum Company (emblem).gif

Hi, saw your note about using the Iraq petroleum Company logo in my talk page so I'replying here. Hope it's good form. ]] I am translating the Iraq Petroleum Company from the English wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Petroleum_Company) Iraq Petroleum Company and that's where I got the logo.

It's a non free historical logo. I was led to believe it's ok to use it because of this summary in the file page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iraq_Petroleum_Company_%28emblem%29.gif)

Description

This is a logo owned by Iraq Petroleum Company for Iraq Petroleum Company. It is a historical logo. Its historical usage is as follows: Company created in 1929. Source

The logo is from the NA website. Created by Shaibalahmar Article

Iraq Petroleum Company Portion used

The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. Low resolution?

The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. Purpose of use

The image is used to identify the organization Iraq Petroleum Company, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: "Image of oil derrick with circle and lines to represent stratigraphy" Replaceable?

Because it is a non-free logo, there is almost certainly no free representation. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information

Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iraq_Petroleum_Company_%28emblem%29.gif

I don't know how to put this info in my uploaded image,in case it0s ok to use it. Could you help in that regard?

Thanks in advance.

Hi, the second image you linked is uploaded to the english wikipedia not commons using the so called "fair use" clause, which is not accepted on commons but on some local wikipedias - compare Commons:Fair use and i.e. [[::en:Wikipedia:Fair use]]. On spanish wikipedia it seems to be not accepted too - see es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo. You could try to find the copyright holder of it and ask him if he is willing to publish it under a free license. If he agrees he has to send a mail to the commons support team ucumenting this - see Commons:OTRS. regards --Ju Ta 04:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:ArturoCastañedaMontesdeOca

FYI, these may not be copyvios. I gave instructions to someone who uploaded the same images under a different screen name (User talk:HMPicazo). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I appreciate you telling me about my picture. I will take it down since I cannot find all the specific information. Dmannsuperdude (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Leyla Yunus Photo copyright

Hello -- many thanks for your comments and advice on how to copyright the photo of Leyla Yunus on her Wikipedia page. I am very new to Wikipedia and am finding this process challenging, so I would welcome your assistance. To put this in context, Leyla Yunus is one of the most prominent human rights activists in Azerbaijan, and her husband is also a well-known activist. They were both arrested and imprisoned on spurious charges in July 2014 as part of a larger crackdown on civil society in the country. The photos that we have on file came from them and their family, so there is no copyright per se, and I simply don't know how to address this. Thank you for letting me know how to make sure the photo isn't deleted. Best wishes, Jane

Hello, the copyright holder, which is normaly the person who tookthe photo, has to send an email to the commons support team releasing the image under a free license of his choice ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is recommanded) as documented in Commons:OTRS. Once you know that email has been sent, you better replace the current problem tag with {{subst:OP}}. This will prevent deletion for about one month. regards --Ju Ta 09:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:IAPA Logo.jpg

Hi JuTa, I did not create the file by myself. The file adress is: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v_1PvxWbvSE/Ub7Fz_FElSI/AAAAAAAADBE/VA9rqu2w8N0/s1600/IAPA_Logo.jpg. Shall I now delete this file or how I get a permission? Thanks

Hi, you can try to find an contact the copyright holder if he is willing to publish that image under a free license ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is recommanded). If he agrees he has to send an email to the commons support team as documented on Commons:OTRS. regards. --Ju Ta 10:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagging copyright violations

Hello,

I think it would be much better to tag obvious copyvios as copyvio, instead of no license or no permission. Thank you very much for your help. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please see my answer at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Tagging copyright violations. regards. --Ju Ta 18:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the imvitation. I thought about it myself some time ago, but decided against it. Main Reason: Lack of time. regards. --Ju Ta 07:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Павильон шишек

You deletion of Category:Павильон шишек goes against at least three guidelines. I am sure you will restore it and let the best practices of Wikimedia Commons prevail. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tuválkin, what was wrong with that deletion? It was an empty category, there was no content which could be moved to Category:Pavilion Shishek as stated in the request. Which guidelines exactly do you mean? regards. --Ju Ta 22:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another of those situation where you, as an admin, have instant access to the deleted material, while I have to remember what was this about, among 10000 items in my watchlist. I have been trying to find more details, almost skipped dinner for it, but I have nothing — just dim recollections and a few hunches, which I’ll nonetheless will share with you:

Some-how/where/when I comeacross with a photo of a curious stuctrure made of gabions filled with small pine cones — I cannot locate the filename, nor the source. Maybe it was a DR I rescued, maybe one of those uncategorized images I some times try to make useful. Anyway, I researched a bit and found out that this photo shows a detail of an artwork / installation / architectural concept by a Belgian artist, permanently displayed/erected in Nikola-Lenivets Park, in Russia.
I found out a few more photos of this subject and created for them the now deleted Category:Павильон шишек — this was a few months ago. (In hind sight should be Павильон Шишек — capitalized proper noun, both in Russian and English typographical traditions.)
4 or 5 weeks ago a renaming proposal was filed for Category:Павильон шишек, asking it to be moved to Category:Pavillion Shishek, based on the notion that such renaming was mandated by «the rules of English Wikipedia» (not an actual quote, which I cannot produce because you deleted the discussion). Me and one or two other contributors rejected this renaming proposal based on the following
1. that English Wikipedia rules are not valid in Commons (especially in what concerns an exceptional status given to English — minimal in Commons, essential in English Wikipedia),
2. and that categories about individual subjects, such as this one, should not be translated into English, unlike generic/parent categories which should be in English — that’s why we have Category:Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel (not *Category:Carrousel’s Triumph Arch), within Category:Neoclassical architecture in Paris (not *Category:Architecture néo-classique à Paris).
Next thing I know is that
1. Category:Павильон шишек is gone, not renamed/moved (and this is where you allowed things to go wrong for the 3rd time) — I got no warning or notification about its pending deletion;
2. there’s a brand new Category:Pavilion of cones‎ created 2 days ago which lacks all categorization (the name of the Belgian guy who created this, the year it was set up, and whatever I added to it back then — stuff I cannot retrieve now, which makes me really mad, and yet which you can).
3. This new category, furthermore, seems to include only images created by the same author in the same couple days, and I cannot locate nor the original file that triggered my interest in this, not any or the few others I remember having found out scattered about, from different authors, I think.

All this suggests that someone didn’t like the way the discussion was going in the now deleted CfD, went around to create a new Category:Pavilion of cones‎ and tagged Category:Павильон шишек for speedy deletion, which someone (you?) found a dandy thing to do, although consensus so far was contrary to that move (one more admin action against policy) and although the deleted category had information that its replacement lacks, such as categorization for author, dates, etc. (and there goes the 5th misstep).

As said, I cannot remember all details and you may found out my report above is innacurate. I even admit being wrong in my position concerning the original renaming proposal, but this is not the way to go. I suggest you disantangle this mess, because you created it, and because it will be much simpler for you to do so. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yesterday I was working on Category:Non-empty category redirects an found Category:Павильон шишек as an empty subcategory of the category redirect Category:Nikola-Lenivec Park, that there is a new category Category:Pavilion of cones was not visible to me. I saw the rename request, I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Павильон_шишек and found no discussion or similar. I didn't know if there ever were images within this category or not, and if where they have been moved to instead (thats nearly impossible to find). You might like to get through the contribs of User:Brattarb who created the new category Category:Pavilion of cones. Anyhow: I'm going to restore the "your" category, but I will make a category redirect out of it. I you realy think it should be the other way arround you could try to make the category redirect the other way arround and move all images across. But as far as I know non-latin-characters are very unusual for category names on commons. regards. --Ju Ta 07:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the categorization in the current category (that’s what matters most), and the history of this category; please restore also its talk page, as there resides the unfinished discussion about renaming. Non-Latin characters are very unusual for category names, indeed (and for fascinating reasons), but translation of non-English proper names is against policy — for me it is easy to chose sides between "very unusual" and "against policy". Maybe the final decision will be to retain the original Russian name in a “romanized” form (and I bet it will be the anglo-centric NGM transliteration scheme, not ISO9, because reasons), but we need to keep record of edit and discussion history, so the original Category:Павильон шишек, created in May, should prevail, even if it is bound to be renamed as discussed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK;Category talk:Павильон шишек is back now as well. Sorry, forgot about the talk page. --Ju Ta 10:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just another "Thank You"-notice

Thank you ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

File deleted

Hi, I've seen that you've recently deleted the file File:Artroeite-purple-sky-minerals.jpg arguing "No OTRS permission since 25 July 2014". I asked Stephen Philbrick through permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to upload the file in this way and he agreed. I have the explicit permission from the owner of the photos and I send to permissions-commons properly. I can't understand that! Help please. Thanks. --Yuanga (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This one is my fault. I am working with the copyright holder a way to handle images on a blanket basis, rather than a case by case basis, and haven't worked out all the kinks. This one was fine, you had no way of knowing that, so your deletion was proper, but I restored it and added the permission tag.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Joe Shuster

This is not correct. This was first published in the United States, so it's publication+95 years (undelete in 2033), not life+70 years (undelete in 2063). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to correct it. It was marked as copyvio with that reasoning. regards. --Ju Ta 07:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nicht gemeinfrei

Hallo JuTa. Du hast die Löschung abgelehnt: [4]. Das Bild wurde versehentlich unter falschen Metadaten hochgeladen. Man hielt es für ein Ortsbild von Samedan, 1912 von einem über 70 Jahre verstorbenen Fotograf aufgenommen. Es hat sich nun herausgestellt, dass es aber Dietikon zeigt und zwar zwischen 1949 und 1959. Der Fotograf ist unbekannt. Es ist also nichts weiteres als eine Urheberrechtsverletzung und die Nationalbibliothek möchte es nun löschen lassen, da die internen Überprüfungen abgeschlossen sind. Da wir hier keine Urheberrechtsverletungen dulden, ist das ein klarer Fall für eine Schnelllöschung und nicht ein Fall für eine Löschdiskussion. --Micha (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, das ging für mich aus dem Antragstext nicht klar hervor. Wie auch immer, es wurde ja inzwischen nach normalem Löschantrag gelöscht. Gruß --Ju Ta 07:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Files with OTRS deleted

Hi JuTa,

I'm wondering why you delete the files Esperanta uniformo 01.jpg, Esperanta uniformo 02.jpg, Esperanta uniformo 03.jpg and Esperanta uniformo 04.jpg. According to your explanation, you did that because the files do not have OTRS-permissions , but that is not true. I personally get the permission of the person who take the photos, i send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so the validation of the OTRS-permission is in process. I also send a message to a administrator in Commons who has an account in OTRS, but that person has not responded so far.

Can you undo the deletion until the someone in OTRS respond my validation request of that files? Thank you. -- Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 05:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Remux, you uploaded them on 26. July with {{OTRS pending}}. This template adds automaticly a {{No permission since}} after 30 days and after another week those files will get deleted. More than a month is normaly long enough for OTRS volounteers to complete a case. This might not have been the case here. Please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for your images, as I am not an OTRS volounteer an cannot see and check those emails. regards. --Ju Ta 07:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Warning for repeated vandalism

বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikimedia Commons.

--Phiraphon (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice, you uploading a lot of non-self-created logo an declairing them as own work. I just deleted one of them that another user has marked as copyight violation, which it was. --Ju Ta 07:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Per [5], I thought pages like that could be deleted according to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons and Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#General reasons (#1)? DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it could be deleted. But I find it easier to decline the DR and let it be archived by bots. Otherwise it has to be delincted manualy on the daily deletion log page. regards. --Ju Ta 19:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding File:Logo Impact Campus.png

It is the student newpaper logo. I curently work there and to have permission to post it on wikimedia/pedia. What would be the correct copyright status to place the file into ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.252.121 (talk • contribs) 2014-09-06T23:28:45‎ (UTC)

Hi, I now had a deeper look into it. That's IMHO simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. I'll correct the file description page. But be aware: everybody in the world has to be allowed to use any image on commons for any purpose incluing commercial ones. regards --Ju Ta 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Eigenes Archiv

Hello JuTa,

I have seen that you marked the license for File:Dagonsilo.jpg as obvious or is not required. I cant read German and google translate is not much helpful. I ave seen the archiv mention her but could not understand. Can you please tell me why files from Eigenes Archiv are o.k. Sorry for my ignorance. Geagea (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as there is the original uploader statet as the author and google can only find wikipedia an clones, I assume thats own work. But if you realy think thats nor sufficiant enough you may start a regular deletion request. regards. --Ju Ta 07:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand now "Eigenes Archiv"="own archiv" from German. Thanks for clarifying it. Geagea (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:LocomotivaFS737.jpg

Dear JuTa, thank you for communication.

The file is licensed PD-Italy: [6].

Unfortunately I was unable to enter the correct license: would you help me?

Thanks. Yours sincerely, --Alessandro Crisafulli (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

.Hi, another user fixed that inbetween. regards --Ju Ta 07:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Donnerbergkaserne Eschweiler Sportplatz.jpg

Hallo JuTa,

die Markierung der genannten Datei erfolgte aufgrund der Tatsache, dass dieser Sportplatz sich auf dem Gelände der Kaserne befindet, was sich durch http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/109g.html in einem "gewissen" Graubereich befindet - zumindestens ohne jegliche Genehmigung.

Gruß --Grunpfnul (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dann hättest Du das azu schreiben, oder besser gleich einen regulären Löschantrag stellen sollen. Gruß --Ju Ta 07:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wenn keine Genehmigung vorhanden ist, reicht doch ein entsprechender Vermerk? Vielleicht hat der Nutzer eine Genehmigung? --Grunpfnul (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Am Rande bemerkt: Permission for this file is obvious or is not required. <- Du hast die Feststellung getroffen, die aber nicht im Sinne des Gesetzes ist. --Grunpfnul (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)