User talk:JuTa/Archive 25

Bitte nimm

den Seitenschutz wieder rein. Vielen Dank! --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, ich sehe eigentlich keinen Grund für eine Halbsperrung. Der einzigste IP-Edit bisher war eher hilreich. --JuTa 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Leider kann ich Dich nicht anmailen, daher hier: eigentlich gibt es keinen Grund oder Anlaß die Seite überhaupt zu verändern. Zur Zeit bekomme ich über meine Beo mit, wenn da etwas passiert, ich weiß aber nicht, wie lange (noch). Daher wäre mir der Halbschutz einfach lieber. --4028mdk09 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nun gut, Schutz ist wieder drin, aber auf 1 Jahr beschränkt. Gruß --JuTa 13:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Unprotections

Stop, bitte. Was soll das? --Steinsplitter ([[User talk:Steinsplitter|<span

Meine Güte. Was soll das? Die ganzen logs entschützt. Bitte stelle den schutz sofort wieder her. Auch die genzen LTA files, und das ohne angabe von Gründen. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wieso? Was ist falsch daran? Ich schau mir zur Zeit alte (meist) idefinite Schutze an. Das meiste davon hat sich schon laange erledigt. Welche Entschützung(en) war denn falsch in Deinen Augen? --JuTa 13:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:JuTa --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry für das Drama, war leider nötig. Ich traute nämlich meinen Augen nicht als ich sah, dass du Dateien die im Interface verwendet werden entschützt hat (dazu sind einige tausendfach eingebunden - stell dir mal vor da vandaliert jemand, dann sind die vielleicht noch in den cache der skripte für einige Zeit). Nur um klarzustellen, habe absolut nichts gegeb dich :) und ich bin mir sicher du hast das mit den entschützen nur gut gemein. Culpa levis also. Noch auf eine Gute Zusammenarbeit! --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter, ja das war etwas unachtsam von mir. Im Moment bin ich dabei mein Log durchzusehen und vieles erneut zu schützen, bzw. einen Grund für die Entfernung nachzureichen. Woran erkenn ich eigentlich wenn eine Datei im Interface verwendet wird? Gruß --JuTa 16:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Of scheint eine MediaWiki: in der Dateiverwendung auf, oft stehts in protection reason aber oft leider auch gar nicht (daher würde ich Dateien für [upload] und [move] nie entschützen - für [edit] ist es okay). Vorsicht auch be higly used files. Wenn du willst kann ich dir eine liste generieren mit alle Schützungen wo *vandalism* als grund angegeben ist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Danke, aber lass mal. Vorläufig hab' ich genug vom Schützen/Entschützen.:) Da lass ich erstmal die Finger von.... --JuTa 16:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:JohnCrawford-III.jpg

Hi Ju! I have the permission of this file, please, can you restore it? Thanks in advanced! Vitor Mazuco^Msg 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the copyright holder has to send an email to the commons supoort team, releasing the image under a free license of his choise. Releasing to anybody in the world for any purpose inclusive commercial ones and moifications of the image. For details of the procedure please see Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates. If everything checks out fine, they will restore the file. greetings --JuTa 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Why you delete my map File:Langue du Maroc.svg ???, Ther no copyright violation, its a SVG Map produced by me and i use: {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-shape}}{{Trademarked}} — Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 18:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, an I redeleted it now again. It was deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les langues du Maroc.svg. If you have good reasons to get it undeleted please raise a Commons:Undeletion request, but don't just reupload it again an again. regards. --JuTa 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Please explain me Why The images of Google Street View don't be show on Wikipedia. I put the copyright on the Image. Also when You want to delete any image that i Put You must to write me Boefore ok? I need the answer in spanish. Thanks.

Hi, Google street view images are copyrighted and you can't upload them to commons. That just a copyright violation. I notified you for each image. --JuTa 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you rename this file for me please?

Hi JuTa, I messed up the filename for this image: Logistic map animation r below zero.gif.gif May I impose on you to rename it for me, removing the last .gif from the filename? I would be grateful. Danke. Snaily (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

OK,  Done, but next time please us the template {{Rename}}. regards. --JuTa 18:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Yes, I should have guessed that. Won't happen again. Thanks. - Regards Snaily (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wappen

Hallo JuTa. Vielleicht kannst Du mir helfen. Es geht um das Wappen der Abtei Tyniec. Ich habe die Datei erstellt. Weiß aber nicht, welche Lizenz ich benutzen soll. Bei deutschen Wappen ist es kein Problem. Mann nimmt einfach "...Wappen einer deutschen Behörde...". Aber bei einem polnischen Wappen? Für Deine Hilfe wäre ich dankbar. Gruß --Gliwi (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, auf Commons:Coats of arms ist Polen nicht erwähnt. Schau Dich am besten mal unter Category:Coats of arms of Poland ob Du etwas passenden findest. Ich hatte da noch {{Polishsymbol}} gefunden, aber als kirchliches Wappen passt das hier auch nicht. Gruß --JuTa 08:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

1960 Jensen 541S

Dear Francis,

thanks for your kind request. Could you please send us a screenshot of the picture and tell us where you found it?

We will contact the responsible person und forward your request.

Kind regards,

Katharina J. Stohrer Organisation

SCHLOSS BENSBERG CLASSICS 2015 Tel.: +49 (0) 2204 42 1966 Fax.: +49 (0) 2204 42 1991 E-Mail: sbc@punkteins.de

SBC_2015_Signatur_lang

Von: Schloss Bensberg Classics Website [1] Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Februar 2015 10:09 An: SBC Betreff: SBC Website: Kontakt

Hi, the final releasing mail shoul be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org like documented at Commons:OTRS. regards. --JuTa 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello JuTa.It looks like I have full rights to upload photo (see below), can you take off notice, or shall I claim the work as my own? Thank you for your help

Dear francis,

with copyright notice ("Schloss Bensberg Classics“) you can publish the picture „Jensen 541S", it is available to all media.

If you have further questions you can contact me.

Best regards, Julia

Julia Lück Projektmanagement

-- dammannworks GmbH Weidenallee 10b 20357 Hamburg Tel. 040 970 799 776 Fax 040 970 799 789

www.dammannworks.de

Geschäftsführer: Cornelius Dammann Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 121908 USt-ID DE 815 135 826

Wichtiger Hinweis: Diese E-Mail beinhaltet ggf. vertrauliche oder persönliche Informationen. Sollten Sie nicht der rechtmäßige Empfänger dieser E-Mail sein oder haben Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten, benachrichtigen Sie bitte den Absender und löschen die E-Mail umgehend. Kopieren und Weiterleitung an Dritte dieser E-Mail ist nicht gestattet.

Sorry, no I cant. As said before the copyright holder has to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as dokumented on Commons:OTRS. He/she has to release the image(s) under a free license of his choice ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommended. Which means everybody in the work can use and modify the image for any purpose, inclusive commercial purposes as long the license is fullfit. Which is normally to name the author. See Commons:Email templates for example texts of such an email. regards. --JuTa 16:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We have written to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Can you put a pending notice on? Thank you for your patience

OK,  Done. cheers. --JuTa 19:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Elsa Cladera de Bravo

Thank you for your information. I will do my best in order to provide the correct license and copyright to my photographies. Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.jpg

The photography is part of the ARCHIVE Elsa Cladera de Bravo (AECB). All the photographies uploaded in the article, with the same name, came from this archive which is in my property. Elsa Cladera de Bravo was a very active trade union leader under 1961-1971. Probably the photography is from one of this years. I would guess from 1964. It has been taken by an unknown photographer. In 1979 the newspaper ABC in La Paz, Bolivia published it (the newspaper photography, in black and white, is also in the AECB and I can upload it). The newspaper doesn't exist any longer. Since this publication was for official use it's in the public domain. Colour to the black and white photography had been added for the publication of my book "Elsa Cladera de Bravo. Maestra de profesión y revolución" in 2013. Which one of these tags can I use? Could you please advice me in this matter? {{self|GDFL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{PD-self}} Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you contacting me in this case. I didn't raised the deletion request. I saw that you allready posted the same on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.jpg, which is good. But the fact that the image was printed in a 1979 newspaper makes it now public domain. On Tthe Contrary that indicates that it is protected b copyright. An the licenses you suggest could only be given the copyright holder. regards. --JuTa 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallery/National Numismatic Collection/Coins/US (Deleted)

Hi JuTa- This gallery was to have several more images and be an ongoing gallery for additions from the Smithsonian's National Numismatic Collection. Any hope of having it restored so I can add more images?--Godot13 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. But please try to add more images quickly, otherwise it might get redeleted soon. PS: I wonder about the unusual name of it. PPS: Its still uncategoruized. regards. JuTa 11:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The coins are all part of the Smithsonian Institution's National Numismatic Collection, hence the name of the gallery. I will deal with it today...--Godot13 (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Gummikuh.jpg

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

Vikiçizer (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Wackeldackel.JPG

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

Vikiçizer (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Nicolas de Larmessin

If you want to add Template:Disambiguation to this category, then the template needs a parameter to disable "hidden" status, otherwise the category is not visible on those image description pages which use it (and use it quite legitimately). --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the contending images should be moved to the individual people listed in it. I will do that tomorrow and restore the disambig template. Btw. there is no option to unhide a disambig category. regards. JuTa 00:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you know which category to move the images to. In the meantime, I see another possible problem with these names. The scheme used here seems to be based on Benezit. However, Maxime Préaud at Oxford Online [2] numbers these artists differently:

• Nicolas de Larmessin (bookseller, no dates given)
• Nicolas de Larmessin I (bapt Paris, 17 Oct 1632; d Paris, 23 July 1694)
• Nicolas de Larmessin II (b Paris, c. 1645; d Paris, 18 Dec 1725)
• Nicolas de Larmessin III (b Paris, 28 Jan 1684; d Paris, 1 March 1755)

Should we use a scheme with dates, which avoids this problem? Is the Oxford article out of date and incorrect? --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes i noticed the different numbering too. I don't have access to the Oxforf Online. Is there any project history, art or history of arts on commons? If yes, you might like to discuss this naming question there. For the resorting of the images: They all "Wellcome Images" with a "Bibliographic Record" naming the author and the lifespann of him. I.e. for this image its this; and did this change because of that. regards. --JuTa 07:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my changes made more work for you. I figured out which Nicolas it was for the print I uploaded by finding a copy on Gallica where his dates were given. As far as the scheme goes, since we have all the life dates as well, that should help people figure it out. I suspect the Oxford article is out of date. (I checked, and it's unchanged from the 1996 print edition). It's should be perfectly fine (and easiest) to leave the naming the way we have it now, esp. since it follows Benezit (2006). Thanks again for your help! Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pages using Complex date template with incorrect parameter

Hallo JuTa, kannst du mir bitte helfen, was oben genannte Kategorie betrifft? In dieser befinden sich diverse Dateien wie diese, bei denen mir nicht klar ist, welches Problem es gibts. Würde gern die nötigen Korrekturen durchführen. --Arnd (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, also bei der Datei hat ein einfacher "Null-Edit" geholfen. Vermutlich hatte sich da irgendetwas in den verwendeten Vorlagrn verändert. Gruß --JuTa 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Danke, kann man das irgendwie automatisiert für alle Dateien in der Kategorie machen? --Arnd (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ich denke auf Commons:Bots/Work requests kann man so etwas "beantragen". Gruß --JuTa 08:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt! User talk:Jarekt#Category:Pages using Complex date template with incorrect parameter. Gruß, --Arnd (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Last year you deleted a file from Commons (File:Starship Troopers (Role-Playing Game) Cover Art.JPG) that was used on the en:Starship Troopers: The Roleplaying Game article. Would it be possible for me to obtain a copy of the file with the proper info and re-upload it to en-wiki? BOZ (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the source was http://www.amazon.com/Starship-Troopers-Roleplaying-Pocket-Edition/dp/1905471637. You may upload it on en: under fair use clause, you may not. I'm not familiar with the en: rules. --JuTa 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I can just use that image with a fair-use rationale. BOZ (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

File Deletion

Hello, I've accidentally uploaded a lot of copyrighted images. I want to delete them all but I don't know how. I've marked them for speedy deletion but they still exist. What else do I have to do? KariEllien (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, a bit more explanation why the files are copyrighted and not your own work could be helpfull. But otherwise you can not do more, just wait until an admin will look at your requests and decide the cases. regards. --JuTa 06:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Natasha-Zinko-jewellery-designer2.jpg

Hi! Natasha has sent license information to otrs-commons email. But status is still {OTRS pending}. Do we need to send some more information? Thanx.

Hi, there is normaly a huge backlog on OTRS. You should ask on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard for your case. I'm not a menmber of the OTRS team, an cannot see the ticket or the mail(s). regards. --JuTa 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

à propos Djamel Dahou

Bonjour je voulais vous demander comment je peux avoir la license de ce fichier ? Djamel Dahou --YacineDZ (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the copyright holder, which is normaly the fotografer (not the model), has to send an email to the commons support team, releasing the image with a free license of his choise ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded. For details see Commons:OTRS. regards. --JuTa 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fake bonds

Hi, I don't understand why you deleted these files. As mentioned in the DRs by Carl, these fake bonds got news reports, and are quite known on their own. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:500-Million-Dollar-Series-1934-Federal-Reserve-Note-Cleveland-Ohio-Coupon-Bond-D-45183601-A-Obver.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:US-Federal-Reserve-Note-Series-1934-1-B-Cleveland-Ohio.jpg

They do not have an unclear copyright status -- it's all PD-USGov artwork just rearranged slightly. With non-coyprightable numbers added. I can understand the scope argument -- I hate having fakes around, but warning people about fakes actually in circulation can also be a good thing. Also, if they were in use, they are automatically in scope and that is not a valid reason to delete. They are also the subject of news reports, so they probably are in scope anyways. If you do reconsider and undelete, definitely rename them so that "fake" or "counterfeit" is in the filename somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(BK) Hi Yann, its true there are borderline cases. The doubtfull scope and the unclear copyright status are the bases of my deletion decision. But feel free to raise an undeletion request. Maybe other admin(s) will come to a different result. regards. --JuTa 19:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As Carl said in the DRs and above, there is no copyright issue. I think that these are in scope, as Carl also explained above. Please could please restore them? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As I allready wrote: feel free to raise an undeletion request. Maybe other admin(s) will come to a different result. regards. --JuTa 22:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deleted these, specially since you kept the one below without a rationale. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that these are fake money notes with a douptfull scope together with the "slippery" {{PD-because}} license makes it for me slightly below the border to keep them, I will not revise my decision. Its up to you if you like to raise an undeletion request or not. --JuTa 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Campeones 2008

Hi JuTa, you've just closed the DR but the result is unclear to me. I asked for keeping File:Gobierno de España de Zapatero. Abril 2006..jpg and deleting File:Primer Gobierno de Mariano RAJOY.jpg. Has it been a mistake (you deleted the first one and kept the second one). Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the first one was created 2006-04-21, which is before the timerange 2007-05-26 of {{PD-La Moncloa}}, the second one is not realy a duplicate, but a different crop. regards. --JuTa 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it seems sensible, but I missed a more detailed explanation in your DR closing. Would you mind if I add, somehow that explanation to the closing line? --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 08:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of corse go ahead. Thx in advance. --JuTa 11:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seal of Haikou

Regarding this. With great respect, did you read it carefully? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thats a borderline case. I could follow more the arguments to keep than to delete the file. If you realy think so, feel free to raise a new deletion request. Don't expect a quick decision, the last one took about 6 weeks. I will not decide this case again (of corse). --JuTa 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Well, I think I will just watch to see if it appears in articles. If it does, I will removed it as unsourced. It has zero chance of being in articles because it is self-referential. There are lots of these types of images here in China, all claiming to be official. I will probably nominate it for deletion in a year or so. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming categories of ships

I assume you know the almost all ships have the date of completion in their category name, see Category:Ships by name. Is there a special reason why you renamed Category:02581 Aurora (ship, 1987) and Category:02163 Patagonia 1 (ship, 1973)? --Stunteltje (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, in my eye the year is only neccessary if there would be i.e. another 02581 Aurora build in another year, which seems not to be case case here. I'm currenty cleaning up Category:Category redirects and stumbled over some of those redirects. But you are right, most subcats of Category:Ships by name have a year in the cats-name. Feel free to move them back. regards. --JuTa 09:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And you are right, following normal Wikipedia procedures. However, for ships there is a reason to mention the year of completion (or first commisioning for naval ships) in the category name, as there are many ships with the same name. Have a look a e.g. Category:Ships named Britannia. You have extra tools, so find out the category with the most same shipnames and you will find out the usefulness of this naming system. I will try to revert the names. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

About Premongol map

Guten Tag, about [3] if you would draw with a red pencil on this background [4], scan it, and send me to <cepleanu@orange.fr> the right form for this map (synthesis of the others you cite), I'm ready to correct Premongol. I understand the deletion ask, but I prefer to correct the mistakes, thinking about the time of work necessary for doing this map by its first creator... Also I'm ready to correct East-Hem_1200ad [5] according with your directives, technically by the same proceeding (red pencil, scan + send to me, thank you)... Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if you like to correct the maps feel free to do so. I'm not sure what else you talking about. regards. --JuTa 12:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, done today. Regards, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Using File:East-Hem 1200ad.jpg instead of File:Premongol is good idea but File:East-Hem 1200ad.jpg/new version of File:Premongol still needs major corrections. Can you change the borders?

Yes I will do it this next days as :

   Locations of Mongol tribes. See File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png
   The names of the Mongol tribes. See File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png
   border of the en:Kara-Khitan Khanate border
   border of en:Cumania
   instead of en:Uyghur Khaganate must be en:Kingdom of Qocho/Idiqut state because Uyghur Khaganate fell in 840.
   delete the name en:Khakass people. The Khakass and en:Yenisei Kirghiz (not Kyrgyz) were same peoples at that time.
   To draw borders between en:Naimans, en:Kingdom of Qocho, en:Kara-Khitan Khanate and Cumania use the maps that mentioned on my talk page.
   delete the name "Arctic marine mammal hunters". They are Paleo-Siberian tribes.

I will do it according with this indications, except on the low-Danube area, where the Cumans are later present (after the great mongol-tatar invasion) ; before 1200 they are present in the future low-Moldavia (actual Budzak), but in the the north-future-Moldavia what were Iassic and not in the Wallachia what were a part of the Regnum Bulgarorum et Valachorum founded 1186. --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

restore category

Hello! Please restore the created me a category Category:Statue of Taras Shevchenko in Ternopil and deleted by you on November 1, 2014.--Mykola Vasylechko 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. regards. --JuTa 00:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mykola Vasylechko 11:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Boston Public Library Collections ect.

Hallo JuTa ich habe gestern diese Bilderserie der Boston Public Library komplett hochgeladen, die dort als gemeinfrei ausgewiesen wurde und auch keine Copyright-Vermerke enthalten. Das Bildmaterial ist aus den 1930er-60er Jahren und stammt aus aller Welt. Es dauerte keine zwei Minuten und es hagelte die ersten Löschanträge. Ich frage mich, wenn es hier um Archivmaterial geht, das eindeutig dokumentiert und zudem als (frei) verfügbar bereitgestellt wird , wozu dann die ganze Arbeit der Archivkuratoren (und meine Dienste)? In dieser Übersicht der Kooperationspartner von Wikimedia sind weltweit etwa 50 Archive und Staatsbibliotheken enthalten, die ebenso Bilder aus der jüngeren Vergangenheit bereitstellen, z.B. diese Bilder von 50er Jahre Designern (Möbel ect.). Wenn ich die hochlade passiert mir garantiert das gleiche, obwohl WikiMedia ja die Erlaubnis der Archive vorliegt, nur weil irgendwelche Spezis diese Informnationen ingnorieren. Wie ist Deine Sicht der Dinge? Können die bereits gelöschten Dateien von gestern (File:No rain in Portugal but tourists pour in (4505509786).jpg) und (File:Mexico. Volcan Paricutin (3530701507).jpg) wiederhergestellt werden. Ich habe jetzt bei den verbliebenen Dateien noch den Template {.{PD-Pre1978}} ergänzt, um die restlichen Dateien vor Schnelllöschung zu sichern. - Viele Grüße d --Metilsteiner (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, die Bilderserie ist auf flickr als "non commerical" veröffentlicht. Alle Bilder auf Commons müssen auch kommerziell weitergenutzt werden können, das bedeutet diese Dateien können nicht auf commons bleiben. Des weiteren erscheint es mir zweifelhaft, dass die Library die Urheberrechte an diesen Plakaten besitzt und diese somit überhaupt unter einer freien Lizenz veröffnetlichen kann/darf. Diese liegen wohl weiterhin bei des Designern der Platake. Ob {{PD-Pre1978}} hier zutrifft, weiss ich nicht. Sind die Plakate in den USA veröffentlicht, gibt es irgendwo copyright vermerke (Es gibt da websites auf denen man danach suchen kann, ich weiss allerdings nicht wo, vielleicht mal auf Commons:Forum o.ä. nachfragen). Beim zweiten Satz Bilder, würde laut Beschreibung zwar {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} passen, aber laut Beschreibung wurden die Aufnamen erst 2010 gemacht, da erscheint mir diese Lizenz schon zweifelhaft. Gruß --JuTa 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa - vielen Dank, da werden ich wohl in der Endkonsequenz wieder ein paar schöne Motive verlieren, nur weil irgendjemand Kasse machen will /oder machen könnte/ was soll's - jedenfalls klappt das hier noch ohne Abmahn-Anwälte die Sache zu bereiningen. Die zweite Bilderserie (aus Norwegen) wurde in 2010 digitalisiert, aber die Bilder sind natürlich Originalaufnahmen aus den 50er-70er Jahren. (by the way) unlängst hab ich noch eine pfiffige??? / spannende Entdeckung gemacht: da hat doch jemand solche copyright-geschützten Bilddateien auf ein Minimum von wenigen Pixeln Kantenlänge eingedampft und dann als Pseudobild hochgeladen, formell kann damit niemand was mit anfangen, aber der Pixelbazillus dient im Werksverzeichnís bis auf weiteres als Platzhalter und hat schon alle Metadaten mit an Bord. Wer sich das Bild dann anschauen möchte, klickt dort einfach auf den Link zur Quelldatei, die halt irgendwo im Web legal von einem Museum/Archiv/Auktionshaus gehostet wird. Gruß --Metilsteiner (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Krówki Milanówek.jpg

Hi,

Why this picture: File:Krówki Milanówek.jpg - was deleted? I know it was nominated for deletion in a group: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Krówki - but this particular file had proper agreement sent to OTRS, which I mentioned in discussion and no-one objected it. The agreement has been given for both - cover of the sweet and the picture itself. Please, undelete it. Polimerek (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. Sorry for the trouble. --JuTa 19:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Polimerek (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Türk Tarihi-1071.jpg

That image is claimed to be based on information contained in a book, but is pretty obviously not scanned in from a book, so I don't really understand what the problem is supposed to be... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. I missed to google translate the turkish description an only saw the author of the book and his lifespan. I now removed the problem tag for the other two as well. regards. --JuTa 20:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself unnecessary work if you had been willing to wait for three minutes for me to explain my actions... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

what?? --JuTa 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You can help me?

Hi, I'm new here and all the images I added here were excluded. I do not know what to do to add an image without it being deleted, you can help me? Gustavo64151889 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ask the copyright holder if he is willing to publish those images under a free license ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded) before you upload the images. If he agrees he has to send an email to the commons support team as documented on Commons:OTRS. regards. --JuTa 21:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Images are not permitted

You are right, the images have copyrights. The only reason I have added them here is to attach them to the wikipedia article about this company. Is this not the right place to do that? It is my first submission so I might be off the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbiadvisor (talk • contribs) 2015-04-01T04:54:03‎ (UTC)

Hi, every image on commons must be published under a free license - see Commons:Licensing. The logos you uploaded are missing such a license. Normaly you should ask the copyright holder if he is willing to publish those images under a free license ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded) before you upload the images. If he agrees he has to send an email to the commons support team as documented on Commons:OTRS. In this case, because these a rather simple logos, you might try to use the license {{PD-textlogo}} best together with {{Trademarked}} an hope that nobody will raise a deletion request. regards. --JuTa 06:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Henry Bachtold.JPG

The file is from AWM at the source I listed on the file page. The file is definitely in public domain with no copyright restrictions as it says on the AWM page but I don't know what the proper license template should be. --Kges1901 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its likely {{PD-Australia}} in this case. I set now this license and deleted the problem tag. regards --JuTa 14:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wnt-Tooth.png

Hi Juta,

What is wrong with this file: File:Wnt-Tooth.png?

I added all of the necessary licensing information that I found on the original article next to their copyright policy. I also added a link to where they say they are covered by the license I posted.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

Manpriya.A (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its looking OK now for me. I added {{Licensereview}}. Another expirienced user will recheck the license an hopefully confirm its valiity. regards. --JuTa 18:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Is it possible for you to kindly remove the problem tag, Juta? You can check the URL that I provided that states the licensing information for the image. I'm working on a school project and need this image asap.

Thank you for your help.

Manpriya.A (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Aszszony'orvos.jpg

Hi! I do not know how you missed? I added. Tambo (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thx for adding the required informations. I removed the problem tag now. --JuTa 18:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2010-04-13-hoecker-by-RalfR-01-cropped.jpg

File:2010-04-13-hoecker-by-RalfR-01-cropped.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-- M\A 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Snc-rgb for insurtrak.gif

This logo was uploaded under Wikipedia logo guidance Wikipedia:Logos for a page I am creating on the same company. I thought I had tagged this correctly; apparently I have not. Please advise; thank you.

Hi, as this seems to be a simple textlogo, you should use the license template {{PD-textlogo}} best together with {{Trademarked}}. regards. --JuTa 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

For the file: File:Wnt-Tooth.png is it possible for you to kindly remove the problem tag, Juta? You can check the URL that I provided that states the licensing information for the image. I'm working on a school project and need this image asap.

Thank you for your help.

Manpriya.A (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem tag anmore. I like to keep the licensereview tag until a 3rd user checked it, because I cannot find the image on the linked source page. regards. --JuTa 19:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Juta,

This is the updated source: http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/10/11/1382.full.pdf+html (which is also in the description for the image). The image is found from that article, so hopefully now you can see it.

Next to the article, where the copyright symbol is, I clicked it and this is what it says:

Beginning six months from the full-issue publication date, articles published in Genes & Development that are not designated as Open Access are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. This license permits non-commercial use, including reproduction, adaptation, and distribution of the article provided the original author and source are credited. Articles that carry the Open Access designation are immediately distributed under one of two Creative Commons Licenses (based on author selection and in response to funding agencies’ policies): (a) CC-BY-NC (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) or (b) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The CC-BY license permits commercial use, including reproduction, adaptation, and distribution of the article provided the original author and source are credited.

So, this is why I used the same license that they stated here.

Hopefully this clears things up, and you can remove the license review tag.

Regards,

Manpriya.A (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I now checked it an found that they released und "NC" (=non commercial) license. I'm sorry but every image on commons has be be reusable even commercialy. By that reason I will raise a regular deletion request now. regards. --JuTa 21:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification x2

File:Wnt-Tooth.png

Hi,

Since the article is Open Access, it is covered by CC-BY (Attribution 3.0) (As shown below in the paragraph from the article). I don't see why you believe there is a problem with the licensing for this image.

Open Access Option All papers are freely available online in Genes & Development six months after publication, unless an author pays an Open Access surcharge of $2000 to make a paper freely available online immediately upon publication. Authors can select Open Access with either a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC License (Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/, or a CC-BY License (Attribution 3.0 Unported), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Authors who choose Open Access may select one of the two CC licenses by completing the OA License to Publish form upon acceptance (available in the Author Area at submit.genesdev.org). Choosing Open Access will have no effect on acceptance and publication of submitted papers.

If you could please take it out of deletions, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks for the help.

Manpriya.A (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That has now to decide another admin which will happen in about one week. regards JuTa 04:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello! Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stjärnhus Gröndal stadplan 1945.jpg. There is evidence of permission. The question is whether that permission is acceptable. This is an important question for use of Swedish maps on Commons and now that issue remains unsolved. Edaen (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that was a very old borderline case, which I decided today. To discuss the general issed i.e. Commons:Village pump/copyright might be more suitable. regards --JuTa 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vegvisir-huld-p60.png

Hello Juta

I have a talk page where I answered the query regarding the above file but its not been answered. I want to modify the copyright category but have found no help on how to do that. Is it something you can do, I can do or should I just delete the file and add it again with a new name and copyright?

Thanks, Justin F (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the license now to {{PD-scan|PD-old}} and removed the problem tag. regards. --JuTa 18:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. And yes, I put the original image through some filters, to add brightness and contrast

Regards Justin F (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1977 CPA 4774(Cutted).jpg

Hi! The argument about public domain isn't so clear in this case... the official stamp is in public domain but it doesn't mean that its separate parts are free, too, as they are not considered as official signs in Russia and aren't treated as copyright exception - ({{PD-RU-exempt}}). That's a commons approach that is used on Commons for a long time:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:1C PSE Russia 2008.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:12thBotanicalCongress1975USSRPostCard.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:100 рублей Путин-лидер партии жуликов и воров.jpg

I can find various discussions about the same issue and the whole approach is as I described above.

I understand that it's a tricky point, but the same thing happens, for example, with {{Money-EU}}: they are free, but there are restrictions on derivative works. As a conclusion, parts of the stamps aren't covered by the Russian legislature as copyright exception and couldn't be stored as freely licensed works. rubin16 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well all 3 cases you linked are decided as kept or undeleted. My logic is if you can't crop images the original isn't free enough for commons (derivate works ...). That would make most images using {{PD-RU-exempt}} not suitible for commons. But that would be another bigger discussion. regards. --JuTa 16:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please reconsider your decision. Russian postage stamps are NOT "public domain". They are "exempt from copyright". Many stamps feature copyrighted works of art, such as paintings by modern artists, cartoon characters, Olympic games mascots etc. Your decision essentialy means that everyone can crop out such works of art from the image of a stamp, use them and make derivative works of them. If we encourage such actions, this can lead to major legal problems. You should consult Wikimedia Foundation lawyers before making such decisions. As for a more broad problem of suitability of images that are "not free enough", there is a long-standing consensus of making money and postage stamps exempt from a more general policy of not allowing such images. --Grebenkov (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said before then most images using {{PD-RU-exempt}} should be deleted too because they are not free for derivates. But feel free to raise a new DR. Perhaps another admin could follow your argumenting. --JuTa 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Broussard image

So my explanation and comment 5 years ago wasn't enough? And why are we digging through 5 year old deletion requests anyway, just out of curiosity. I know I have not logged on here in awhile, but surely you guys have better things to do. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I decided that forgotten DR because someone else listed it to a recent daily deletion request page - see here. regards. --JuTa 06:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't show who recently requested the deletion, other than the IP 5 years ago, but I don't guess that really matters. What does is, why was the file deleted? Appropriate licensing was applied, I am the creator of the work. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as the image is available on the net without a cc-by note for sale, you should confirm your authorship through the so called OTRS procedure. If everything checks out OK the image will be undeleted. regards. --JuTa 06:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Doug Sax

Good morning, it looks like recently you removed two pictures that were on Doug Sax's page. I do have emails from him just before he passed away giving me the pictures and permission to use them on his page. Forgive me, I did write that I had email permission in the description, but I didn't know who to forward the emails to. I am fairly new at this and the last time, someone contacted me before deletion to let me know so I could forward the email. Can you help me with this and tell me exactly what I need to do to get them back on his page? He is an important figure in the music industry. Thank you! --Dmileson (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dmileson, you are talking about File:Doug Sax.jpg and File:Doug Sax with 4 Lathes.jpg, correct? They were marked as {{No permission since}} by User:Dman41689 at 3.4.2015, which makes them eligible for deletion a week after. Unfortunaletly he missed to inform you. You should forward that mail(s) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as documented in Commons:OTRS. But be aware, the copyight holder has to choose a explicit license (a "yes, you can use it" is not enough). If this is not the case yet, you should contact his heirs before forwarding the mail(s). If everything checks out OK, the images will get undeleted. regards. --JuTa 15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ayuda con Discurso Carlos A. Cifuentes

Hola JuTa, gusto de saludarle. Paso por aquí para solicitar su ayuda. Se trata de este archivo que usted borró. Entiendo que ha habido algunos retrasos con las confirmaciones, y yo la verdad no quiero ser una molestia. El permiso se envió dos o tres veces a OTRS, y sin tener respuesta. Incluso dejé una nota en el tablón y el archivo de todas formas se borro. Espero pueda usted ayudarme. Un saludo--Deucaleon (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like to OTRS-team is currently badly under-"equipped". They increased their backlog from 30 to 69 days recently. As you allready asked on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, the only think you can do to wait for any response. I am not a member of the OTRS team an cannot see those mails you sent. regards. --JuTa 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OTRS

About these files, I asked for help. Kind regards.Willy Weazley 15:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't realy understand what exactly you trying to tell me, sorry. --JuTa 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OTRS licenced media incorrectly flagged

Hi, you've recently sent a message to my talk page notifying me that the license for one of the media files I uploaded(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Church_of_John_Chrysostom_in_Vari,_Kefalonia,_Greece.jpg) is unclear. The media in question has an OTRS ticket attached to it, you can see it at the actual link I've provided. Hopefully this solves your queries, and you can check the OTRS ticket's validity and then remove the deletion notification. Perhaps you need to update any automated scripts you are using for checking recently uploaded files licenses. Gts-tg (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, first even if there is a OTRS template images need a valid license template, which is missing here. Second: If you are not an OTRS-member you shouldn't apply the {{PermissionOTRS}} template but {{OTRS pending}}. Third, I am not a member of the the OTRS team either, and cannot see the mail(s). For queqies converning OTRS please ask on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. regards. --JuTa 16:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful info, I will do so and get back if needed. Gts-tg (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Serafimersköld Oscar Bernadotte Riddarholmen.png

Hello, about the file Serafimersköld Oscar Bernadotte Riddarholmen.png, I found another exploitable source. You can delete the file in question and the headband. thank you F5JMH (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted it. --JuTa 07:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Soldats canadiens remettant les cibles atteintes avec un fusil Ross, Camp Barriefield, 1915.png

Bonjour. J'ai copié cette image depuis le site suivant : http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=3623049&rec_nbr_list=3623049,3194236,129908,3158907 Quel est le problème ? L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is that there is no valid license template on the description page. ({{LAC}} isn't a license template.) In this case it might be {{PD-Canada}} or similar, please crosscheck with Commons:Copyright tags yourself. Thx. --JuTa 07:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Charles Fazzino with 3-D popart plane sculpture at JFK airport.jpg

Hi JuTa, Could I ask you to undelete File:Charles Fazzino with 3-D popart plane sculpture at JFK airport.jpg? I am processing OTRS ticket 2015011310019195 and it looks to be good for this image. (It was sent to permissions-en, which has a longer backlog than permissions-commons.) Thanks. --UserB (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. Please update it if the release is finally OK. regards. --JuTa 12:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --UserB (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Patrick Range McDonald, American author and investigative journalist.jpg

Hello again, JuTa. File:Patrick Range McDonald, American author and investigative journalist.jpg also has appropriate permission - ticket 2015011210017939. Could you please restore it as well? (The permissions-en backlog is a bit longer than the Commons one, so if someone sent the permission email to permissions-en instead of Commons, then I'm processing the message after it was deleted here.) --UserB (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back too. Pls. update it as before. regards. --JuTa 07:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Borsine-arato-eva.jpg

Hello!

I would like to have this picture restored as per OTRS permission number 2015041610015295.

Thx! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but I'm not a member of the OTRS team, I'm ust cleaning up some old backlogs from time to time. Please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for this case. Thx. --JuTa 07:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a member OTRS. The licensing template placement of my institute, you just please bring back the image. Do not make me run circles no longer need! Thank you ! (The answer machine by reverse text.) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its back. Please update it if the release is finally OK. regards --JuTa 13:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Done! Thank you! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:John walter Keating 2014.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:John walter Keating 2014.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this project page, 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. 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!

Carrboro (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Iris Haeussler (2006)Legacy of Joseph Wagenbach 01b-Archivist.jpg

Thanks, JuTa for alerting me to this frivolous deletion request. Of course you couldn't find a source for supporting doubt. This is my work, so there is no doubt. Thanks for your effort. --Iakub (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Town of Salem Logo

Hi JuTa,

The Town of Salem logo you deleted is free for use by anyone via the developers of the game, yet you've deleted it on copyright violation claims. May I ask why this is, when any logos for the game are free for re-distribution by others?

Regards, Naru2008 (Town of Salem Moderator)

P.S: The file in question is - File:Town_of_Salem_Start_Screen.jpg

Hi, it was copied from from http://blankmediagames.com/ © BlankMediaGames LLC, all rights reserved 2014, which makes it a clear copyright violation. regards. --JuTa 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering we allow our users to distribute the game's content via our Video Policy, you'd think images would fall under that category, as many thumbnails use the very same image, and no copyright infringement is made by doing so. How could we go about allowing us to use said image on the page? --Naru2008rl (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Every image on Commons must be re-useable even commercialy which the webpage you linked forbits. Please compare Commons:Licensing. regards. --JuTa 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reign of the superman

Hi, it's an image I actually found on wikipedia.en : w:The Reign of the Superman

But for any reason I couldn't use it for the german version, so I made a new page on Commons. But there's perhaps an other method?

Thanks a lot

Filinthe (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but the image on en: is uploaded the the so called fair use clause, which is not accepted on commons. Compare Commons:Fair use and en:Wikipedia:Fair use. The german wikipedia does not accept fair use too. I see no method to keep it o commons or de:. regards. --JuTa 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it: {{PD-US-no notice}} ? Evrik (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, did you checked for any copyright notices, there are some US sites where to check, but I cant remember which. --JuTa 21:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Ganemos_Málaga.jpg

Dear JuTa, my file Ganemos_Málaga.jpg has proper CC NC ND 3.0 rights, I sent an email with the link to OTRS. You can find it in Safe creative for more details. https://www.safecreative.org/work/1504193879454-logo-malaga-ahora

Regards, --Afrox (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but NonCommercial and/or NoDerivs are not accepted on commons - compare Commons:Licensing. regards. --JuTa 06:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Bohuslav Sobotka

why did you deleted long-live image of Bohuslav Sobotka on wikipedia? Are you crazy? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you are talking about File:Bohuslav SobotkaPM.jpg, correct? Well, it was (just) uploaded at 4.4. Thats not very long living on commons. The problems were 1) there was just no license template on the description page and 2) the source page licensed it under cc-by-nc-nd, which is not compatible with the commons rules. Every image on commons has to be reuseable even commercialy and has to be mofificable as well - compare Commons:Licensing. PS: you noticed the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bohuslav SobotkaPM.jpg? regards. --JuTa 22:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PPS: There are plenty other images available, which ou could use for his article - see Category:Bohuslav Sobotka. regards. --JuTa 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete: File:Vectrex.jpg?

Hi, this file was originally uploaded in 2004, years before we used sources. This old stock is protected from deletion just because modern style information is missing. Please restore and deny further DRs for files uploaded before 2008. --h-stt !? 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it was User:Ellin Beltz who marked it as "no source" (and not only that one). As you are an admin yourself feel free to undelete the file yourself if desired. regards. --JuTa 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I only mark ones that look questionable. Age should not be a factor if a photo is borrowed or taken from somewhere else and not acknowledged. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What made you think it was "questionable"? And yes, age is an issue, because there was a time, when we did not request a source and certainly did not enforce it. Deleting all the stock of old files before that policy changed, would be totally unreasonable and would lead to huge deletion sprees every time we change a policy. That is because many former contributors simply aren't there anymore to comply to the new policies. And we can not afford do delete everything every time we change a policy and start to demand new documentation. --h-stt !? 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)