User talk:Martin H./Archive 20

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

Archive Note

Page was archived on September 20, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

New Watch

Please watch the user User:Anoopkn--Common-Man (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch

Dear martin please watch this user User:Anoopkn--Common-Man (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mallu Man Max

All the picture uploaded (except 2 licenced) is removed by admins, there is nothing to clean up..please advice--PatrolBot (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There was something to cleanup: 4 images. Hey, you gave false information, you manipulated images, you manipulated EXIF data, you purport an professional bakground just to includ some stolen pictures in this free content project. Thats wired behaviour. Be happy with the situation you have now - you are still allowed to edit - you can not expect more. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC) And stop signing with 'PatrolBot', you are not patrolling and you are not a bot. --Martin H. (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Submitted deletion request for the existing file, I will re-upload it under the my own account...
• Hope all things are finished (I didn't see the another 3 images)

1. File:KALARICKAL.jpg - Proposed for deletion
2. File:REMYA NAMBEESHAN.jpg - deleted by Admin
3. File:VEL NATE.jpg- deleted by Admin
4. File:DHANYA_MARY.jpg- deleted by Admin
5. File:BHAMAKKUTTY.jpg- deleted by Admin
6. File:MERA_JAS.jpg- deleted by Admin

• If there is any user name policies in commons, please give the link, as i didn't digg much in commons..
• Hope you like my new name

--Common-Man (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read this.   pablo_hablo. 09:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All the above files are cleared ...----KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Atilla Engin

Hi, I notice you had some dialogue with a user here (and here) over copyright concerns with images to illustrate this subject. I'm concerned that this might be ongoing, see here, where your input would be welcome.   pablo_hablo. 11:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only point out that there are two accounts and that non of these accounts can give permission for content that they obviously not created themself, e.g. newspaper scans. --Martin H. (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Capolinho

Hi, many thanks for your help with Capolinho (talk · contribs) and File:El-Farah el-Masri El-2adeem.jpg. Checking Capolinho's talkpage here, and doing my best to recall my past interactions with Capolinho at en.wiki, I think copyright may be an ongoing issue. I'll try and keep an eye on things at en.wiki. TFOWR 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This license is valid?

Hello Martin, see the license of these images [1] and [2], they are valid? Truu (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion not. The flickr system does allow to forward messages, it is not ok to publish such a private message for two reasons: privacy violation, lacking verifiability. I disagree with this upload. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos by Eezeequiieel

This two pictures are copyvio too File:Maradonaaaaa.jpg File:Obdulio.jpg. Greetings Martin. Alakasam (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded after the warning, deleted and blocked for a while. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being there. You make a great work :) Alakasam (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mohanlal 2010.jpg

Hi,

It is noticed that you have deleted the file File:Mohanlal 2010.jpg due to copyright violation. But I couldnt find any discussion page on this matter. Please give me the link of that discussion, if there is such one exists. Please note that there is a derivative of that file exists here. Regards --Vssun (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion for this particular file. Adgr8 is a persistant copyright violator, the newly uploaded image by his sockpuppet/sockmaster Saj2009 again was the same copyright violation. Additionally Adgr8, and thats [was] still visible on the derivative, lied that the image was transfered from some other project, it was never uploaded to that project but directly here, he just tried anything to cover the steal. --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give me the link of source of that image? I just want to know that whether this image was copied from mlwiki. (Mentioned so in the derivative). Thanks--Vssun (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The image was not copied from ml.wp, I checked for local uploads. Both, File:Mohanlal 2010.jpg which was uploaded first and claimed in its last version that it was transfered from ml.wp, and File:Lal1.jpg have no links to ml.wp besides the link http://ml.wikipedia.org ml. --Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Vssun (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Block

can you please control this user from uploading copyrighted images to commons, I am tired of putting deletion req. user Jazzradio--Common-Man (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, also Turelio did some search in the meantime so the finding of copyvios is supported. I nuked the uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

so, this kind of discussion about 'mvart4u' seems to be over; pls see my note on my talk, here as quote - turelio's motivation for his action has not been explained (to be honnest, in view of a successful cancellateion of confirmed work, i do not want to know!):

"hopefully last note about illegal censorship by folksparty against my painting work through wikimedia commons: on 27th all workes entrusted into the category 'm.v.' kindly have been OTRS-approved (after the homage for ludwig HOHL has been thanked/approved by SUHRKAMP verlag, berlin and the one for erika BURKART by the swiss national library, finally "MANIFEST AND FURTHERMORE" by tilman) - as signal of the professionalism of folksparty in their endeavours, a longtime confirmed illustration work has been cancelled (without reason, but between the lines you could hear the doubt about copyright) by FIXPOETRY.COM, hamburg on 26th of october 2010! [mvart4u]"

best, mvart4u

Possible copyvios

Hi Martin, check out this pictures:

• File:Office-2010-free-logo.svg
• File:Icon-windows os.svg
• File:IE9 Platform Preview-es.png (incredible copyvio)

Thanks again. Alakasam (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please dont ask me with logos not an expert in that. Im the upload should at least mention the creator/company of the logo. The Logo is not entirely own work (the user not invented it) and as a courtesy for the company to not scare the outside world. IMO they are indeed ineligible. The screenshot should (and must) provide a link to the version histories of that wikipages as well as the authors of the images used in the screenshot to fulfill the cc-by-sa attribution requirement. I fixed a screenshot yesterday and think that it now fulfills the license. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, thanks like ever. :) Alakasam (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Watch

this user User:Phodrade & User:Sivareddyp - Suspected sock, Or Sivareddyp is editing phodrades pictures without a valid reason--Common-Man (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Sami.jpg Please check this file also...Over written--Common-Man (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with socking, also there is no abuse. The later user uploaded his profile photo and selected the very generic filename 'S.JPG' to upload it. Thereby he overwrote an upload of someone else. {{subst:Do not overwrite}}. --Martin H. (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Now i got it, i will use {{subst:Do not overwrite}} this for such files..--Common-Man (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch2

Please watch the user User:Anoopkn--Common-Man (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Auxiliary

Since you posted the original bit regarding the {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force Auxiliary}} template at Commons talk:Licensing, I was wondering if you might have any suggestions regarding my reply. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the answer but since I have no idea about the deletion or any backgrounds but just noted that an used template was delted I cant realy help with this, just mention it. However, in the meantime someone changed the template to problem tag, if there are copyright problems with some images this images should be identified and removed. --Martin H. (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree; I just don't know what to do with the images that should be re-licensed. I must say I'm also a bit disappointed that the original discussion was closed with no comments from knowledgeable others, though the argument made was good (however, I disagree for purely personal reasons). — Huntster (t @ c) 09:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Laboratório de Biologia.JPG

Hi, I see you've tagged this image as missing permission. Looking at the log, it has already been deleted 5(!) times for that same reason (once during the removal of all of this user's uploads). I don't think it's worth waiting again for a permission that, clearly, will never come; in fact, it might be a good idea to nuke his contributions again, as they all show similar problems and most of them have been deleted multiple times already too. –Tryphon^☂ 10:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_17#User:Lasalle-barcelos, still the same. The uplaoader is not the author of all but maybe authorized, this is required in written. --Martin H. (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think that they will finally communicate... But after months of deleting/re-uploading, they still haven't answered a single message on their talk page, and they ignored all warnings. I wouldn't hold my breath, but as long as someone's keeping an eye on the situation, it's fine with me. You're a patient man. –Tryphon^☂ 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hi Martin - I hope this note finds you well. Would you help me fix an embarrassing mistake? I uploaded File:Richard Dawkins Darwins Pitbull.jpg and File:Richard Dawkins Darwins Pitbull BW.jpg but he's actually known as "Darwin's Rottweiler" (I took out the possessive since it creates a problematic file name). Would you please move them to file names that says "Darwins Rottweiler"? --David Shankbone (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced Pittbull with Rottweiler and surpressed redirects because the images wasnt in use yet and a redirect will only pup-up in the file descriptions what links here and will so vizualize the previously wrong filename. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Evrıl

Not mentioning false flickr reviews, strange coincidence in uploading photo from the same Flickr account as User:Bıdıkk [3] and editing same articles on tr wiki [4], [5], [6]--Justass (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was about to write him. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Done. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Löschen

Danke für deinen Hinweis auf meiner Pinnwand! Dateien wurden jetzt ohne Metadaten nochmal hochgeladen. Damit mein kompletter Name nicht mehr bei google mit den Bildern in Verbindung zu bringen ist.
bitte löschen File:Bodo Illgner.jpg, File:Peter Neururer.jpg, File:Mehmet Scholl.jpg, File:Eurotower in Frankfurt.jpg, File:Fußball-Taktik 4-4-2.gif und File:Fußball-Taktik 4-4-2.svg, File:Toni Polster.jpg.

neu ohne persönliche Daten: File:Mehmet Scholl im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft.jpg, File:Body Illgner als Spieler.jpg, File:Fußball-Taktik 4-4-2.jpeg, File:Eurotower.jpg, File:Peter Neururer als Trainer in Köln.jpg, File:Toni Polster als Spieler in Köln.jpg)--Florian K (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Martin, hab gad erst gesehen, dass du damit "beauftragt" warst. Ich finde das Weglöschen so alter Dateien etwas problematisch. Da es nach individuellem Entfernen der inkriminierten Metadaten 2 Varianten gibt: welche findest du besser, so File:Peter Neururer.jpg (alte Version versteckt) oder so File:Mehmet Scholl.jpg (alte Version gelöscht)? --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Find ich auch, ich hatte Florian auch ursprünglich gebeten die alten Dateien zu überschreiben, nicht unter anderem Namen hochzuladen. Die alte Version muss gelöscht werden, dass löschen des Log-eintrags bringt nichts da das Bild immer noch runterladbar ist und damit die EXIF-Daten einsehbar sind. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Also bei File:Fußball-Taktik 4-4-2.gif reichte Re-upload und Löschen der Originalversion nicht, da die Versionsgeschichte noch den Namen zeigt. --Túrelio (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Neben einem kleinen Upload problem - wobei sich unser upload noch überschnitten hat - habe ich da auch gerade beim Eurotower etwas probleme gehabt das rauszubekommen. Das Logbuch ist jetzt etwas verpfuscht, beim 4-4-2 versuch ichs nochmal sauberer hinzubekommen. --Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Andererseits ist File:Fußball-Taktik 4-4-2.gif kaum verwendet. Das könnten wir eigentlich einfach ersetzen. Wurde früher mit 100fach eingebundenen Länderflaggen auch gemacht, warum also nicht mit der mikrigen gif datei. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

D'accord, hab ich auch grad geprüft und nur 1 aktive Verwendung gefunden. --Túrelio (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dann ersetze ich die Verwendung in den beiden de.wp Benutzerseiten mal und lösche die .gif dannach. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hab grad schon den DeLinker beauftragt. Ich lass dich jetzt mal weiterwirken; es gab schon zuviel "crossover".

Aber ein ernsteres Problem: gab es nach der Vandalenattacke gestern nacht irgendwelche Gespräche/Pläne, im Wiederholungsfall den Verursacher Provider-mäßig zu identifizieren, um dem eine Abuse-Meldung zu verpassen? Denn jemand, der es wirklich will, kann uns damit ganz schön beschäftigen, um nicht deutlicher zu werden. --Túrelio (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ich halts mit en:Wikipedia:Indef_blocked_userpages#Sock puppet pages, mag Zufall sein, dass das Beispiel wahrscheinlich exakt zutrifft. Ich habe ansonsten keine Ahnung wer das ist und keine Ahnung was er will. Einfach nur blinder Vandalismus. Was meine eigene Disk betrifft so sehe ich die Angriffe als unproblematisch. Als Deutscher kennt man diesen Unsinn und wird nur in dem Eindruck bestärkt dass viele Aussenstehende nur sehr geringe Kentnisse über die deutsche Gesellschaft haben. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ich sehe ein drohendes Problem auch weniger in Bezug auf einzelne User(seiten), sondern dass so jemand (der offenbar in Sekundenschnelle auf neue IPs Zugriff hatte) hier eine Menge Arbeitskraft binden kann. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Kein neues Problem, ich habe wegen des Falls aber noch nichts gelesen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Übrigens danke euch beiden für die Hilfe mit dem Namenlöschen!! Ich glaube hab dann bald alle "Fehler"bilder erwischt, sonst melde ich mich nochmal--Florian K (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ich hatte noch ein paar gefunden, hoffe jetzt aber alle erwischt zu haben. --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template Protection

Quite sad that we have to protect so many templates. Some of them were greatly benefiting from edits by non-admins. But I guess after attack like this that seems to be necessary. It is interesting that User:Wantstime2 was quite familiar with what to edit. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sad. At the moment it is more temporary and quick, given the speed of vandalism I not cared about block reasons and the protection level. Maybe we can lower it to semi sometime. However, some of the templates are transcluded to most files using the date functions of {{Information}} or {{Creator}}, such templates require full protection. --Martin H. (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are a user problem

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Martin H.. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not, but this one is

Lindss (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is yet another Bıdıkk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, again a faked flickr review. --Martin H. (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC) confirmed and done. However, we need User:FlickreviewR/Images never editted by their reviewer back. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That page seems to be actively updated. This file probably just hadn't made it on there yet because it was literally at the top of latest files when I found it. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I only woundered because also of this users last sock the images didnt had links to that page. Maybe we were to quick. I added some of the tr.wp articles to my watchlist. --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder how Sweetnownow (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is related. They uploaded File:Lindsay Lohan Badetuch.jpg on 2010-07-21. It was added to the Turkish Wikipedia article on Lindsay Lohan by Melinaa on 2010-09-30, and then the same file was uploaded as File:Lindsay Lohan Badetuch 1.jpg by confirmed Bıdıkk sockpuppet Evrıl (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) on 2010-10-01. Seems like quite a coincidence given the timeframe. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More info: The Melinaa account was also used to add Bıdıkk's upload File:Lindsay lohan 3.jpg to tr:Lindsay Lohan and to add Bıdıkk's upload of File:Avril Lavigne.jpg (later recreated using the Evrıl account) to tr:Avril Lavigne. That should connect the dots. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And even more. I knew this looked familiar. Check out the puppetcluster around User:Xutku (tr:Vikipedi:Denetçi isteği/Dava/Xutku and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 21#Büşra Alman). —LX (talk, contribs) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

While your first evidence is possibly just coincidence - people searched for freely licensed Lindsay Lohan images on flickr and found this towel that once had a free license per the review by Truu on File:Lindsay Lohan Badetuch.jpg - the second evidence of image inclusion makes it a duck. I not looked into the editing details of this old accounts, but on first sight it looks possible that this is a sockpuppet zoo around Xutku. From Checkuser I can only say that this old edits from late June are stale, I can also only refer to editing evidences or in extrem cases try to ask a tr.wp Checkuser. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll probably write up a summary of the situation for COM:ANB to let others know what to look for, and because I think it's time to rethink the leniency that was shown earlier. I'll also notify tr:User:Eldarion, who has been helpful in the past on the tr.wp side. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. However, a correction, to many users in one discussion ;) Sweetnownow is unrelated, the duck is Melinaa. The towel image upload by Sweetnownow appears to be just coincidence. --Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Romani children ww2.jpg

The boilerplate text This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. which is applied to every closed deletion request seems clear enough and doesn't admit of exceptions. Please don't do stuff like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats a new deletion request below the old. Both request use the same page, the first deletion request was not edited. Read Commons:Deletion_request#Appeal. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not following those instructions. What's missing from this picture?. No mention of "new deletion request below the old" there either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The green archive box ends above my deletion request. Both requests simply share the same subpage, the deletion request is listed on september 25 again. So what are you talking about. --Martin H. (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reread the instructions carefully. You couldn't even have read all of the arguments, let alone discussed matters with the closer as required, in the ten minutes between the close and your renomination. And you didn't as the edit history I linked to shows. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont look through Kameraad Pjotr talk page history. Why should I? There is nothing on Pjotrs talkpage about this request, if you want to say me something give me a diflink and not a link to some talk page history. The keep decission was wrong and I appeal. The argument brought into the discussion is simply not covered by the law or any court rulings - the opposite - and thats the point of my second request/appeal. The second deletion nomination does not violate any procedural requirements, the new deletion discussion is placed on the same subpage below the closed discussion archive, I dont edited the archive as you initially claimed, the uploader is informed and the deletion request is listed on the log of the day of nomination. So again: what do you want from me. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You linked to Commons:Deletion_request#Appeal and it says there that you have to talk to Pjotr before you nominate the file for deletion again. --MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unecessary. The wrong information not came from him but someone else in that deletion discussion, so the necessary place to argue is the deletion discussion to have the false interpretion provided there refuted there. --Martin H. (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you do not follow Commons:Deletion_request#Appeal then why do you link to it? --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To refute the accusation raised against me here that I edited an archived page. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. To me it just looked like you two did not understand what the other person meant. --MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Text in copyvio notices

Hi! I just noticed this edit [7] where editsummary says "Notification of possible copyright violation" but template itself does not contain the word "possible". Should we fix something? --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comes from MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js. There is always the possibility that the finding is wrong, so possible is better. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah my thought too. So perhaps we should add it tho the copyvio notice. --MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Copyvionote. --Martin H. (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Shakira Milano Italy.jpg

Hello Martin, can delete this picture! when I transferred the image to the Commons I thought it was a work own user, not want to cause problems. Truu (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Write it to the deletion discussion, this will speed it up. Thats no problem, Truu, the transfer was ok. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Strindberg by Munch

File:August Strindberg by Edvard Munch.jpg

Just spoke to one of the copyright holders (Moderna Museet, Stockholm) and for future reference, there is no permission given to use the file on any wikiprojekt. Thanks for alerting me.--Mercurial (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I scheduled the file for undeletion on January 1 2015 on Category talk:Edvard Munch. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Images of Singapore

Hi, you deleted "Category:Images of Singapore" and moved the images in that category to "Category:Singapore". However, "Images of Singapore" is actually the name of a museum on Sentosa island in Singapore: see [8]. Perhaps you can rename the category "Category:Images of Singapore (museum)" and move the images back? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that wasnt clear, I thought it was one of those "images of" categories imported from en.wp [9] that we on Commons have without this prefix. --Martin H. (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I added some formatting, maybe this helps.  Docu  at 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I do wonder, though, if the italics are a bit misleading. Usually, names of buildings are not italicized. Maybe "Category:Images of Singapore (museum)" would be clearer? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably yes.--  Docu  at 13:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, will list it for renaming. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-commercial use images

Hello Martin, could you check the license of File:Santana Amapá.jpg? In Flickr it's licensed for non-commercial use [10]. But it was uploaded here as [11]. Is it ok? Ednei amaral (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not ok. --Martin H. (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Córdoba

Hi Martin, there are a lot of Córdobas (cities and provinces) in the world. E.g. I'm from Córdoba city, Argentina. It is possible to entirely move the current subcategories in Category:Córdoba to "Córdoba (Spain)" and leave the current as a disambiguation page? I mean: Is there a bot or function that allows to entirely move? Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands or a category discussion at COM:CFD. --Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :))) Alakasam (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kolontar Red Mud.jpg

Maybe you can help me with the image's license, because i don't understand the Commons mechanisms, is unnecesary delete the image, i wrote the autor's name and the source of come from, the 20 Minutos newspaper give make use of its images according Creative Commons España. --Ravave (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the license of the source, their terms of use. Images from press agencies like EFE are explicitely not included in the 20minutos license ("Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos publicados por 20minutos procedentes de los terceros siguientes" - this license is not applicable on third party content). So that image not is and never was published under the stated license. It is simply not free content, not free for any reuse no matter with or without credit. --Martin H. (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I Understand, I didn't knew that, I can accept the delete of the picture, sorry, It wasn't my intention upload an image without copyright, isn't the first time I did this, I prefer upload the mines for my own, but I can't go to Hungary and make a photo for my own, but the others photos are uncopyrighted too. --Ravave (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

Martin, I did the upload images like this, I'll post some for disposal. You can delete this image protected with copyright File:Oreiromiss2.jpg, because nobody did it. Truu (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For the first see the deltion request. For the second: I will have a look. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ready, I put the images found on this site tineye.com for disposal, see [12] and [13], only two images were not found by site, so I not put the images for deletion. Truu (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted an article I did

Germán Abad Valenzuela was in English and I made the traduction into Spanish (natal language), he is my grandfather and I have the original picture of the "copyright" in my house with his doctoral degree, etc...

Have you read Commons:First steps? See the decision tree at Commons:First_steps/License_selection: Is the picture old enough? No. Did you create it yourself? No. Is the author or rights owner known? Maybe. Is the author dead for 70 years? Not possible. Did the copyright holder agree that anyone can reuse their work for commercial purposes? Not known. So: Do not upload. Is there any other possibility to upload the file here, similar to the en.wikipedia.org upload en:File:German Abad Valenzuela.jpg? No, fair use is forbidden on Commons. Does your physical ownership allows you to upload something? No, physical ownership has no effects on copyrights/intelectual property, owning the photo is meaningless. --Martin H. (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dimichambers

You may want to delete all of User:Dimichambers uploads as copyvios. Secret (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just did so. --Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hello

• I am a new user and I don't know all details of correct registration of images yet. The experienced user MaxBioHazard helps me to correct my errors.
• Files: 27osn_Parad.jpg, 27osn_Marsh.JPG, 27osn_Mass.JPG is my own work!!! I have this one in high permission.
• Files: 27osn_Cvetkov.jpg, 21osn_Zadorojnyi.jpg - are an Office photo (the author is unknown).

Use purpose - to Represent the outstanding participant of division Interchangeability of free replacement - it is not found and can't be made any more. Klok27 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

1) No problem

2) I disagree for File:27osn Parad.jpg.

3) This photos are not free, they are copyrighted as well. There is a big difference between "created by someone official" and "official work". The authors copyright on official works is expropriated for a valid reason, not just because the author had the misfortune to work for the officials. You found one valid exemption: The layout of those official symbols is (maybe) not eligible for protection under copyright, e.g. File:23osn Mechel.jpg and the others. This are maybe official symbols.

Regarding your purpose of usage: "no free replacement" is unimportant here! This project is intended to only collect free files, the non-free fair use files are not collected here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• It agree with remarks on file 27osn Parad.jpg - I Has mixed with file 27osn Mass.jpg

Klok27 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Drawn Bath.jpg

Hi, Martin. Do you have supporting evidence that File:Drawn Bath.jpg was uploaded by a sockpuppet of User:Midnight68? It seems to me that it's more likely that the image was uploaded by a well-meaning Italian editor who saw the image on it.wikipedia and thought it would be a good idea to put it on Commons. Powers (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. MasterOfAllBulls (talk · contribs), account creation 18:34, 30 September 2010 on Commons, no SUL, uploaded File:Drawn Bath.jpg 18:43, including it in Wikipedia 18:55 - intruding an harmless article with his Lolicon trash and with the same gibberish original research description related to Anime he always write - with another sockpuppet account that he created before on en.wp 18:14. --Martin H. (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Image Selection

I am trying to select some of the pictures from commons as selected picture on Ml.Wiki portal.. But i have no idea which tag need to be inserted into the picture page in commons as it will show that it was a selected picture in another language wiki...please advice..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 15:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Add {{Assessments|mlwiki=1}} to the image description, maybe that describes what you mean (cant check because dont speak that language). If the image description already has something with {{Assessments|enwiki=1|trwiki=1|....}} then add a new parameter |mlwiki=1 to that assessments template. --Martin H. (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But the image will not be a Ml.Wiki selected one, it will be in the portals, like history, geography etc... for example this Ml.Wiki is showing a portal of Physics..and the image File:Gyroscope_precession.gif is a selected picture over there...But no idea how to mention in the picture's page about this selection to alert common user as a motivation.--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For that purpose I dont think we have tags on Commons. Thats an ml.wikipedia portal thing, build a gallery page at ml.wp portals for listing this images. I e.g. contribute to the german wp Africa portal, that portal has a local gallery page for previous selected images de:Portal:Afrika/Bild des Monats/Übersicht (Bild des Monats=image of the month; Übersicht=overview). Many portals on many wikis have such listings or selections. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can consider creating a tag related to this, will be more helpful and it will show the value of one photo and will be a motivation to the photographer..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why

Why haven't you blocked drorks main account? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I not checked the details of editing, that work is left for others. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin, can you help me?

Hello Martin, i can use the photos, because i know the owner of the site www.budismo.com.br and i told him about the free wikipedia, and i got all the rigths. If you don´t believe me, wich you can, please ask him about me by sending him an email(budismo@budismo.com.br - his name´s Kyohaku Correia), i'll thank you. Martin, i just need help, i´m new here. I don´t know how to edit the permission of the photos. Can you help me? How can i put the photos back? "Nitiryu_vida.gif" "Nitiren_vida.gif" "Nissui_Shounin.jpg" "Nissen_vida.gif" "Honmon_Butsuryu-shu.jpg" Hs.carolina (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:OTRS then. See the information on your talk [14]. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, i´ll! =)

Thanks

Thank you for dealing with Woodzing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Multi Wiki Categories

Hi Martin..

Currently we are minimizing the free image upload on Ml.Wiki and pushing all the images to the commons...For getting all images uploaded by Ml.Wiki users i would like to create a category eg:- XY009MLW and will display all the images under the categories on Ml.Wiki...Will you able to help me to do that..

1. Creating a no-meaning category in commons (If we used known category, everybody will link the files)
2. Showing the images on that category on Ml.Wiki...

Any help regarding this will be a big benefit to ML.Wiki & Commons..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 15:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how to help, Im not a technician, nor do I realy understand the intention. We have a whole category tree for transfered files, Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review, that categories are autoamtically, never manually, added with placing the text {{ml.wikipedia}} on the file description. If the transfer is reviewed the tag and therefore also the category will be removed. --Martin H. (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this by chance. I guess, I could help from a technical point, but could you explain what exactly you want to achieve? --Slomox (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Concept

Free image uploading in Ml.Wiki is going to be restricted partially and will accept only fair use images..but selecting a picture of the week could be difficult...(Featured picture for the week or month..year etc...)

1. Any Ml.Wiki user who was supplying or like to supply the pictures to Ml.Wiki will be redirected to upload that image in commons and will add the image under a specific category called XY009MLW
2. One page of ML.Wiki will show all the pictures from commons with the specified tag...so that weekly image selection can be easily done..Other wise it will be difficult to find the images of Ml.Wiki users.

if you have any other idea please suggest... (Sorry to use Martin's talk page as a platform..) --KALARICKAN | My Interactions 16:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So it's just for the "selected images" process, right? You could create a template for it, that users have to include when they upload a file. I created an example at User:Slomox/test18 (for live production a Malayalam script shortcut will be ideal as a name for the template). It sets the category Category:Malayalam Wikipedia Featured Image candidates/41 (41 is the current calendar week). If the calendar week is over you can copy the list of files in that category over to ml.wp and vote on it. After some weeks a bot can remove the then obsolete template. --Slomox (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Exactly....But i dont want to keep the name like that Malayalam Wikipedia Featured Image candidates/41, this name will attract professionals from globe to get their picture appeared as a selected one on Ml.Wiki so an unknown category like X898MLK or 65DFDFD or similar random cat is good...and the selected files will keep on Ml.Wiki portal with the link to the file under this Gallery of Selected pictures...No need to update or change the week number...only thing is that all these images under the category should appear in Ml.Wiki..Means- A cross wiki link need to be established--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 09:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just describe in the category description who is allowed to add images and who is not. But there's no point in having a cryptic name. Security by obscurity is no security, especially so in an open wiki. --Slomox (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Okay no noproblem...I will make the category according to your instruction...but how we will link it on Ml.Wiki--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 10:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I however still suggest to use the existing pattern and maybe work on the processes on ml.wp to make selected pictures also featured pictures and eligible to have {{Assessments}} which is very well developed already. E.g. the turkish Wikipedia is very bountiful with granting the featured picture status. Additionally you can consider to add assessment tags to the local file description pages. Not any assessment or listing of local Wikipedia projects is worth inclusion on Wikimedia Commons. E.g. the featured picture File:07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpg is tagged with assesments on Commons but it also has a en.wp file page en:File:07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpg that repeats the assesment but also shows, that it was selected for mainpage in the past. Some files selected by en.wp projects are sometime tagged the same way, while the file is on Commons the assessment is on Wikipedia - logically, because it is Wikipedia related assessment. --Martin H. (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I got the idea - , it can be easily implemented(For home page pictures).. But Ml.Wiki users are still not contributing actively to commons because of a reason that - if they put file in commons it will be disappeared inside 7 million pictures and Ml.Wiki active users cannot see the upload and nominate the file as a candidate for picture selection...Also we are trying to minimize the double job as import to ml.wiki and export to commons and advising everyone to upload in commons and all the files can be used on all wiki....only remaining part of this discussion is Showing a category of pictures from commons to a local wiki(Ml.Wiki) only i need this solution..I tried several linking method..but it will show as a link only not the pictures..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 15:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You have high requirements ;) Adding images to local categories on ml.wp will only work with adding the category on the file description page on ml.wp. See again the example en:File:07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpg, that link goes to a file description page that is localy stored on en.wp with the assesment information and some automatically added categories stored localy on en.wp and the file description that is transcluded from Commons. If you want to add something to an ml.wp category you have to edit the file description on ml.wp. The category will show up + the transcluded Commons image description. --Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's technically impossible to automatically show the content of a Commons category on a local project. What is possible:

• Have a link to the Commons category on your local featured images voting page. Users can click the link, look at the files and choose their favorite, hit the back button of their browser and discuss it on the local project. (A link to your local featured images voting page would be useful. I don't know the workflow of your project and maybe I can make better suggestions if I know it better.)
• Have a bot that regularly gets a list of all the files in the Commons category and posts the list on the local project. --Slomox (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Outcome

1. A bot is going to be deployed for getting the file names on the Specified category in commons
2. Local wiki page will be created (ML Wiki users Gallery) and will show all the files from bot as Gallery
3. Active users will frequently visit the page and nominate the file for selection
4. Nominated file will goto the Selection Board page, where others can vote and see only the nominated pages
5. Upon finishing the votes, an {{Assessment}} tag will be placed on the picture and will display on local wiki main page..

• Bot scripting is the major part, and i dont have a bot coding experience...No idea how to get it work...Approaching local wiki bot makers

--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Vetere

hi martin, why are you suddenly so harsh about me adding new opera of mine to wikimedia commons ?(!); i make proper references, i gift away new paintings and you see this as doubtful. sorry, but i find this not kind - and now, thanks to your aggressive comment, i have to fight with user turelio, who permits himself to put on various, duly approved works, being here since long time without any problem, all kind of deletion requests. eg. duly approved work about rimbaud/verlaine, portrait of my personal friend ira cohen, new york - http://upclose-hautnah.blogspot.com/ (the portrait of ira was on for two years, despite emails to the commission now deleted; i am the co-editor of his photobook!); eg the permission of suhrkamp verlag, who have thanked me for the engagement for ludwig HOHL, has been provided to the wikimedia permission commission, and the portrait of rodolphe carterot was published in the common book called "dogs' philosophy" in 2005 - please stop this unfair action against me and my opera. thanks, it is not spam - see my blog about this unique art experience: http://mvartvision.blogspot.com/ best, mischa vetere

@Martin, ich schlage vor, die Diskussion auf Veteres Disku zu beschränken, da er momentan überall Kommentare hinterlässt, was den Überblick etwas erschwert. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Danke fürs richtige platzieren. Soweit ich mitbekommen habe kann ich gerne auf Deutsch antworten. Gemeint ist wahrscheinlich dass, ich empfinde meine Aussage dort nicht als grob oder so, es ist einfach meine ehrliche Meinung und ich denke nicht sie ist zu subjektiv (zumal sie sich auf die Beschreibungstexte bezieht, nicht auf die Bilder). Die Metainformationen von Bilddateien bieten keinen Platz für Kunstaktionen. Ich habe mich bemüht das möglichst objektiv zu bewerten, das fällt mir nicht leicht, immerhin bin ich von den ersten Uploads des Benutzers getäuscht worden und dachte - das kann jetzt verletzend sein, ist aber ebenso ehrlich - ein Kind erlaubt sich einen Scherz mit diesem MSPaint gekritzel. Nun, ich wurde über die Natur der Uploads aufgeklärt. Dennoch ist meine Wertschätzung die gleiche geblieben was objektivität wirklich erschwert. Hinzu, und das ist erneut meine Meinung, haben wir hier einen der Künstler der gegen Zensur schreit und das auch aus dem Bauch heraus, selbstbezogen und ohne zu reflektieren und vor allem ohne die Fähigkeit zu unterscheiden zwischen "Hat niemanden zu interessieren" und "Interessiert einfach niemanden". Das zweite hat nichts mit Zensur zu tun, von der Öffentlichkeit nicht beachtete Zensurkritiker sehen in der Nichtbeachtung aber häufig eine Zensur und kämpfen dagegen an. --Martin H. (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ich sehe keinerlei Grund wofür du dich zu rechtfertigen bräuchtest. Bzgl. der Uploads habe ich zwar einen ähnlichen Eindruck. Da ich von solcher Kunst zugegebenermaßen nichts verstehe, tangiert mich das aber nicht weiter. Das ständige Selbstlob und sein Zensurgeschrei[15] geht mir allmählich aber auch zu weit. Ich erwäge ihm das mal im Klartext auf deutsch auf seine Disku zu pappen. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Das wollte ich hier gerade getan haben, daher die lange Antwort die, danke daher nochmal für dein Zwischenposting, in Dritter Person geschrieben ehrlich und direkt ausfällt. Wie ich schon gesagt habe würde ich es begrüßen, wenn er sich mit der Veröffentlichung auf Commons auf Werke beschränken würde die bereits veröffentlicht wurden. Alles weitere, wie Aufruf zu Spenden etc kann dann in diesen Publikationen, in Büchern, Zeitungen, Kunstmagazinen etc., stehen und muss auf Commons nicht dupliziert werden. Damit kann man auf Commons Bilder spenden, seine Sichtbarkeit im Interent erhöhen ohne sich dem latenten Vorwurf auszusetzen man würde spammen oder sei auf die hohe Sichtbarkeit von Wikimedia Projekten angewiesen um überhaupt aus dem Schatten der Unbekanntheit zu entkommen. --Martin H. (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: nach diesem Kommentar hat es mir einfach gereicht. Jetzt hat er seinen Klartext bekommen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Klärung File:Lrat_3.jpg

Hallo Martin,

Du hattest dem Uploader im Juli geschrieben, die Freigabe des Urhebers müsse noch nachgeliefert werden. Ich stieß grade als Sichterin auf das Bild, weil der Benutzer es in den Artikel de:Lothar Wölfle einbaute.

Auf Commons kenne ich mich mit den Gepflogenheiten nicht so gut aus — Löschen wäre jetzt aber wohl angebracht, nachdem der Uploader nicht reagiert hat, oder? Vielleicht könntest Du das veranlassen? Falls nicht, was müsste ich tun?

Grüßle, --Schwäbin (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Die Datei ist schon sehr weit vorne in der Warteschleife, ok, relativ weit vorne. Ich lösche die Datei nicht selber. Sobald jemand die Dateibeschreibungsseite ändert werde ich es aber sehen. Ich rate von der Weiternutzung ab und empfehle, dass Bild mit einem Vermerk "Bild vorläufig entfernt da Freigabe fehlt" aus dem Artikel zu entfernen. So wird späte vielleicht nochmal jemand aufmerksam und fügt es wieder ein sollte eine Freigabe doch noch kommen. --Martin H. (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, danke für die superschnelle Antwort. Von der Warteschleife wusste ich nichts :-) Dann stößt also früher oder später automatisch jemand drauf? Das ist gut. Ich hatte das Bild schon aus dem Artikel revertiert und dem Benutzer auf de.WP auch Bescheid gegeben. Vielleicht tut sich noch was.

Wie siehst Du das in diesem Falle? Scheint ja ein ödes Passbild und kein Pressefoto zu sein. Insofern ist es mit den Rechten des Fotografen ja eigentlich nicht weit her? Und das Recht am eigenen Bild braucht uns in diesem Falle (er ist Bürgermeister) vermutlich nicht wirklich zu kümmern, zumal er das Foto eigentlich nur selbst zum Einscannen hergegeben haben kann... --Schwäbin (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bzgl. Einfügung im Artikel und Persönlichkeitsrechte: Richtig gemacht bzw. stimme ich zu. Bzgl. des Urheberrechts: Leider ist es nicht so. Die Schöpfungshöhe damit Fotos zu Lichtbildwerken werden hängt in Deutschland sehr niedrig. Eigentlich ist jedes Foto urheberrechtlich geschützt für die Lebenszeit des Urhebers und 70 Jahre nach dem Tod. Der Urheber ist der Fotograf, dieser kann Anderen eine Nutzungsberechtigung einräumen, ausserhalb der Vererbung durch Tod kann er sein Urheberrecht aber nicht übertragen. Eine Nutzungsberechtigung wäre allerdings nur eine exklusive Berechtigung für den Abgebildeten das Bild für seine Zwecke zu nutzen, dieses schließt aus, dass er wiederum anderen eine Nutzungsberechtigung einräumt. Wir aber brauchen eine nicht-exklusive Lizenz die Jedem die Nutzung gestattet. Eine Freigabe des Urheberes unter der angegebenen freien Lizenz ist also auf jeden Fall erforderlich. Selbst wenn das Passbild kein Lichtbildwerk wäre sondern etwas einfachereres, ein Foto zweiter Klasse oder im rechtlichen Terminus ein Lichtbild (verwirrend, da wir Passbilder ja auch als Lichtbilder bezeichnen), dann wäre es immer noch für 50 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung geschützt. --Martin H. (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Schade, ich hatte gehofft, da irgendwie über mangelnde Schöpfungshöhe hinzukommen ;-) Falls mich der Uploader anspricht, werde ich ihm empfehlen, selbst ein Bild vom BM bei einer öffentlichen Veranstaltung zu knipsen. Dann sind wir das Problem los (ich hab mir grade überlegt, was für ein Handstand auf dem Daumen das wäre, wenn ich selbst — was hoffentlich nie geschieht — für Wikipedia relevant wäre und händeringend nach den Fotografen meiner diversen über Jahrzehnte angesammelten Passbilder suchen müsste...). --Schwäbin (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Hello. Recently, I added an image to be the logo that appeared in the article Soda Stereo of Wikipedia. The image I uploaded was too big and it looked bad. I don't know erase the images, and I added a smaller image. But a bot changed little in the big picture. I wanted to please ask that you delete the bigger picture and leave the small picture, or delete the two images and I upload a new one. Forgive me if I wrote something wrong, is that I do not speak English well. Thanks. JGabriel ar (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to make something smaller. The software can do this if you use the images right with an image size parameter ???px. Also you should use alternative textes for image inclusions so that blind users with screensreaders or users with images turned off can find out what the image shows. See es:Ayuda:Imágenes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you JGabriel ar (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

File:CairoCommunikeFuZhu.jpg

Hi Martin, could you please check if the File:CairoCommunikeFuZhu.jpg is a copyright violation and subject to speedy deletion? The "Cairo Communike" was published on 1943 that much later than Jan 1, 1923. Moreover, the incorrect Chinese translation was most likely added by the uploader, which made this even more copyright violating. Kind regards. --Lvhis (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Greetings ... How do I know if I am violating copyrights if the images are in Google? Can not be used? When I go into properties, there is no mention of copyrights ... Hugs ...

Lennar (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. The absence of copyright notices does not mean that there is no copyright, there is one. We require a clear copyright notice that allows reuse in terms of free content (free to use by anyone, anywhere, anytime for any purpose including modification or commercial reuse). --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Migration

Hi! This [16]. The criteria says "4. If first published under the GFDL somewhere other than a Wikimedia project, must have been uploaded to Commons or to some other Wikimedia project before November 1, 2008." and it was uploaded 11 days after that date. So I do not think we can not be sure that it can be migrated. --MGA73 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Under the GFDL. It was not published under the GFDL at that source. --Martin H. (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Poul Schlüter - original.jpg

For a while ago you deleted this file. Now I am making a normal deletion request. Please post your comments: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poul Schlüter - original.jpg --|EPO| ^da: 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections

Can you please check whether the photo posted at the webpage [17] is under public domain in Germany? From the year in the photo caption, I feel it is and if it is, I would like to import this photo to commons. Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just from that souce I cant say anything about the image. Apparently that source not created or first published the image but just mirror it from other websites, thats not a source to allow any assessment on original publications or authorship. From this site it however appears that the image is stored at the National Archives (they store all the sized photographs and I guess that this is one too). I think it is recomandable to contact the NARA on this. --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, that website is realy only a mirror of other web content, thats not a source. The image appearently comes from - surprise - Wikipedia, so using that as a source you create a circle reference. The image was used in en:Adolf Hitler for many years since 2002.

• It was en:File:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg (uploaded October 2002, see en:Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Hitler_walking_out_of_Brown_House_after_1930_elections.jpg. See log for the rest)
• It was File:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg

Forget about such trash websites, this are not sources. --12:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the sources, but if the image is of hitler in 1930 and the photographer is unknown, doesn't it fall under public domain? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If the photographer is unknown or never undisclosed the identity: Yes. However, the image appears to be stored with NARA, they may know more. At the moment I can only say what I see online and thats not much. The NARA reference is a hint how this image made its way to the internet, this source requires consultation. Obviously the image was not first published online ;) but was digitalized, regretably in many cases of online images only the picture but not the information is available, we however need the information. --Martin H. (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I striked the word NARA because it maybe is the National Archives of the U.S. or maybe the U.K. National Archives. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

help me

im new to wikipedia i want to upload and upgrade saina nehwal article so can u please help me.. thanks Rohith goura (talk)

No, a first search shows that there are no free images around the internet that the copyright holder voluntarily released for free commercial reuse and modifications. But thats required to upload something here. You can not upload images you grabbed from random websites and claim them your own and claim them freely licensed by the copyright holder. Read the Commons:First steps please and the image casebook on internet images. I however again emphasize that in no way it is ok or acceptable to upload other peoples photographs saying that they are "entirely your own work". --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin H., for the lucid explanation. Cheers, Mspraveen (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU Rohith goura (talk)

Likely new sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055

User:What's ur name? seems to likely be a new sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Returning sock. Could you please take a look? Nsk92 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Herby did a checkuser per your COM:AN posting. --Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Eliane Bastos cover arts

Hi Martin! Some files were deleted, but I think it was a mistake. I'm the designer of all Eliane Bastos' cover arts. I'm also the producer of the singer. So how could we revert the deletions of the files? Luis.filidis (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you already uplaoded it again. I will tag it with missing permission. --Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

{{WEB}}

Martin I noticed your frustration with {{WEB}}. I use it to mark which one of my photos have {{Location}}, but I can use other templates for that. is there a preferred template with similar functionality? --Jarekt (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Its merely the name. People upload Commons:Image casebook#Internet images with the source information {{Web}}/Web/WEB, that should not lead to an non-red template link. Something that fits Category:Image insertion templates namings would be better, e.g. 'web symbol' or for your purpose 'location icon' or so. If possible it would be great if you move it to another name. --Martin H. (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC) And maybe the new template can use File:Erioll_world.svg for consistency and recognition with {{Location}} templates. --Martin H. (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I replaced it with {{Globe icon}} and deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubt on File:Skylinesaoleopoldo.jpg

This image was copied from panoramio, where it's all rights reserved. But it seems to be the same uploader: username is the same, he says it's his own wor, and there is metadata. Is it ok? Ednei amaral (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Im unsure too, maybe they are the same users, maybe not. I think it would be appropriate to tag the file {{subst:npd}} and inform the user to please change the license also on panoramio so that the free license is confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mvart4u

martin, i have responded to you - please, in order to clean up the category, i asked you to delete http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Das_geistige_gef%C3%A4ngnis,_ausbruchsversuch_max_frisch_by_mischa_vetere_2010_vektor_a.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mischa_vetere_five_dollars_2010_final_4.jpg

furthermore please take off all these deletion messages now all over the category and my talk, and pls grant to all approved paintings the OTRS approval (es ist wichtig, dass diese werke nicht angegriffen werden können!) ein beispiel hab ich soeben entdeckt: bei fixpoetry.com führte ja mein link zwischenzeitlich nicht zu meinem salon, sondern zu einer anderen malerin: nun hängt dieses, ihr cover-bild mit verweis auf meinen salon bei der google-abfrage in meinen bildern! die verhängung hab wiederum ich nicht gemacht; dasselbe gilt für die sängerin (zudem schrecklich untalentiert), welche sich erlaubte, sich bei meiner cd anzuhängen - jetzt ist nur noch ihr bild geblieben und der verweis auf meine cd korrekt. die bilder bei euch könnten später attackiert werden [as for the message received on friday, my 'folks'party 'friends' will continue to try to harm my work at a maximum (in the manner they were reputationalwise successfull since september 2010!)- allem voran: i do not wish to have to come back in half, three years on existing ones, eg rimbaud, tilman and - wegen erika burkart bin ich im kontakt mit der nationalbibliothek (email freitag), sobald das approval vorliegt, werde ich es euch zustellen - das portrait von ira und rodolphe bitte ich wieder in den normalzustand zu versetzten (beide fälle hab ich auf meinem talk genau erklärt); ich will nicht, dass diese deletion notes überall rumhängen, und ich will auch nicht im sinne der rufmörder 'gesichtslos' werden... - ich habe der kommission verschiedentlich geschrieben ( türelio behauptete ja, ich hätte bezüglich ira cohen nie geantwortet) und keine einzige antwort erhalten (hackers?). dank und gruss, mvart4u

Die Bestätigung der Freigabe(n) der Rechteinhaber dauert etwas, damit habe ich nichts zu tun. Was du auf deiner Benutzerdiskussion machst ist mir eigentlich egal, wenn du was entferenen möchtest dann tu es - aber bitte immer nur vollständige Abschnitte entfernen (bzw. nennen wir es archivieren). --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin, schau mal bitte hier, falls deine Frustrationstoleranz für heute nicht schon aufgebraucht ist. Ich erspare mir hier weitere Kommentare, weil sie wohl PA-gefährdet wären. --Túrelio (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jcb hat heute trotz unserer Hinweise {{Mischa Vetere}} eingerichtet, was mvart4u in Zukunft zum "OTRS-washing" seiner Derivate nutzen könnte. Ich begreife wirklich nicht was Jcb sich dabei denkt. Übrigens :de zu diesem Thema: de:Bearbeitung (Urheberrecht)#Recht zur Bearbeitung, allerdings nur sehr knapp. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Löschantrag gestellt, mögen sich andere damit rumärgern. Der Mensch behandelt unser Projekt missbräuchlich als Platform für seine "Kunst" und als Propoagandainstrumen um gegen irgendwelche Zensur zu wettern die er glaubt von der ganzen Welt zu erfahren. Soll er meinetwegen machen, ich habe keine Lust dagegen zu argumentieren. Aber das Urheberrecht und die Grundsätze dieses Projekts darf er nicht mit Füssen treten wie er es tut. Solche Bilder durchlaufen normalerweise die Schnelllöschung als Commons:Image casebook#Internet images, Bilder die mittels Google images von irgendwelchen Webseiten runtergeklaubt wurden. Commons:Deletion requests/File:THOMAS MANN exil seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg --Martin H. (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate an individual image for deletion for a particular problem, even if it carries the new template. This is out of the scope of the OTRS permission system. I'm not an expert in cases like this very image. I will just add to the deletion discussion what's in the OTRS permission. (note: although I understand most of it, I can't guarantee that I understand your German comments always properly. My spoken languages are NL+EN+ES). Jcb (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The image was tagged as missing source information, not missing permission. --Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mischa Vetere replaced the picture of Thomas Mann by a PD picture from commons. That's why I removed the deletion template. Please tell me if any possible other copyright problem would be a reason to go on with the deletion nomination. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily re-instated the rfd-tag for File:THOMAS_MANN_exil_seen_by_mischa_vetere_2010.jpg as the DR hasn't been closed yet. As I've now deleted the file version with the unsourced derivative, we now might close the DR. Though the image still has another Mann photo in the middle of the upper half, but that's quite defamiliarized. Opinion? --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

With the replacement it is fine, the problem have been understood now. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tick tock goes the clock

How are you today?

Thank you, Im very well this morning. --Martin H. (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin, it's a sockpuppet of Papa9. --Bsadowski1 07:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re mail earlier

Blocked a few and closed quite a few DRs - this is related. Not quite sure about the puppet master on Commons. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Emailed. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitney Houston File

I uploaded this (WhitneyHouston1999Germany.jpg) file, but when I checked some deletion logs after uploading, I found that the flickr user has some troubles and so I guess it would be deleted. Please check and delete if you feel it's not right. Thank You. Novice7 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Diese...

kategorie -Category:K.u.k. Kasernen by user:Erwin Lindemann- hatte ich nach der WP verlinkt, jetzt ist sie weg. Wie kriege ich das wieder hin - resp. was muß ich tun, daß die Sache wieder dort erscheint wo sie mal war? Servus, --

Du hast keine Kategorie erstellt sondern eine Gallerie aus deinem Benutzernamensraum in den Kategorienamensraum verschoben. Kategorien beinhalten aber keine Gallerien sondern nur einen sehr kurzen Text und die durch Kategorisierung hinzugefügten Mediendateien und Unterkategorien. --Martin H. (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you help concern to my images

Good day Martin.

Thanks for your view to my images. I would like to beg a favor. I'm a new user and wikipedia colaborator in consecuence I've no many experticies in edition.

If you could help me in this cases I'll be thankefull with you.

Images are my investigation and in the case of "Tormenta" is mine creative production. How can I put correct author right in such images ?.

My intention is doing so well.

Thanks.

Very Truly.

Ruiz-Mariño

The authors are all people who have contributed to the work. Thats photographer, painter, editor etc. Make sure that all authors died >80 years ago, thats the requirement of {{PD-Colombia}}. E.g. a painting from a Colombian painter will be Public Domain 80 years following the painters death, not earlyer. If this is not fullfilled you are not allowed to upload. --Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspectes of User:Paulinho15

Hai Martin,

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paulinho15 is already closed but his/her Suspectes still active. the User:BurmeisterIlandyg account alreadt blocked by you but now I deleted 4 files of User:GeminiesandLeons of the same behavior brobebly User:ArianosTauriniano is also Suspecte of User:Paulinho15. Both uploading same kind Flickr washing from Paulo Pereira. Can you confirm? Geagea (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ArianosTauriniano and GeminiesandLeons, also BrunoCorreaMelo1210 are sockpuppets. I hoped with ArianosTauriniano that with maybe insulting his alter ego a little bit and rubbing his nose in his own bad behaviour will change his contributing for the future and make this chump wake up and learn. At least his uploading changed. But regretably not fully, GeminiesandLeons uploads are later to my "pedagogic expiriment". --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the efficiency. Geagea (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazonaseirunepe

Hello Martin, could you check images upploaded by User:Amazonaseirunepe? There are 3 images, all tagged as "own work", but with different authors. In this one, File:DistritoBaixo-Eirunepé 1998.jpg, the author links to User:Ademario neto, a blocked user who uploaded several unfree files and used multiple accounts (here and on pt.Wikipedia). Ednei amaral (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Three persons in one creating "own work" files is not possible. Tagged files as missing source information. All three. Likely an Ademario neto sockpuppet, but lets see what will happen. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the connection until now, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Ademario neto is the same person as Gomes Netto. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont think so, I not repeated the check but from the information I have (articles edited, IPs) Id say no, there is no relation. --Martin H. (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This user keeps adding photos with "Ademario neto" (blocked indefinitely) as author, and stating it's "own work", like File:Envira (2).jpg. Ednei amaral (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Ps: I've just founded where they were copied from, and nominated them for deletion. But it's still suspicious. Ednei amaral (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry by successive editions, but what about user Ademário Neto? It's getting more and more suspicious. Ednei amaral (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This Image?

Hello Martin, I can do the upload this image File:JoJo.jpg for the Commons? not want to have future problems! The image appears that is not protected by copyright, see. Truu (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The uploader on en.wikipedia not says the truth, its from monstersandcritics, e.g. belongs to this series and is (C) by PR Photos, you will likely find it in their database http://www.prphotos.com/. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Criative light

This user has uploaded several images linking this copyrighted website as source. His address linkts to homepage - not to a specific one, where photo can be found. But, as here, the specific page doesn't license the photo under a free license. Also, he has uploaded some photos already uploaded by Good light, and deleted by the same reason. Ednei amaral (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You may simply say him, that "material com destinação ao publico que permita a divulgação" has not much to do with or Commons:Critérios_para_inclusão#Deve encontrar-se sob uma licença livre ou no domínio público. --Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Esperanza Aguirre's photo

Dear Martin H.

The photo of Esperanza Aguirre that you have deleted IT'S FREE OF COPYRIGHT, and I can use it in the Esperanza Aguirre's page because I HAVE THE AUTORITATION of the Press Office of Comunidad de Madrid. Now, I have sent an e-mail to Wikimedia to explain this case, and I hope you will not delete this photo again. Thank you for your time.

The photo is free for the press, thats not free of copyright and not free enough for Commons. Lets wait for the email received to COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Devayani@Naranshoot.JPG‎

i didnt say that its my work or i created it, the template shows that this image is a part of my private collections only...--Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your template claims that you have a legal relation to the file, thats wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you check this now User:Binukalarickan/ctag and please confirm, whether it meet the requirements or not--Kalarickan | My Interactions 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian Monroe

The copyright owner has forward permission to wiki in full writing for use of the following image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4b213eb9c73a3.jpg Source: http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/15517604

that is Sebastian monroe website only one can have that name  :)

I raised my concern at the file talk. Having a tfp images from the photographer handed to the subject/model does not give the model any intelectual property rights. Its ok to use that in portfolio but its not ok to grant others the permission to reuse the file for commercial purposes anywhere with publishing it under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some moto racing

Hello Martin H., you already deleted some pictures from the user Icgpracing, emanating from a website. The user uploaded new files as « own works », could please you check them, I'm pretty sure he found them on some website, he is problematic on wp-fr too. Thank you, Fabrice Ferrer 13:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello Martin, you could answer me if the reason for the elimination of this image is valid, the photo has a license accepted here in the Commons and the photo really belongs to the author. Truu (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an image of a wax sculpture, the sculpture is protected by copyright, making a photo of the sculpture is a derivative work. --Martin H. (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

You blocked User:Lara goncalves‎ for uploads s/he made before a warning was issued. --Eusebius (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1 1/4 years is enough time to learn some basics, any Wikipedia user is 'fined' with a 3 days image upload ban after account creation, if this user not even read some basics after >1 year it is time to do so now and point to the instructions on Commons the hard way. So far there is nothing but bad uploading, the last with complete nonsense sourcing of photographs grabbed from elsewhere sourced to a barbie photstream on flickr which is not even freely licensed. I could have taken away that "after warnings" bit in the block reason, thats right. --Martin H. (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to question anything, I just wanted to be sure the situation was clear. --Eusebius (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Borrado de Archivo

Estimado Martin H, he subido el archivo File:Queso_provolone_hilado_marca_Provoleta.jpg, y Ud. deduce que estoy violando un Copyright de la http://elcuerpodecristo.com/tiki-browse_image.php?imageId=598 . El archivo en cuestion es personal, yo mismo Jorge Anibal Esposito DNI 13465120 he tomado la fotografia y se la he enviado hace algunos años a www.elcuerpodecristo.com Mi abuelo se llamaba Natalio Alba y fue el inventor de este queso en 1940 y personalmente he estado vinculado a esta empresa por muchos años. Esa foto esta incluida en un articulo http://elcuerpodecristo.com/wiki/Provoleta precisamente con motivo de un comentario que hice en el foro. En el mencionado articulo dice "jorgeesposito parece cantar la posta..." aludiendo precisamente a la procedencia del mensaje. Luego ellos se pusieron en contacto conmigo y les envié las imagenes pero no tienen el copyright de las mismas. Tambien debo decirle que esta imagen es la imagen que se utilizaba en el rotulo para etiquetar los productos en concordancia con lo dispuesto por el Código Alimentario Argentino; Ley N° 22802 y Resolución N° 100/83 de Lealtad Comercial. Si observa detenidamente la imagen, se puede apreciar que la etiqueta del queso es la misma imagen en cuestion. Y ello esta debidamente respaldado en el Registro Nacional de Productos Alimenticios. Tambien hay otras imagenes que tiene la pagina www.elcuerpodecristo.com como la de la primera fabrica donde se elaboro este queso, y la de un premio que recibio la empresa donde aparece mi tío Antonio Alba recibiendo el premio del entonces Ministro de Bienestar Social. NI el archivo Queso_provolone_hilado_marca_Provoleta.jpg ni ninguna descripcion le pertenecen a nadie mas que a quien suscribe. Les dejo mi mail jorgeespositotango@hotmail.com . Me gustaria si me puede informar como volver a subir el archivo o si lo sube Ud. nuevamente. Sin mas y agradeciendo desde ya su atención saludo a Ud muy Atte. Jorge Esposito

I not fully understand you, but having a relation to that company does not allow you to take other photographers work. The copyright is with the photographer here and not with an descendant of the owner of the company whos product was photographed. --Martin H. (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Estimado Martin H: Tal vez no me expresé claramente en mi mensaje anterior. La imagen del archivo Queso_provolone_hilado_marca_Provoleta.jpg es de mi pertenencia. Yo mismo tome la fotografia. Ninguna otra persona tiene copyright de la misma. Es claro que el copyright pertenece al fotografo, entonces no entiendo porque Ud. cree que el copyright pertenece a la web www.elcuerpodecristo.com si la fotografia la tome yo mismo. Ellos solo han publicado la fotografía pero no tienen copyright de la misma. Le rogaria si pudiera darme mas detalles al respecto, porque me parece que hay una confusión al respecto. Saludos cordiales Jorge Esposito --Jorge Esposito (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

You accidentally reverted my spam removal as vandalism, including the message I left informing the person about it.

Please be more careful in the future.

Chrall (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That was not an accident. You vandalized the image descriptions. If a user decided to have their blog beeing attributed then you must keep this and can not simply vandalize the attribution and violate the reuquirements of the license (and afterwards complain to the user). See e.g. section 4,c,(i) of the license. --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, "Chrall" already knows this, since they're just another sock of the stalker troll that's been at this for years.[18][19][20][21][22] —LX (talk, contribs) 20:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Oznaczanie grafik File:Antonio_Lindbaeck_(fot.Paweł_Wieczorek).jpg

Hello. Tunlogarem is the author of the photo, what permission do you want from him? He is novice, I asked him to upload at Commons his images of sport persons, what do you want from him? Regards, pjahr @ 15:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The watermark says something different. OTRS confirmation please. --Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making a great mistake. Tunlogarem it is Paweł Wieczorek, as at watermark. According to your mistake we can lose a new user. Don't you get it? What permission, that he is an author? Come on, he is novice, I asked him to upload his sports images. You can shoot a novice, what kind of admin you are? pjahr @ 15:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained on the talkpage. Assume good faith here too please and stop that nonsense allegation that my intention is to "shoot" on someone. I act according to my expirience. I spent hours(!!!) and it took me various deletion request to protect User:Escapedtowisconsin. It took extremly much time to help User:Toglenn who was accused although he already sent OTRS tickets. And thats just two examples. Assume that I know how Commons works and that my request is based on good faith. Thank you very much. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, you are wrong. I guarantee that images are legal. If we lose new valuable user, it will be your fault. Will you be proud of that Mister Admin? pjahr @ 16:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you not made any efforts to even read the information written inside the user notification but instead declare all interaction with new users or all requests made to new users a scare. Your argumentation shows bad faith against me and I not appreciate your idiotic cynicism "mister admin". Im not interested to discuss your insults against me and your myopic arguments. You say that Im wrong, wrong with what? Asking the user to confirm something? Its not that I not believe it, but I think its a good idea to have it confirmed and I know that it will lead to trouble in the future if this is not done. So I repeat my suggestion to resolve the problem and to prevent all future problems with only one email that is prepared already, that is linked in the information I gave the user (that you not read). This will take 5 minutest of work and will fulfill the request. --Martin H. (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Upload patrol

Hi Martin H., As posted in the Village pump I've created a tool enabling us to mark uploads as patrolled systematically with ability to cut out timeframes with From: and Until: stamps, and ability to Hide already patrolled uploads. I noticed you were previously active or interested in this and invite you to install the userscript and continue this way. See also COM:RUP. If not already request patroller right and confirm your Wikimedia account with the Toolserver as this is required. Feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback on my talk page, in the Village pump post or report bugs on the Tools feedback page –Krinkle^talk 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Check

Please check contributions this user. Fabiano ^msg 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuked. --Martin H. (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Permission to use Images for Muna AbuSulayman

This is the permission to use any of her images, you can contact her if you like to.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=455218564266&id=13665174266

Ademsemir (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The dificult thing with permission and copyrights is, that the permission must come from the copyright holder, the photographer, not from a person who was photographed. This is not related to personality rights or controll on where your portrait is used, but has only to do with intelectual property rights. The copyright holder must voluntarily agree to a free license that allows anyone to reuse the image anywhere, anytime for any purpose including modification and commercial reuse - modification and reuse as far as other legal restrictions like personality rights allow. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright and freedom of information

Hi! You said: "Sources? Discussion? freedom of information has nothing to do with copyright"

So how do I check how a state licenses information posted under its freedom of information act? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You check this maybe with the relevant copyright law. --Martin H. (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For Texas, the website copyright policies vary between different state agencies.

The prison service has no copyright notice: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/ does not show a copyright notice, and the disclaimer at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/disclaimer.htm has no copyright information - Instead "The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) provides information via this website as a public service"

However the Texas education agency does have a copyright notice: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6580 "Copyright © Texas Education Agency, 2010. The materials found on this website are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as the property of the Texas Education Agency and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the Texas Education Agency, except under the following conditions:"

While the Environmental Quality Commission has its stuff explicitly in the public domain: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/help/policies/linking_policy.html "The TCEQ maintains this Web site as a public service. Unless otherwise noted, content of our site is considered “public domain.”" except "EXCEPTION: The TCEQ logo is the intellectual property of the TCEQ and belongs to the State of Texas."

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The absence of copyright notices is meaningless as it is not required (anymore) to add such copyright notices to a publication to gain copyright protection. Works by the federal government are e.g. free of copyright because the law says so. The website tceq.state.tx.us maybe contains public domain material, so if there is something without a 'copyright by' or 'courtesy' inside the image or the caption or text on the page the image is used it is maybe public domain because the copyright holder released it into the public domain (or better: consider it public domain). --Martin H. (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Latvian politicians

Hi. I've discovered a gold mine for Latvian politicians at here. The flickr user is Saeima (which is the national parliament of Lativa) and has the official national parliament coat of arms. Given the extent of the photos 2300 odd including valuable ones of sessions like this etc I'd say it is definately a photographer insider of the Saeima. I wondered if you could use a bot to upload all of the photos of the politicians to the commons unless there is some problem. Photos like this are very hard to get hold of; its obvious to me that the person who uploaded them to flickr is the photographer so has the right to release the images under this license. Please can you bot upload them, it won't work when I do it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats realy a gold mine. I dont operate any bots, but we have Commons:Flickr batch uploading where you can request an import. --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Tablica pamiątkowa B.Tusk.jpg

Drogi przyjacielu!

Dzisiaj tymi oczami oglądałem tę tablicę. Ktokolwiek wykonał, ktokolwiek zlecił... Jest umieszczona na stałe w miejscu publicznym. Do tego na powietrzu. Zatem, jedyną prawidłową licencją jest wolność panoramy w Polsce.

Powiadasz, że coś nie gra w zdjęciu pomnika Marii Konopnickiej w Gdańsku. A w hipotetycznej sytuacji, był na Litwie? Pozdr. --Starscream (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

? I not understand what you want or how I can help you. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Very, very, very, very sorry. I not slept about 36 hours. This message was intended to the Polish administrator who decision is very surprising. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Goodnight ;) --Martin H. (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Flickr not-changed license

Hello. I would like to ask you about something concerning a maybe a little more specific case with pictures on Flickr. I found great pictures and the photgrapher is willing to give me written permission for them, but would not like to change the license on the site. Is it possible that just a written permission would do? If yes, how do I have to upload the picture - under "pictures from Flickr", or under "from somewhere else"? What should the written permisssion say and wher should I post it? Thank you. --SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If have not much expirience with that. Flickr has the option to forward messages via email to your own email, then you can sent it to COM:OTRS or you ask the flickr user to sent an email himself to OTRS. Maybe a user with more expiriencen with flickr can help you better, User:Nehrams2020 did many such uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Fabiojrsm

Please, can you help on deleting airport files uploaded by Fabiojrsm? He copied several images from [23], stating they are his "own work". Thanks, Ednei amaral (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Later I saw! sorry, nice day! --Tzo15 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Now okay!

Now how is the photo!

Should I remove tape, which stand side where it says Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1977-120-11.

File:Muna_AbuSulayman_profile.jpg permission

Here is a link that has a message from Muna. You can contact her if you want to confirm this. She has given me permission to use any photo from her page.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=455218564266&id=13665174266 Ademsemir (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Permission must come from the copyright holder, the creator of the work, thats unlikely the person shown inside the work. The copyright holder should fill out Commons:Email templates. --Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Move cateogries

Hi Martin. It has past one month since I've started a discussion in order to move Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Córdoba and Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Province of Córdoba. Do you need something else to move these categories? Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The request does not yet care about the subcategories. If I move it I will create more chaos, so I'll not touch it. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I deal with that issue? Thanks Alakasam (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Президент.РФ

Why did You delete this redirect? Could You explain? Websie www.Президент.РФ = www.Kremlin.ru. In ru-wiki and for all russian-language people it is the most priority then Kremlin.ru. Thank You. --Ksaine (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The name of this copyright tag on Commons is Template:Kremlin.ru. We keep template redirects for historic purposes or if robot tools rely on them for technical purposes, but we dont create lots of redirects just for fun. If you want ru.wp users to know that the name of this Template on Commons is Kremlin.ru then create an interwiki in ru.wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I just saw, that this interwiki already exists at ru:Шаблон:Kremlin.ru. --Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Welcome/lang

Hello, I want create Template:Welcome/bjn in en:Banjar language, Can You add Template:Welcome/bjn to Template:Welcome/lang? Thank's --Ezagren (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you created it and Template:Welcome/bjn is blue I will add it, no problem. Thanks for the translation work. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Tgl-tglg}}

No. {{Tgl}} is for the Latin script. Tglg is the ISO code for Baybayin. There is opposition in the Tagalog Wikipedia to use both in the same template. --23prootie (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Por favor, reconsidere mi bloqueo

Por favor, yo no subí las fotos de nuevo de caprichoso, yo consulte en wikipedia para saber como subir fotos originarias de Brasil, y me dijeron que con la licencia CC-BY-SA se podían subir esas fotos, y hasta lo que yo entiendo se puede, porque vi fotos del mismo tipo subidas con esa licencia, la realidad es que no entiendo cual es el problema, pero por lo que me explicaron yo entendí que podía subir fotos con esa licencia. Por favor reconsideren mi bloqueo, por lo menos denme 6 meses pero no para siempre, quiero mantener la cuanta, hace dos años que ando acá!!!. Por bastante tiempo hice varias útiles!!! --Gelpgim22 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded image

Hey Martin.

Look, I uploaded the file Karen-atala.jpg and didn't know which licence to fill in. This image was published on a Chilean Newspaper with some news of her. I put the name of the photographer, but as I said, I don't know how to upload correctly. Direct link: (http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-11-18&NewsID=117351&BodyID=0&PaginaId=24)

Regards.

Was the image published under a free license? --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Sources

Caro Martin:
Postei as fotos na versão lusófona do Commons. Assim sendo, terei o maior prazer em responder teus questionamentos, quando você os fizer no idioma português, OK? Se possível, evite utilizar colocações irônicas em suas mensagens, pois trato a todos com respeito e exijo ser tratado da mesma forma. Boas contribuições! Biólogo32 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello! can you help me. I have a problem with this picture. (First), See second photo second how to make a tape of Generalfeldmarshall without the white side as the summers of grosadmiral.

I dont understand the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:KmtCobra

This user approached me for help on Wikipedia regarding their block here. I have informed them that if they wish to contest their block, they should do so on their talk page, which they have now done. He claims he has been mistakenly suspected as being the same person as User:Capolinho and has also denied being the user 'PrinceMasr' on Flickr. Tomayres (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Militær1.jpg

For some reason you removed Militær1.jpg for copyright violation. This is a personal photo - please refrain from abusing the copyright violation takedown when you are not sure.

--RoyJeans (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You already reuploaded it, so no problem. Please refrain from uploading images with wrong claims of 'own work' in the first place. --Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem? You deleted File:Militær1.jpg as a copyvio and you do not give a reason why you think it is a copyvio. Now user has uploaded it again File:GHR1.jpg (still as own work) and if you think it is a copyvio you should delete it again and perhaps block the user.

On the other hand if you agree it is ok then it was a mistake to delete it in the first place and now users have more deleted images [24] giving the impression that the user uploads a lot of copyvios.

Perhaps this user needs some guidance. I'll leave a note on users talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I refer to File:Militær2.jpg, please review Militær1.jpg and Militær2.jpg together. If the user argues that the second is indeed an self created photo I see no problem with resubmitting (or undeleting) it. It only shows that he saw the mistake and learned. --Martin H. (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Avril Lavigne singing.jpg

Can you delete File:Avril Lavigne singing.jpg. i want to re upload it correctly Brian White is a pseudonym I use But I guess I did the upload incorrectly.16:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The not free for commercial purposes claim is still there and I like to remember you, that this photo was already published elsewhere with a very different copyright information. I refer to Commons:Permission#Where OTRS confirmation is necessary. First reupload it, then place {{newname.jpg}} on the first upload. --Martin H. (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

David, Brian, or whatever his name is also claims to be the author of en:File:Barack Obama Presidential Limousine-1.jpg. Riiight. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Überschneidungen

Guten Abend!

Ich werde mich nun andere Baustellen anpacken. Unser administratives Wirken auf Commons überschneidet sich derzeit :) Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Kann passieren ;) --Martin H. (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Files tagged with "no permission"

Hi. I have two questions concerning files you've tagged with "no permission".

• I don't understand what's wrong with File:Eddie Della Siepe on the red carpet at the MuchMusic Video Awards 2010.JPG. It seems to be good faith own work by the uploader: it was shot in public place, it has high resolution, Tineye failed to find any duplicate, the uploader claims the authorship. Could you comment?
• What's wrong with File:Sara Simeoni.jpg and File:Steve Prefontaine.jpg? Bundesarchiv is not entitled to release those images under free license? Why?

Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

#1 is a reupload of another version with a quite different source. #2 are not from the Bundesarchiv cooperation as said with the 'permission=Commons:Bundesarchiv'. They are grabbed from the Bundesarchiv website and claimed to be included in the Batch upload - thats not true, individual permission from the Bundesarchiv, respectively the copyright holder, is required. The BArch Website is not free to loot just because they release a part of their content under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Deleted all of them. #1 Isn't it common to add the real source in the image caption so that one could make sure that certain image was in fact taken from the Internet? #2 Didn't notice that those BArch images were not BArchBot uploads. --Blacklake (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If the uploader claims own work on the file and decided not to link the (own work=his) facebook profile Im ok with that, but he has to provide evidence that this is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hello Martin, I have just written a message for you. Waiting for your answer soon... thank you.

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Silvanasono's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Judge Greg Mathis image

Hey I don't know how to get permission for the image of Judge Greg Mathis - I got it from http://www.thecommunitypaper.com/archive/12_07/index.php - the image came up in a google image search. The Judge Greg Mathis Wiki page needed a picture of him there anyway. can you help me sort this out? This wikicommons permissions thing is quite confusing for me - am still learning how to use the Wiki.

Also the name title of the wiki page needs to be changed to Judge Greg Mathis OR Greg Mathis (Judge) as for Judge Joe Brown and Judge Judy.

The core of the permission thing is relative simple: The copyright holder must agree that anyone can reuse the anywhere, anytime for any purpose. Thats free content and that - free - is what the wiki project is all about. For such internet images it will be difficult to obtain such a permission, the copyright holder might be the television station that placed the watermark in the image, they must be asked. Otherwise the image will be deleted, of course it would be good to first obtain permission, then upload. --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious mass upload

Can you do me a favour? Take a look at Special:Contributions/Anitaflog - there's a ton of images there and they all pretty much smell like copyvios. I can only back up two as being findable elsewhere on the net though, and that's kinda a low number. If I could prove 5 or 6 were clear copyvios, I'd clear the whole upload off as a proactive measure. Can you see if you have any better luck running the true sources down? Tabercil (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for official photo of historical person?

There is impossible for historical personality to make its official photo by itself.

The great number of images of historical personalities of ХХ century are done by artists or photographers, above-ground now. Or those, from the day of death of which less then 70 years passed.

Do you mind to delete from Wikipedia all the images of Hindenburg, William II, Einstein, Ghandy, et cetera, if they fall to this category?

If not, please, recover the picture of historical personality - general Sclliffen, that was removed.

I thank you.Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 11:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If the photographer is not dead for 70 years: Yes. It does not matter if someone decided to reuse the photo for official purposes etc., that has nothing to do with copyrights and it has no effects on the intelectual property rights of the photographer. You Schliffen upload will not be restored, that was a violation of copyrights and an rather careless upload. --Martin H. (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer quesion of mine. What about Hindenburg, William II and Ghandy? Or you are conviced they made their official photos by themselves?

Or part of their photos on Commons are illegal? If not, what makes them legal? Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 12:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Wikimedia Commons has 7.8 million files, do you think I can care about any file here, check them and clean up the mess? If you are interested in that files: Go there. But obviously you are not even able to care about your own uploads. You uploaded an file with "unknown author" - obviously it was only you who not knew the author - with the claim that the author died 70 years ago. Thats already conflicting in itself, how can you say an unknown author died 70 years ago? and non of this information was even true. Care about your own business and dont bother me with stupid demands that I (personaly) have to care also about all other files or otherwise must allow you to do bad uploads too. Thats just odd. --Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bestes Vorgehen, wenn OTRS-Ticket erforderlich ist

Hallo Martin H.,

gibt es ein standardisiertes Verfahren, wie man am Besten vorgeht, wenn der Uploader beim Uploaden behauptet, er habe die Urheberrechte, aber man eine zusätzliche Freigabe für erforderlich hält? Konkret geht es um folgendes Bild: File:St._Loretto_Kapellen_Oberstdorf.jpg. Aufgrund von Größe und Erstelldatum halte ich es für wahrscheinlich, dass es sich um einen 1:1-Kopie von einem Internetauftritt handelt, habe das Bild aber nicht gefunden. Wäre über Deine Meinung sehr dankbar. Liebe Grüße --Catfisheye (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ja, {{subst:npd}} auf die Dateiseite und die dort dann aufgeführte Benutzerbenachrichtung beim Uploader auf die Disk kopieren. --Martin H. (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Dankeschön. --Catfisheye (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Block request

Hi Martin. The IP who vandalize commons recently. The IP who just vandalalised this commons has abused unblock templates, can you revoke editing from talk page access/and also change block length to infinite? thank you

Earthquake Destruction (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of IPs vandalise commons - can you be more specific? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP doing the same that he repeated. --Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Please delete that file. Thanks. mickit 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Ayman_Nour.jpg

it was correctly licensed. why did you delete it? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The license "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 US" is not allowed on Commons, it is not free. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms, the copyright holder must give anyone, worldwide, an irrevocable, non-exclusive permission to enjoy the work for commercial purposes or to modify it. Noncommercial/Nonderivative restrictions arent allowed on our projects. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

uploading files and getting the licence right

Hello Martin H., you changed a few of my recently uploaded photos, e.g. this one. Thanks for that; I'm always keen to learn. One aspect troubles me somewhat, and that is that the New Zealand PD template goes from 'Permission' to 'Licensing'. As far as I can see, I can't pick PD-NZ from the dropdown list available under 'Licensing' when I upload a file. So do I see this right that uploading is always a two-stage process, with me first picking any such licence, and once it's up, I have to edit the file to change licensing to the PD-NZ file? Or is there a trick / workaround that avoids this multi-stage process? Schwede66 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is two steps or you go through the "from somewhere else" uploadform, enter the license tag in the permission field in let the license drop-down on "none selected (add a license tag in the permission field above or...)". I only replaced the wrong cc-by-sa with the pd-nz. I prefer section heading because it makes editing easier, so I kept the int:licensing header and moved the license tag in that section, but thats my personal taste. --Martin H. (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Schwede66 18:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Licence problem...Could you please help me?

Hello Martin,

Could you please help me with the proper tag so that this picture won't be deleted, I have the written request of the subject, Mr Bruno Osimo, to publish it on wikipedia. But I have a warning that it may be deleted in 7 days. Thank you for your help. For me, using wikimedia commons is like going through 3 US airports a day of terror threat.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macro_from_nadia.jpg

--Adumoul (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For copyright questions it is not important if the subject gave permission. Question is: Who is the photographer? Rest is written in Commons:First steps/License selection. --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

was tun bei redundanten Kategorien?

Hallo Martin H.,

was mache ich hier: Category:Tenryuji und Category:Tenryuji temple sind eigentlich redundant und inkorrekt. Der Tempel heißt richtig geschrieben "Tenryū-ji". Lass ich jetzt die Inhalte beider Kategorien am besten per Bot auf den richtigen Namen verschieben? (Stellt das Makron ein Problem dar?) Und lege dann redirects für die Kategorien an? Danke für Deine Hilfe und liebe Grüße --Catfisheye (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sind die Kategorien wirklich redundant? Category:Tenryuji temple = Kani, Gifu prefecture; Category:Tenryuji = Kyoto, Kyoto prefecture. --Martin H. (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Du hast recht, mein Fehler. Gut, dass ich fragte. *dümdidüm* So muss nun etwas umsortieren gehen. Könnte man da nicht ne Art BKL aufmachen "Nicht der Tenryu-ji, den Du suchst, dann schau mal hier." oder so? --Catfisheye (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Es gibt BKL-Kategorien auf Commons. Schlecht gemacht z.B. Category:Frankfurt, besser gemachte finden sich in Category:Disambiguation. Vielleicht hilft dir ein Beispiel daraus am schnellsten weiter. --Martin H. (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, da beides Tempel sind fände ich es gut, wenn man eine Disambiguation unter Category:Tenryuji aufmachte und die beiden anderen verschöbe: Category:Tenryuji nach Category:Tenryuji (Kyoto) und Category:Tenryuji temple nach Category:Tenryuji (Kani). Habe ich einen Denkfehler oder kann ich den User:CommonsDelinker damit beauftragen? --Catfisheye (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Müsste so funktionieren. {{move cat|Tenryuji|Tenryuji (Kyoto)}} und {{move cat|Tenryuji temple|Tenryuji (Kani)}}, anschließend unter Category:Tenryuji die BKL einrichten. --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So, getan. Danke nochmals. Habe zumindest noch ein Photo, das auch im falschen Tenryuji - nicht von mir - eingeordnet wurde, korrigieren können. Liebe Grüße --Catfisheye (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Posters

You can delete this image [25]. Here are three pictures of the one same the posters [26][27][28]. I suggest you to keep only one, and the other you are deleted. This poster may to stay [29]. What do you think?--Свифт (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Quality images of Gambia

Wegen ständigen Revert: warum dürfen andere Länder in den Themenkategorien verlinkt sein und Gambia nicht? Dürfen das afrikanische Länder nicht? Es gibt keinen plausiblen Grund. --Atamari (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Den Grund habe ich in der zusammenfassung gegeben. "Quality images" ist keine vernünftige Themenkategoriesierung sondern Wartung. Wenn du die Kategorie verlinkt haben willst stelle ein fettes QI-Logo ans obere Ende der Gallerie Gambia oder der Kategorie und verlinke es. --Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Aber warum Gambia, andere Staaten-Kategorien machen das auch? Du weichst meine Frage aus. Dann... wenn es keine vernünftige Kategorie ist dann kann sie auch gelöscht werden, wenn eine (quer-)verlinkung nicht gewünscht wird - dann soll so ein hochnäsiges Projekt die Bilder über Listen "warten". --Atamari (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe andere staaten auch schon geändert. --Martin H. (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Brezhnev again...

I noticed that another official portrait, File:1977 CPA 4774(Cutted).jpg is used on Wikicommons! Why then was the official portrait that I loaded to Wikicommons deleted?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That file only has some missing descriptions, false author and false license. But the case is different. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, it isn't... Both are official portraits! And there was nothing false or missing about my upload.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Britain covered in snow Dec 2010.jpg

I deleted that per an argumentation by User:Jdrewitt - that I fully agree too. You may search at http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/ for imagery that realy is from NASA and that is public domain. I e.g. uploaded File:Ash plume from Eyjafjallajokull Volcano over the North Atlantic, April 15, 2010 - A2010105.1330.250m.jpg from that source. --Martin H. (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the image source page? Under the photo it reads:

"The University of Dundee's satellite receiving station captured this image of how the heavy snow of the past week has affected the UK.

"The picture, which was received at 1145 GMT on Thursday from Nasa satellite Terra, shows almost the entire country covered by a blanket of snow."

Thus, created by NASA and not Dundee Uni. Could you please un-delete the image? -- Jack · talk · 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Quality images by country

Hallo Martin H., Du hast beispielsweise bei Category:Quality images of Gambia nun mehrfach hintereinander den Link zur Elternkategorie Category:Gambia gelöscht. Man kann nun unterschiedlicher Meinung darüber sein, ob der Link nun unbedingt in die Hauptkategorie oder in eine Unterkategorie von Category:Gambia gehört, ganz entfernt gehört er jedenfalls nicht. Sonst würde schon die Elternkategorie Category:Quality images by country keinen Sinn machen! Also lösche den Link nicht, sondern setzte ihn ggf. in eine besser passende Unterkategorie. Wenn Du der Meinung bist, dass Category:Quality images by country von keinem oder so unbedeutendem Nutzen ist, dass sie gelöscht werden sollte, dann stelle bitte dafür einen Löschantrag und diskutiere das aus. Dass Du dagegen in deren Unterkategorien, wie eben Category:Quality images of Gambia, die Links zu den jeweiligen Ländern weglöscht, sieht eher etwas trollig aus und erscheint mir nicht akzeptabel. -- Ies (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe das nun schon mehrmals begründet und habe meine Frage nie beantwortet bekommen. Was macht die Category Quality images of xy eine gültige Themenkategorie? Sie hat ausschließlich mit Wartung zu tun. Nichts mit der realen Welt. Sie hat als hierarchische Unterkategorie zwar einen Bezug zum Thema gehört aber schlichtweg nicht in den Themenkategorienbaum von Category:CommonsRoot. Es ist eher nervig das ohne irgendwelche diskussion wild Kategorien angelegt werden deren Sinn nicht einmal klar ist, diskutiert das vieleicht erstmal. Ferner möchte ich betonenen: Kategorisierung ist nicht die einzige Methode etwas zu verlinken! , es ist eine sekundäre Methode. Versucht es doch einfach mal mit einem {{Category see also}} oder einer anderen, kreativeren Verlinkung in dem stiefmütterlich behandelten Gallerien Namensraum Gambia, der im übrigen der erste anlaufpfad für Besucher aus Wikipedia ist (und sein soll) die sich auf Commons nicht auskennen und Category:Gambia wahrscheinlich nie zu Gesicht bekommen sondern nur diese mikrige Gallerie. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, again, again

What is your problem with making a deletion request for the files that you want to get deleted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

efficency? "that you want to get deleted" - bullshit! I want an accurate and correct media repository,not a mirror of images.google.com with false and trashy informtion. It NEVER come to my mind to upload something that I grabbed from elswhere as "own work", thats so simple and so easy to avoid. HOwever, many people do this and obviously dont think of it. I dont want this. --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Warring instead of discussion... German efficiency. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Its likely not possible to put more idiocy in one answercomment and write something more stupid in one sentence. --Martin H. (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Football logos: Elche CF, Gimnàstic, Sevilla FC and Villarreal CF

First, what is your purpose here at Wikipedia Commons: make an effort for which we are all happy or damage the work of others and feel with some authority? Then, I was complying the conditions they had to have the images for non-free content that may be allowed: the low resolution of the image that represents the content item and should only be used for the article. Even the I used the Template for non fair use rationale images. I saw you removed my 4 images without any consideration, you ignored I used the template that I mentioned, the low resolution images and the most surprising: Elche CF logo is an own adaptation, it took me many hours do it!! the shield is not original! Did you noted???

Well, what can I do for upload football logos like others do and that YES they are allowed? Can you help me? --Raul-Reus (Talk) 9:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Upload them on the right project. See your talk. --Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I got the same rant from him[30]. Communication seems futile. --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deine Disk ist auf meiner Watchlist, ich habe das gelesen, dann seine Dateien angeschaut und gesehen, dass er selber die Fair use Vorlage darauf platziert hat. Ich bin eigentlich davon ausgegangen, dass er das Ergebnis seiner Arbeit mal angeschaut hat und selber gemerkt hat woran es liegt. Scheinbar nicht. Habs ihm auf die Disk geschrieben. --Martin H. (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Brezhnev again...

I noticed that another official portrait, File:1977 CPA 4774(Cutted).jpg is used on Wikicommons! Why then was the official portrait that I loaded to Wikicommons deleted?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That file only has some missing descriptions, false author and false license. But the case is different. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, it isn't... Both are official portraits! And there was nothing false or missing about my upload.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that a stamp maybe is an official publication (in the template: banknotes, and the like) while a portrait grabbed from a random website is not. The other portrait is extracted from a stamp. Dont you see that new file description? I added all the information and removed the nonsense and think it is to understand. --Martin H. (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

City of Rouyn-Noranda

Guten Morgen. I got a question for you. The city of Rouyn-Noranda allows the downloading of their logo for any kind of presentation. Could I download this file and under which license? Vielen Dank für Ihre Antwort. --Zorion (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please ask someone who speaks french. A permission to download something doesnt sound appropriate. What about modification? --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Madurai_covered_all.JPG

Hi Martin,

The file File:Madurai_covered_all.JPG has been deleted from commons saying its a copyright violation. It contained pictures of 9 places. Which part of it was found to violate copyrights. What should i do to upload it without violating copy rights. Please guide. Wasifwasif (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for your reoply. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please only use photographs that the copyright holder published under a free license. Use photographs here from Commons and provide links to them and attribute the photographers, see e.g. File:Cuscoinfobox.png. --19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice?

I'm sorry to bug you, but I have an issue with an administrator and I'm not quite sure how to handle it, so I hope you don't mind me asking.

This deletion request was closed by Yann (talk · contribs) with the reasoning "No valid reason for deletion" and has refused to explain how my reasoning was invalid or otherwise mistaken and has now gone MIA. Per Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal the next step would be to renominate it for deletion, but if I'm not sure if that would actually be productive or just be viewed as intentionally disruptive. Any chance you could point me in a direction where I could get some useful feedback? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The right step would be to renominate it. Otherwise maybe Commons talk:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12/Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion

Hello,

My answer is available at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12/Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion. Teofilo (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have no more questions. I agree with your proposal. Teofilo (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Martin! The user Vitor has requested to me to contact you, about the block made by you here in Commons. The user requested a review about the block. If you can reply to he and explain about the procedures to do it, I'll be entirely happy. Regards ---- @lestaty ^discuţie 22:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits

Hello Martin. I thought he spoofed the OTRS ticket because Coronades03 had a record of doing that (if you can see deleted images history, look at File:Fotografie oficial al Traian Băsescu.JPG and File:Oficial photo Juan Manuel Santos.JPG) and for me at least, I don't trust in his contributions. If you consider that the speedy request is invalid, please rollback it. --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

foto frans coppejans

Geachte,

Die foto heb ik zelf gemaakt, de bron is gewijzigd naar : eigen werk.

Groetjes

Robert Janssens

And who is the photographer of the original photo? Reproducing a photo does not make it your photographic work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Foto komt van onze website, reeds meer dan 11 jaar en is vrijgegeven onder licentie CC-BY-SA/GFDL zie www.sintjorisgilde.be en www.sintjorisgilde.be/nl/euverdeken.php Groetjes Robert Janssens webmaster Robertjanssens (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You edited this comment very often. Of course I already saw your answer. But what should I say? A website, a webmaster or anyone like that is not a copyright holder. The copyright holder is the photogrpaher, copyright is transferable only by bequest with the photographers death. Copyright lasts 70 years from the death of the author. So the website with the copyright notice is not helpful but only a complete break within the source chain to the true copyright holder. And possibly its a copyfraud. As the person who is maintaining a website you are maybe able to fill the gap: Where is the image originally from? It was unlikely first published on the website... --Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de info. De foto werd meer dan 75 jaar geleden genomen en het is niet meer mogelijk om te achterhalen wie de auteur was. Ik heb de foto van de pagina verwijderd om in regel te blijven met de Wikipedia-normen. Groeten Robertjanssens (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Vitor Mazuco

Hello Martin, i want to talk to you directly about my acconts, and my future in commons. Please, go in my wiki-pt page, pt:Usuário Discussão:Vitor Mazuco, or unblock my Disscision page, here. Thanks. --189.29.156.79 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i know, this picture is a false free license, are images with copyright, and one user in flirck to turn in a free license, like this case Attribution 2.0 Generic and Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. 189.29.156.79 14:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, for one more chance! And why you dont expect to hear me? You think that i give up? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 14:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I just dont want to hear anything bad. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and i improved so much in wikipedia in last months, main in wiki-pt, because i perticipated the implementation of fair-use in wiki-pt, and i recived the rollback and i'm a autoreviewer. And if i will have a doubt, i've ask you, right? --Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 14:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have questions you can of course ask. Or ask at Commons:Esplanada or Commons:Help desk. --Martin H. (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Burton

This image doesn´t have free license http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clifford_Lee_Burton.jpg.--Progenie of the great apocalypse (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Error title

Hi. Could you move File:4607071082 9b41b4a191 o - Copia.jpg to File:Alessandro Haber 2010.jpg, please? Thank you :) --RanZag (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Zuri txakurra 1.JPG

The dog's photo is mine. Please do not delete it. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souligne (talk • contribs) --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The scent of socks

Hi Martin! I spotted File:4 famous Armenian people.jpg and remembered your comments on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 24#account .22JiWales.22. Any chance Rosee is a Dimademotivation.ru sockpuppet? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk page

Hello Martin H., there is a user removing comments from my talk page. He said it's viollating copyrights, but all comments released here are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL when author accepts to "save page". Can you help me on this case? Ednei amaral (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he was complaining that we care about copyrights and that he was angry because this disallows him to upload images. Maybe he understood it and now regrets his comment? Allow him to remove/archive it, you dont have an advantage from keeping it on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. He said one can remove anything he wants if he is the author. He doesn't understand he has irrevocably agreed to license it under free license (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL). It's a bit diffcult to explain him the rules (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:HumoristicCam.jpg)... Ok if he wants to clean his talk page, but he has no right to come to my talk page to remove comments (at least, that's how I understand). Ednei amaral (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. There is however no use to continue an edit war, so as a courtesy to him you should accept his wish to remove his postings. Or archive them yourself with either archiving the talk Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#When_there_is_too_much_text or make it invisible with {{Collapsed}} for example. That will possibly calm him down and stop the dispute. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Zdjęcie Karola Wojtyły

No witam. Zdjęcie zrobił prawdopodobnie mój dziadek, nie było nigdzie do tej pory publikowane i jest w moim rodzinnym albumie od roku 1967. Wizytacja odbyła się 2 tygodnie po 1-szej komunii mojego brata. Jak opisać, żeby mogło prawnie funkcjonować na Wiki? Proszę podpowiedz. pozdrawiam Wuhazet (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont speak Polish. "opublikowane bez wyraźnego zastrzeżenia prawa autorskiego" - "w opisie grafiki należy podać źródło i datę publikacji." --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Hello! Could you do me a favor? I uploaded two images but they had a great time, and this made the ugly images, so I uploaded two new ones, without the date (the date seemed like a watermark). Could delete the two old? Are File:RafaelBittencourtFortal.JPG and File:EduFalaschiLiveInGuitar.JPG. Thanks.... MetalBrasil (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Respecting the rules of law

Hello, I am with a photo of the Doc Getúlio Vargas, dated of 1930 - 80 years. I go to color and to place my signature in the photo. Then load I it in the Wikimedia Commons, in accordance with the norms, respecting the minimum age of 70 years. If it will be thus, helps me to you so that the photo is not excluded? Comment: I erased our colloquy yesterday, because of curious. User: Gomes Netto, 15 december 2010.

The requirement is not a >70 years old photo but a >70 years old publication (70 years from the first of January of the year following that of their disclosure / ano subseqüente ao de sua divulgação). That would suffice Template:PD-Brazil-media. But please dont place any watermarks on photos, we dont want watermarks or signatures. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This photo is of 1930, and it is very known here in Brazil. Already you were published where you can imagine. To have an idea, already he even printed in the money! Ten cruzeiros (1942-1970). The original is black and white, I colored. I go to load, there you analyze. Ok? User: Gomes Netto, 15 december 2010.

Do so, remember that Template:PD-Brazil-media is not for portrait paintings, only for photographs. E.g. the painting File:Getulio-vargas.jpg (although it has false author here) is not free by law but protected for the painters lifetime +70 years (Art. 41 of the law). --Martin H. (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok... You speak portuguese? It is better for me, therefore I do not say english and I always appeal to the translator. User: Gomes Netto, 15 december 2010.

No, I dont speak portuguese, I use google translation. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(OTRS) Copyvio, please remove images

As stated on the admin noticeboard, these are both copyvios. Would you delete them asap, please?

The following images are confirmed copyright violations reported to OTRS (Ticket# 2010121510017047). Please remove them.

Yvette Cooper2010 cropped.jpg Yvette Cooper2010.jpg

Asav (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The images have been deleted. There's no need for further action. Asav (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, thanks, I forgot about this. --Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Robin Bain images

I've pulled out a number of edits by User:Jhillx01 and have tagged the "franks.collection" Flickr account as questionable - you may wish to update the Commons:Forum#Falsche Beschreibung und Lizenz section on that. Getting a checkuser between the users Jhillx01 and Campbellx01 might not be a bad idea. Tabercil (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The connection between this accounts looks duckish. For the moment I see no need to do more. Adding them to the bad flickr users is good idea, presumably this is some marketing guy who completely screwed it up and tried to push images to Commons at any price. The price here is presumably a copyvio on flickr against the flickr terms of use and on Commons attribution to someone who isnt the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry result

Hi Martin,

I saw the results of the inquiry you conducted regarding the sockpuppet accounts. I just wanted to point out the fact that user Cosmicdancer is my girlfriend, who I convinced last week to join the wikimedia, and whom I visit every weekend.

I point this out because when you write "Murdockcrc=Cosmicdancer" this is an incorrect statement.

Kind regards --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That explains one incident and it can be resolved: no matter if the reasoning is true or not, if you not participate in the same votings in the future Cosmicdance can be unblocked. Not participating in the same votings is the required from the essence of en:Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry imo - connected users are one user. It however not explains the other incidents. --Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks, --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of photos

Hello, You have recently mass deleted some basque prisoners and related photos. Why? Where has the discussion be? -Theklan (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The user was blatantly laundering images via flickr. See "his" photographic work on the flickr accounts, I linked them at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esteban Muruetagoiena.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Ademário Neto

Martin, I've already told you about suspicious user Ademário Neto, on topic "Amazonaseirunepe" above. User:Ademario neto is a blocked user, because he has uploaded several copyright images and used multiple accounts. Now, User:Ademário Neto (almost same name) is also uploading copyright images saying they are of his own. Ednei amaral (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

All accounts blocked now, uploads nuked. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Canadian photograph

I'm having a bit of a discussion with another editor in working on C. D. Howe about this image. A better source to the item description page at Library and Archives Canada is here. I believe that since it is not in the public domain because it was taken in the UK, apparently commercially (if "Fayer" is a commercial photographer), and if it was taken in 1940, the copyright wouldn't have expired if the photographer had dropped dead on the spot.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. Apparently Fayer is a London based photographer or studio, the NPG in London has an artist of that name. The image was sent (see the description of the signature) to Mackenzie King and came to the LAC as part of the William Lyon Mackenzie King fonds, means the LAC is in possession some of Mackenzie Kings documents. I have no idea what the copyright status in Canada will be, depends on legislation and international treaties etc. Maybe it is PD in Canada because it was created before 1949, maybe that’s why the LAC wrote that the Copyright has been expired. The image will not be PD in the UK. The image was (presumably) first published in the UK with the photographer giving copies to Howe, presumably the UK is the country of origin and that’s of importance for us. In the UK, the country of origin, this image will be PD 70 years following the authors death or, if Fayer is a studio and with reasonable enquiry on the photographer, 70 years from publication according to Template:PD-UK-unknown - given that for a studio the employed photographers are likely documented somewhere this case sounds however unlikely for me. --Martin H. (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And do you have any opinion on this image? I believe it is Canadian origin from 1952, and I have not been able, through a brief search, whether it was public or private protographer? Many thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The file description is not so good. The source is not a Canadian Government source or "found in Archives Canada" and the author information is not confirmed anywhere. en:File:CDHowe_on_cover_of_Time.jpg refers to en:Template:PD-Canada, given that unverified source information and this is an 1952 photo it must refer to point 1 of that template. There is however the chance that the image is anonymous. According to COM:L#Canada then the copyright lasts either 50 years following publication or 75 years after the making of the work. If it is confirmed that this image is of unknown authorship and if a >50 years old publication is referenced the copyright maybe expired 50 years after that publication. If however the image is from a private photo album or so and was not published many years the copyright will expire 1952+75, or if the authorship is not unknown then the copyright will expire 50 years following the photographers death. The LAC, after some search due to the very bad file description, lists a photograph of the same subject by an unknown photographer - maybe that is this photo, maybe LAC has some references to publications in newspapers etc of that time. --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the photographer is unknown, the photograph looks professionally done and I doubt Howe mugged for the camera (in what looks like his office) for random photographers. In any event, there is no way that it was PD in the US before 1/1/1996, so it isn't PD in the US and shouldn't be used on en:wp, correct?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if it is unknown or not. It will be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} because at the URAA date it was in copyright in Canada, right. --Martin H. (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrol Vorschlag

Hi Martin, ich schlage vor, dass du Pristurus (talk · contributions · Statistics) autopatrol rights gibst, denn er ist gewissenhaft und hilft viel bei Media of the day aus, wo man für jeden Eintrag eine neue Seite starten muss. Gruß Hekerui (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Scanned texts

Hallo Martin, ich bin gerade dabei mit einigen iranischen Kollegen persische Texte einzuscannen. Dabei bin ich auf das Problem gestoßen, dass es keine wirklich einheitliche Skannpraxis und keine einheitliche Kategorisierung gibt, so dass man alle auf commons liegenden digitalisierten Texte zu einer Art "digital library" zusammenfassen könnte. Gibt es auf diesem Gebiet der Textscans bei commons eine Gruppe von Interessierten, so dass man sich mal abstimmen und ein kleines Regelwerk ausarbeiten könnte? Wäre es denkbar, dass man für Textscans eine eigene Zugriffsmöglichkeit oder Portal schaffen könnte, auf dem die digitalisierten Texte übersichtlich geordnet zugreifbar wären? Mir geht es hier nur um die Digitalisate der Texte also nicht um die Umsetzung in Klartext, wie es die Kollegen von wikisource machen. Gruß --Wvk (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ich wüsste nicht das es ein Portal gibt. Füge die Uploads in den Kategorien-Baum ein, beginne z.B. in Category:Books und setze das Buch in die tiefstmöglichste Stelle in den by... Unterkategorien. Category:Künstliche und rechtschaffene Feuerwerck zum schimpff ist die letzte Buchkategorie die ich so erstellt habe. --Martin H. (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

E-mail for pictures

Hello Martin, I wonder how can I know if there is an e-mail with the permission for the User:SlipknotRlZZ use these images in the Commons?? the user sent a e-mail with the permission of the images, but I don't know if it's true. (see the images [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) Truu (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If the user forwarded permission emails ot OTRS an OTRS volunteer will mark the images accordingly. If the permission was not sent the images will be deleted some day because of missing permission. --Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Please do not make edits to newly updated files as soon as you did on the file File:Lamprotornis chalybaeus -Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya-8.jpg, because this is bound to lead to edit conflicts, as happened to me when I was completing the file details. Bots have to give file up-loaders a reasonable time to finish off what has been started. Please leave about 30 mins after an upload to avoid edit conflicts. Snowmanradio (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, its a wiki, just overwrite my edit. --Martin H. (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to this edit within two minutes after I uploaded the file. Editing a file so soon after upload can be predicted to cause an edit conflict. Bots are not allowed to do this. It is a wiki and editors need to respect other editors, so please to not edit a newly uploaded file until at least 30 minutes after it has been uploaded, so that the up-loader can complete what he is doing. Snowmanradio (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, I added a category when visiting this image in the Special:NewFiles. Whats your problem? If you dont like my edit then revert it. If you have to merge your and mine edit then merge it. But dont complaint because I added a category to an upload and therefore edited "your" image description. --Martin H. (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you can cause unnecessary edit conflicts and disturb uploaders when they are completing the file details after a file has been uploaded. Snowmanradio (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No reason to exclude users from participation for a limited time or to forbid users to let their spontaneity and creativity flow. Maybe this is the first or the second time this happened to you? Acutally its not a problem at all and no reason to open a problem. Good night. --Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sobre las imágenes de José Félix Estigarribia y Félix Paiva

Hola Martin H. He recibido tus mensajes acerca de las fuentes de José Félix Estigarribia y Félix Paiva, quiero informarte que no tengo datos de quién haya sido el autor de las dos obras, solamente te puedo decir que tomé la foto desde la biblioteca municipal de Ciudad del Este. Entonces ¿cual sería la solución a este problema?. Espero tu respuesta. Saludos!--Karl Segankochenko (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok estoy de acuerdo. Trataré de averiguar toda información disponible acerca de esta pintura. --Karl Segankochenko (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hola Martin. Quiero también agregarte que subí la imagen de Carlos Antonio López en Wikipedia en español, y me preguntaba si la imagen está de acuerdo a las leyes de Wikipedia acerca de las imágenes--Karl Segankochenko (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:4x4 matrixcollage.jpg

Hi Martin_H,

thank you for editing our picture. Part of the collage contains stock-photos we bought for advertising purposes. I dont´t think we do have the right to publish them for reuse. So we thought it would be best to blur them. Do you have another solution for the Problem? We want to use the collage for Online-Banners.

Cheers Dominique

Stock-photos are typically licensed under exclusive licenses, so you can not sublicense them under non-exclusive licenses allowing anyone to reuse them for any purpose - as free content and the scope of this project require. You may participate in the deletion discussion. For me it is for example not clear where in the Wikimedia projects you want to use them. --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did replace the collage with pictures from CC. Scope are the 80s.

Please add sources. I count 15 images, that requires 15 sources. See File:Cuscoinfobox.png how I would fullfill the attribution requirements, you may do it similar or find your own layout but please add all sources. --Martin H. (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I did so. pls have a look.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2x2 matrixcollage.jpg

I replaced the pictures within the Collage but have Problems to recreate the page. How can I get along?

You probably should not. The main question is still unanswered: What is the purpose of this montages? Why are this montages inside the scope of Wikimedia Projects? --Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jane Grey

Thank you very much for explaining and pointing me to File:Jane Grey.jpg. I didn't know there were two files on Commons. Cheers! Buchraeumer (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Caroline de Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg by an unknown artist.jpg

My actions were not intentional. Everyone makes mistakes. You do not need to be so sarcastic either, it is highly unnecessary Monsieur le Duc (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That was not the first time I saw your sources. If you check a few of your uploads you have not to search long to find source links that actually leed to nowhere or to a completely different image [36][37][38][39][40]. Thats not mistake or so, thats complete carelesness. A computer robot can do better uploads. Or you can redirect commons.wikimedia.org directly to google imagesearch, people will find much better information and quality there. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that everyone makes mistakes. Good god, take your mood out on someone else LPC (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

delete all the pictures?

Are you kidding? How can you assume that somebody is bad? you mean I wanna damage the project? How can? If I wanna damage the project, I needn't add the pictures to the Articles, I just upload pictures time by time,so how can you assume that I damaged the project? be reasonable please. I just wanna make the Chinese article better, please assume the people are good, there are not so many evils as you think! --神的邻居 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You upload pictures that you not created yourself with the claim that you created them yourself. And you even abuse multiple accounts to do so. Thats copyright infringement. What should I do, just close my eyes and let this realy bad thing happen? No. I assumed good faith as long as I found out that your information isnt true. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please look before you leap, I'm sorry that a few pictures have copyvio problems, but I just wanna make the article better. I can correct my mistakes, if you can give me a chance. Deleting all the pictures is not a good idea. Thank you very much --神的邻居 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You must correct your mistake, actually downloading images from the internet and uploading them as "own work" isnt a mistake but has many decision points that require an intention. Too many decision points to say that it just happened, it can not happen without a decision to do it. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not fair to delete all the pictures, only a few images have copyvio problems, I doesn't mean all the images have copyvio problems, I won't do the same mistakes from now on, please don't delete the pictures that belong to me, Thank you --神的邻居 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete all images that you not created yourself (creator = photographer). The tag to do this is {{Speedy|Not my work}}. If this will not happen the images will be deleted, independently I will continue to write my deletion request. For the project this is very fair, uploading random images from other website is realy not what we do her. See Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you very much, I will add {{Speedy|Not my work}} to the pictures that not belong to me, and I will learn the rule,thank you. --神的邻居 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed the images which not belong to myself

--神的邻居 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

can I nominate to delete some images?

like File:Wuhan montage.png

because the source is not enough.

--神的邻居 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a bad image in montage you should remove that image from the montage or replace it with a free image from Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User Jc Tyf

This user has uploaded several files from [41] and some blogs (maybe blogs have copied from this site too). In this image he has overwritten former file (that has OTRS) with a copyrighted file. Can you restore first version? If you can also take a look at his images... Ednei amaral (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Captainofhope

Hi Martin. I see that User:Captainofhope is deleting his talk page messages after they have been replied. So its getting annoyingly painful to find the old messages and reply to that if required. See a recent change here. Can the user be instructed not to do so or is it OK that he can do what he wants on his talk page? --Sreejith K (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Its frowned upon, but its not forbidden. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been

helping to revert all this rubish of Disney artists (singers or whatever), and I want to thank you for your help. Even so I'm not very sure about a lot of things that may be missing and problematic. In the spanish wikipedia, the musical articles are not very followed, so I'm sure a lot of things have not been resolved. Anything you see strange hanging around, just tell me, see if I can help, even though these Disney artists aren't exactly my specialty. Thanks for everything. Billy (discusión) 22:44 27 dic 2010 (UTC) Didn't realize you are not normally in spanish wiki, so I post here too.

Herbert Säverin

lieber Martin H. zur Seite "Herbert Säverin" habe ich ein Bild eingestellt, dessen Original ich besitze (kann ich vorzeigen) und das mir auch gehört seitdem ich die Seite im Mai gebaut habe, versuche ich, das Bild korrekt anzumelden das ist mir offenbar noch immer nicht gelungen (warum ist die Prozedur so schwer durchschaubar?) kannst du mir bitte genau mitteilen, welche Attribute ich wo wie setzen muss, damit das Bild akzeptiert wird? Vielen Dank und Gruß, HildegardGrambow

Zuerst muss klar werden, wer der Urheber ist und wer die Rechte an dem Bild hat - da Urheberrechte nicht übertragbar sind ist der Fotograf meist auch der Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte, auch wenn dass für ein Portrait merkwürdig oder unpraktisch erscheinen mag. Das Urheberrecht erlischt 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers, minimum aber 70 Jahre nach veröffentlichung des Bildes, das Bild ist also keinesfalls gemeinfrei. Der Urheber muss einer freien Lizenz zustimmen, siehe Commons:Lizenzen. Dannach kannst du das Bild mit Commons:Hochladen - "Es stammt von woanders" hochladen, beim Upload dann die Lizenz auswählen der der Urheber zugestimmt hat. Ist der Urheber nicht bekannt oder stimmt er einer freien Lizenz nicht zu kann das Bild nicht hochgeladen werden solange das Urheberrecht nicht abgelaufen ist. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

user:DresdenBell

Hi Martin, du hast ja damals diese Kay-Körner-Socke gesperrt... Seine Uploads bist du aber nicht nochmal durchgegangen, oder? Bin grade bei Schloss Sonnenstein über Computersimulationen von BilfingerBerger gestolpert. Weg damit, nehme ich an? Gruß --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Burganlage Neues Landratsamt Pirna-Sonnenstein.jpg etc., auch File:Burganlage Neues Landratsamt Pirna-Sonnenstein Nr.10.jpg etc, ja. Hat keinen Lizenzbaustein und/oder ist nicht von Ihm selber. Sehe gerade, dass da einiges fehlt, auch bei den ganzen Orden File:Königlich Sächsischer Maria-Anna-Orden 3. Klasse Rückseite.jpg etc, das sind 3D Objekte, ein Urheber des Fotos ist aber nicht angegeben noch ist das Foto lizenziert. Nur das Design des Ordens mit einer vagen Beschreibung als "Amtliches Werk". --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about Image files

Hello Martin! I have a question about images. This user in Flickr has uploaded several TV Screenshots. I guess we cannot upload them to Commons. But, if we upload them to Wikipedia, can we use them on the singer's main article infobox or other articles? I would've posted this on Wikipedia, but I feel that you can help me :) Novice7 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The images appear to be screenshots from television, I agree. Dont know what program or what television station holds the copyrights. English Wikipedia allows fair use but that will require to identify the copyright holder, only a link to the flickr user wouldnt be enough for fair use of non-free imagery, and Wikipedia does not allow fair use for living people. Since the depicted person is alive an image of her can not be used under fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The Welcome Heroes concert aired on HBO. So, if I use it on a song's article to illustrate the performance, is it against the fair use? Novice7 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is important to illustrate the event it is maybe arguable to upload it under fair use. Please check the non-free fair use guidlines on Wikipedia if it is, im not so familiar with this. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation :) Novice7 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Martin "Lilyloveless.jpg" – This file has some kind of issues. Novice7 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Langhammer_-_Johann_Leopold_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha_-_Verlag_Albert_Horn_310.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Langhammer_-_Johann_Leopold_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha_-_Verlag_Albert_Horn_310.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Email sent

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Leonardo61's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2011

Hi! Happy New Year! I noticed that you have something for us... Category:Undelete in 2011 :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

Could you transfer on Commons the following Kurt Eisner photo,

[42]?

Thank you and happy new year! --Dereckson (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see the MGA73's message, the relevant page he highlighted is Category talk:Photographs by Robert Sennecke. --Dereckson (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I not forgot this ;) Happy PD-Day anyone - and a happy new year of course :) --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Eliminar outro ficheiro

Olá Martin, tudo bem? Muito obrigado por ter atendido a minha solicitação. Inicialmente eu pedi o contrário do que você fez, mas depois vi que foi o melhor. Acabou fazendo aquilo que eu realmente queria, e somente percebi depois. Agora preciso de uma última ajuda sua. Peço que elimine este ficheiro:

A nomenclatura do ficheiro está errada, e ele não deveria ter sido digitalizado. Foi uma imprudência minha, e ficarei feliz se fizesse mais essa gentileza. Um forte abraço!

Gomes Netto, 19 de julho de 2011.