User talk:Pugilist
 First steps tutorialOur first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.  Getting helpMore information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
 Goodies, tips and tricks
 Made a mistake?
| |
| (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) | ||
_Celinder.png){kind=link}
Hej Pugilist, På File:Hans hedtoft.jpg har du indsat {{PD-1996}} med en beskrivelse af hvorfor billedet er undtaget for ophavsret i Danmark. {{PD-1996}} bruges imidlertid til at beskrive, hvorfor et givent medie er undtaget for ophavsret i landet hvor Commons' er drevet: USA. Det springende punkt er her mange gange, om det blev offentliggjort første gang uden for USA (og ikke offentliggjort i USA inden for de efterfølgende 30 dage), hvilket med den slags billeder en gang i mellem godt kan være svært at afgøre. Har du nogle flere informationer om billedet (kildesiden er ikke vildt hjælpsom :()? MVH heb [T C E] 07:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hej Heb,
- Jeg skal ikke gøre mig særlig klog på amerikansk copyright, men det forekommer utvivlsomt, at billedet ikke er undergivet amerikansk copyright. Kun i en svært fortænkt situation, hvor billedet ikke var offentliggjort nogenlunde samtidig med, at det blev taget, men først efter ikrafttræden af den nuværende § 301(f) i den amerikanske Copyright Law i 90'erne, kan man forestille sig at der skulle forekomme amerikansk ophavsret til billedet. Den desværre ulæselige påtegning i billedets højre hjørne efter den dagældende fotografilov § 2 indikerer offentliggørelse omkring tidspunktet, hvor det blev taget. Det er erfaringsmæssigt vanskeligt at føre bevis for, at noget ikke er sket, og det kan derfor være vanskeligt at bevise/godtgøre, at billedet ikke er offentliggjort første gang i USA (hvor det dog ikke er registreret som omfattet af amerikansk copyright), men det har vel næppe sandsynligheden for sig, at et portrætfotografi af en dansk statsminister skulle være offentliggjort første gang uden for Danmark.
- Jeg har dog endnu ikke den store erfaring med Commons licenser, herunder praksis vedrørende sandsynliggørelse. Jeg overlader det derfor trygt til klogere hoveder at vurdere, hvorvidt ovennævnte er tilstrækkeligt eller ej.
- Jeg vil dog prøve at se, om der kan skaffes lidt oplysninger om billedet. Jeg formoder, at der hænger et eksemplar i statministeriet. Pugilist (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Din fortænkte situation er måske ikke så fortænkt en situation endda. Grunden til at jeg spurgte, er at så vidt jeg kan se var det officielle Hans Hedtoft fotografi, det der indgår i denne fremvisning og ikke filen her. Ydermere angives kilden til Ikke Hansen, hvilket jeg ikke helt bliver klogere på, men den Hansen som jeg har kunnet finde (Kaj Lund Hansen), der har taget billeder af Hans Hedtoft ser ikke ud til at have gjort det. Jeg ved at Olav Kjelstrup har taget en mængde portrætbilleder af Hans Hedtoft, hvoraf en del har været "gemt" i Arbejderbevægelsens Arkiv og jeg tænker at det måske kunne være et af dem. Desværre kan det også have ligget der i en rum tid uden at have været offentliggjort :o(
- Vedrørende praksis om sandsynliggørelse vil jeg umiddelbart henvise til Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hammel Sygehus 1960.jpg, der er en anden sag om et dansk fotografi, hvor der blev rejst "significant doubt" (der synes jeg nu ikke helt vi er her) og billedet efterfølgende blev slettet... :-( --heb [T C E] 11:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded an alternative crop and would appreciate if you could indicate a preference, or that you have no strong preference. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!
[edit]
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.
Dear Pugilist,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.
Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Porträt des Kritikers Arthur Binz.jpg
[edit]
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Porträt des Kritikers Arthur Binz.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Panoramio bot operator
[edit]I opened a complaint about User:Shizhao and his Panoramio uploads at the Administrators' noticeboard. You are invited to share your personal experience and opinion about this user and his abuse of his bot operator rights. Thanks, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Request
[edit]Hello,
In File:Dubbing films in Europe1.png and File:Dubbing in Europe 1.png, could you translate this new legend into Danish?
Yours sincerely, A2D2 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for translating the text. A2D2 (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
[edit]In categorising the files I dumped into Category:Uncategorized images of Copenhagen. Your hard work is appreciated.Triplecaña (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And thanks for uploading the pictures, they are quite interesting. --Pugilist (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I've redirected the whole category to the 1954 category. I think they're all 1954, except a couple which were a passing ship's visit (on the way to Norway?). We can let 'bots move these, then clean up the handful of mis-moves afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- There are some photographs from the 30's among the many. I'll try to clean up. --Pugilist (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!
[edit]Dear Pugilist,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked.
In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.
Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Thomas Delaney 6 December 2012.jpg
[edit]
), No derivative works (
), or All Rights Reserved (
), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as 
(CC BY), 
(CC BY-SA), 
(CC0) and 
(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.Thuresson (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Bermont-Avalov.jpg
[edit]
|
|
| This media may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bermont-Avalov.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 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! |
rubin16 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Weekendavisen.jpg
[edit]
|
|
| This file may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Weekendavisen.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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! |
BevinKacon (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Strukturede data
[edit]Vær venligst opmærksom på What_items_to_add. --Hjart (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Logos tilhørende danske institutioner?
[edit]Jeg har bemærket at Victor Erlund har uploadet en del logoer, deriblandt nogle, der er planket fra danske myndigheder mm og som jeg tænker er på kanten med hensyn til ophavsret. Jeg er desværre ikke så skarp igen til at finde reglerne. Hvad tænker du? Hjart (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Hej Hjart, tak for besked. Det er en individuel bedømmelse hver gang, og der er ingen facitliste. Jeg har skimmet bidragene igennem, og nogle ligger efter min opfattelse klart over grænsen (ex logo for MitID og logoet for skolen). Den gamle diskussion om kongekronen er ikke et ophavsretligt problem, men et varemærkeretligt problem, og derfor ikke relevant her. Spørgsmålet er om der er knyttet ophavsret til logoerne med krone (ex. Vejdirektoratets logo). Jeg vil kigge lidt nærmere på det. -Pugilist (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!
[edit]
Read this message in your language
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 1 will end on UTC.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Pugilist, noticing your edit on Category:Bodil Koch (after I created the Category:Ministère des Cultes (France) I was wondering if that is the name of the category to fit them in, there is also a Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs (Denmark) and a minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs and Justice of the Kingdom of Sardinia (Q25938572). Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Lotje,
- Thanks for your message. I inserted the "red" category, as I noticed that there is a Category:Ministers for Ecclesiastical Affairs of Sweden, but no Category:Ministers for Ecclesiastical Affairs og Category:Ministers for Ecclesiastical Affairs by country. It would make sense to have those two categories. If I have the time I will create them togother with a Category:Ministers for Ecclesiastical Affairs of Denmark. --Pugilist (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Pugilist. Take your time
Lotje (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Pugilist. Take your time
_Celinder.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
|
File:Larry Graham and Zac Celinder with Celinder Bass by Christian (Chris) Celinder.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
_Celinder.png){kind=link}