User talk:Zwerg Nase
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unaware that Wikipedia does not apply for NC-licences. I will try and reach the flickr users to get special permission, otherwise, the pictures must be taken down. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
|
File:Mercedes w06.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid.
Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.
|
Gpmat (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
|
File:Lotus e23.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid.
Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.
|
Gpmat (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
|
File:Ferrari sf15t.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid.
Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.
|
Gpmat (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
File:Mercedes 2014.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this 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. |
JuTa 08:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Sara carbonero crop.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Jared Preston (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Nina Agdal
[edit]Hallo, Zwerg Nase. Zu Deiner Information: ich habe gerade zwei deiner Uploads von Flickr gelöscht. Dieses Foto wurde offensichtlich mit einer ungültigen Lizenz von Greg Razzi bei Flickr hochgeladen. Der Fotograf und Rechteinhaber ist Frederick M. Brown für Getty Images. Allgemein wäre ich bei solchen Promi-Fotos auf Flickr und anderen freien Plattformen immer sehr vorsichtig. Diese Hochglanz-Bilder von gesponsorten Events sind dort meistens geklaut. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, schade... ich war davon ausgegangen, er sei tatsächlich ein Typ, der an roten Teppichen steht. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
RE: Montreal circuit
[edit]I'll look into it next week if I remember. Please visit my maps homepage and make a request in the forums. You'll need a free uCoz account, but it works throughout uCoz, not just my site. Please note that I no longer upload maps to Wikimedia Commons as some have deleted my maps under the claim that my source (maps are traced from Google Earth imagery) doesn't meet licensing guidelines. Hence, you'll have to settle for the PNG on my site (SVGs aren't supported by uCoz and their PNG support is weak) or ask I post the SVG in the forum thread you create.
As for timing, I've had health issues and am getting ready to build a new computer that will become my production machine. I doubt I will attempt more maps until the new machine is doing the work. Might as well take advantage of the extra CPU abilities. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! I'll see to it :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Circuit Gilles Villeneuve
[edit]Perdon por la demora de el mapa del circuito Gilles Villeneuve.
Saludos.
--Girardelli G.Escucho 15:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Ronnie Peterson 1974 British GP.jpg
[edit]
Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: Sorry about that, the other photos in the Flickr album had the right licence, so I did not really look at that one's. I'll try to get the author to change the licence and then get the image undeleted. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Vielleicht klappt es ja. --Túrelio (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Poster Exhibition Gerhart Richter 2012.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
— Racconish ☎ 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
File tagging File:Pressefoto Silke Gebel.jpg
[edit]This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Pressefoto Silke Gebel.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Pressefoto Silke Gebel.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Dear Patrick, the website given in the source clearly states that the picture is "zur freien Verfügung" (meaning 'for free use'). I am unsure where to state this more clearly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
File:Pressefoto Silke Gebel.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Whitespace f12015.jpg
[edit]This file may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Whitespace f12015.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! |