User talk:Túrelio: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

All requests for and notifications of re-use of my images on Commons have been moved to Requests & Notifications.

If you can't find a comment or an older discussion here, take a look whether it is in one of my archives:
Archive1 (latest), Archive2 (2007), Archive3 (2008) (big!), Archive4 (2009) (huge!).

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Túrelio!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio!

ich hab eine kurze Frage und vielleicht kannst du mir helfen. Ich hab vor Ewigkeiten mal das Bild rechts zu einem svg konvertiert und hochgeladen. Da hatte es noch einen schwarzen Rahmen. Jetzt hatt User:F l a n k e r irgend etwas mit dem Bild gemacht sodass nur noch er als Uploader erscheint. Im svg File kann man erkennen, dass er/sie die Wellen von meinem File übernommen hat da ich sie (in Inkscape) "wave" benannt hatte und die heissen im jetztigen svg file immer noch so. Könntest du als admin mal schauen ob das file vorher gelöscht wurde und dann erneut hochgeladen? Danke! Amada44 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, deine Vermutung war richtig. "Deine" Version wurde am 08:47, 18. Nov. 2009 von User:Zscout370 wegen "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission" gelöscht und die neue Version 2,5 Stunden später von Flanker hochgeladen. Ich denke dass es ein Zufall war. Vielleicht hatte Flanker das ursprüngliche Bild auf seiner Watchlist. Nimm am besten mal mit dem löschenden Admin, Zscout370, Kontakt auf und bitte um Wiederherstellung der Versionsgeschichte und der Beschreibung. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die schnelle Info. Ich fag mal bei Zscout370 nach. Hätte das Löschen aber nicht über einen Löschantrag laufen müssen? Ich hab nämlich nichts davon mitbekommen,... Amada44 (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetzt wo du es sagst ;-). Es ist in der Tat doch etwas merkwürdig. Der letzte Edit vor der Löschung (18.11.2009) war am 9. Mai 2009. Da war der Inhalt der Beschreibungsseite wie folgt:

• {{Created with Inkscape}} {{Information| |Description= Coat of arm of Regione Basilicata |Source= [[:it:Immagine:Basilicata-Stemma.png]] |Date= 2006-12-20 |Author= [[User:Amada44]] |Permission= {{PD-Flag}} |other_versions= }} Original "Regione-Basilicata-Stemma.png" file from [[User:Sinigagl]]. Used Nr. 2 of this file Coat_of_arms.svg: {{border|[[Image:Coat_of_arms.svg|100px]]}} and created the waves in Inkscape. [[User:Amada44|Amada44]] 09:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) [[Category:Coats of arms of regions of Italy|Basilicata]] [[Category:Basilicata| ]] .
  

Das Problem könnte aber von dem {{PD-Flag}}-template herrühren, weil das vielleicht nicht mehr gültig o.ä. war. Dennoch, eine Benachrichtigung hätte auf jeden Fall erfolgen müssen; vergleiche File:Pennsylvania state flag.png. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio! Ich hab Zscout370 darauf hin angesprochen aber die Disskusion mit ihm ist nicht weder aufschlussreich noch beteiligt er sich ernsthaft daran. Ich finde es nicht okay, dass eine Datei welche von mir erstellt wurde gelöscht wird, und dann meine Datei von jemand anderen hochgeladen wird als PD-AndererUser. PD-Flag war ja eine korrekte Lizenz zu dem Zeitpunkt als ich es hochgeladen habe. Ausserdem, wenn es berechtigt war die Datei zu löschen, dann müsste die jetzige Datei auch gelöscht werden da die Datei von mir ja ohne gültige Lizenz hochgeladen wurde und damit nicht gültigerweise im PD war und Flanker damit keine Berechtigung hat sie hochzuladen. Ich finde, dass Zscout370 zwinged mir eine Nachricht hätte schicken müssen! Und er soll es richten! Amada44 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Amada44,

war 1 Tag offline. Werde mich am Wochenende drum kümmern, es läuft ja nichts weg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, kein Problem. Ich meine, es ist ja nicht ultimativ wichtig. Zscout370 hätte mich informieren müssen. Wenn nicht Flanker die Datei wieder hochgeladen hätte, wäre die weg. Und ich hätte mein Schweiss mit dem erstellen der svg Version für nix gemacht und das ärgert mich! Ziemlich! LG, Amada44 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, after a rough start on this one, OTRS approved the file upload. When I got their email on Friday, I almost shot through the roof.

I have a question about something else I have concerning another Sacramento bishop. Several weeks ago, while at a luncheon I brought a copy of Bishop Francis Quinn's article on Wikipedia along with the picture here on Wikicommons. I had him sign the photo which I want to upload for posterity. At the same time, I mentioned his Wikipedia article and asked him about the prayer on it. He confirmed he wrote it (and, actually said a poem that day). I gave him a copy of the article and had him sign his autograph next to the paragraph with his retirement poem.

The question I have is that all the images/pages would be scanned. In addition, I would like to have someone crop his sig and have that posed on his Wikipedia article like ones for Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, etal.

What would be the best permissions to use and should can I claim the works as mine or use some other type? The article shows the date along with http information at the bottom of each page. --Morenooso (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to reply later. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

In mid March I created the deletion requests log Nonsense Portuguese and Union maps and only a week later you deleted one of them on the log. Thanks for that! However, you did not finish deleting the other items on the deletion log and close the discussion.

Please finish the job now that there has been considerable time passed and people have posted their comments on the deletion of each item in the log. (the link to the log is above). Thanks again, Maps & Lucy (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maps & Lucy,

if you look at the DR discussion, you don't need to wonder that this is still open. Honestly, as this would require digging deep into this whole flag business, I've currently not the nerve (and time) for that. If you think it's urgent, then try to look for an admin more familiar with flags. Ok, I've deleted the 3 clear cases. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast! Thanks pall, you have just been added to my Wiki-friends list! You actually got rid of 4 instead of 3, and all the better! Thanks again! Maps & Lucy (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Túrelio, auf COM:FORUM hast Du den sinnvollen Vorschlag gemacht die Situation betreffend der auf DB Grund aufgenommenen Bilder mal durch ein Rechtsgutacheten klaeren zu lassen. Sollen wir es mal in Angriff nehmen den Verein darauf anzusprechen. Ich denke man kann es niemandem zumuten die teilweise recht inkohaerenten Diskussionen hier im Forum, dem Portal Bahn und den Undeletion Requests zu lesen. Wir sollten also kurz die wichtigen Punkte zusammenfassen, bei denen Klaerungsbedarf besteht. Ein deratiges Gutachten kann gleich noch mehr Fragen beantworten. Stichwort: Museen. --Dschwen (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Dschwen,

den Vorschlag hatte ich in derselben Diskussion sogar schon öfter gemacht, Martina schien es auch einmal aufgegriffen zu haben, aber dann ist es doch irgendwie im Sande verlaufen. Ob es sinnvoll ist, Bahn und Museum zusammenzufassen, weiß ich nicht, da beides doch recht unterschiedlich ist; aber vielleicht ist es für einen Juristen ja doch dasselbe, woraus du entnehmen kannst, IANAL. Punkt 2 deines Entwurfs macht zusätzlich ein Commons/Wikimedia-Fass auf, was in der Forums-Diskussion auch schon angeklungen ist: kann/soll zugelassen werden, dass wir Bilder hosten, die bei kommerzieller Verwendung (was immer das denn heißt) nicht mehr frei sind, sondern eine Genehmigung und, wie bei der DB AG, sogar doch wieder Geld (wenn auch als "Gebühr" deklariert) kosten? Tatsächlich haben wir bei Portraits, die ich seit meinen ersten Commons-Tagen mit {{Personality}} tagge, ja durchaus auch eine Einschränkung der Verwendbarkeit und tolerieren das ohne Mucken: allerdings gehts da nicht primär um Geld. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo und danke für den Hinweis auf diese Disk. Falls denn schon mal ein Gutachten zur Frage des Hausrechts erstellt wird, sollte es m.E. auch für die nächsten zigtausend Fotos gelten. Deshalb würde ich bei den Beispielen auch private Museen und Zoos einbeziehen und zwar solche, die nur die kommerzielle Veröffentlichung verbieten, und solche, die das Veröffentlichen komplett verbieten.

Ich baue mal Ergänzungen und neue Formulierungen ein. Nur als Vorschlag.

Soll ich das Anliegen beim WMDE in die Mailingliste geben oder ist einer von euch selbst Vereins- oder Listenmitglied? Bei der Foundation wäre wohl am besten ihr Justiziar Mike Godwin anzusprechen? --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mit WMDE meinst du wohl "VereinDE-l". Hab ich nicht abonniert, scheint aber einen überschaubaren Schreiberkreis zu haben, so dass nicht zuviel Grundrauschen zu befürchten ist. Bin kein Vereinsmitglied. Fragt sich ob wir zuerst bei WM-de oder gleich (auch) bei Godwin anklopfen sollen? Inhaltlich betrifft es ja wesentlich deutsches Recht. Ok, Schweiz könnte ähnlich sein; Austria weiß ich nicht. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schreibs doch erstmal an die Vereinsliste. Als Bitte um Hilfe, mit kurzer Beschreibung der Tragweite der ganze Sache. An Wikimedia kann man sich immernoch wenden, aber da es sich um deutsches recht handelt sollten wir es erstmal hier versuchen. Gab es nicht eine Kanzlei die fuer WMDE schon pro bono gearbeitet hat (mir ist so etwas duffus in Erinnerung). --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBB ist keine Freie Kanzlei. ;-) Das kostet den Verein dann schon Geld. Ich stelle die Frage ein und hoffe, dass ich damit nicht den Streit nur in die Mailingliste ausweite. --Martina Nolte (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done [1] --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke; mal sehn was kommt. --Túrelio (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dank auch von mir. Da kann man jetzt nur hoffen das jetzt nicht irgendwelche selbsternannten Hobbyjuristen meinen diese Fragen auf der Mailingliste beantworten zu muessen... --Dschwen (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich baue mal weitere kleine Änderungen so [markiert] ein als Merkzettel für später, falls es grünes Licht gibt. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inzwischen hatte ich den Geschäftsführer des Vereins angemailt, wie die Sache nun weitergeht. Bisher keine Antwort. Ich bleibe am Ball und melde mich, sobald es Neuigkeiten gibt. --Martina Nolte (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tääterätätää: [2] :-) --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine konstruktive Hartnäckigkeit. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In wieweit kann der Lizenzstatus von Bildern durch das Hausrecht am Aufnahmeort beeinflusst/beschränkt werden?
  • Beispiel 1: DB AG^[1] verbietet die Veröffentlichung von Fotoaufnahmen auf ihrem Grund und Boden zu kommerziellen Zwecken.
  • Beispiel 2: Tierpark Nürnberg^[2] untersagt das Filmen und Fotografieren zu kommerziellen Zwecken.
  • Beispiel 3: Tierpark Hagenbeck^[3] verbietet jegliche öffentliche Verwertung von Bildmaterial ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung.
• Dürfen diese Dateien trotzdem auf Commons gehostet werden (die Lizenz muss ja kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben)?
• Geht der Fotograf durch Betreten des Privatgeländes per Hausordnung ein Vertragsverhältnis ein und verletzt mit dem Upload unter einer Freien Lizenz geltendes Recht auf Commons?
  • Wenn ja, wie wirkt sich die Rechtsverletzung auf den Seitenbetreiber aus (Stichwort "Forenhaftung")?
• Verlieren Freie Lizenzen von Bildern, bei deren Anfertigung [oder Veröffentlichung] eine Hausrechtsverletzung begangen wurde, ihre Gültigkeit?
• Sind potentielle Nachnutzer gebunden an den Vertrag(?) zwischen dem Hausrechtsinhaber und dem Fotografen? Anders formuliert: Verletzen sie das Hausrecht der Grundstückseigner bei kommerzieller Nutzung?
  • Wenn ja, ist es rechtlich ratsam oder erforderlich an diesen Bildern auf Commons einen Hausrechte-Hinweis anzubringen vergleichbar mit Vorlage:Bild-LogoSH, Vorlage:Panoramafreiheit oder Template:Personality?
• Speziell zur Bahn AG (1994 aus Fusion der Staatsbahnen Deutsche Bundesbahn und Deutsche Reichsbahn entstanden): Besteht der behauptete Hausrechtsanspruch überhaupt?
  • Wenn ja, wie weit ist seine Reichweite, z.B. in Bezug auf den Aufnahmezeitpunkt?
• Das Gutachten sollte [auf größtmögliche] Rechtssicherheit für den Photographen/Uploader und für potentielle Nachnutzer [herstellen abzielen].

1. ↑ Kategorie Deutsche Bahnhöfe
2. ↑ Kategorie Zoo Nürnberg
3. ↑ Kategorie Hagenbeck

• Wikipedia: Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache
• Friesenhaus-Urteil (BGH, 9. März 1989, Az.: I ZR 54/87, Verwertung der Fotografie eines Privathauses) (Panoramafreiheit)
• Sanssouci-Urteil (Urteil Az. 5 U 12/09 des Brandenburgisches OLG) (Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechtes)

hi. all files that I put as {{Copyvio}} are logos of brazilian football teams and other objects belonging to them, like flags. if I put a link to the official website of each team, would take too much time. some of them has a {{PD-old}}, but it's not true because they actually exist in today. sorry. --189.105.56.141 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Túrelio: Just as Info: I have maked all those edits as patrolled. I don't know if they are copy vio or not. They should probably go throgh DR.) Amada44 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How are you, i wanted to ask you, what's the problem with the image?, I s because it did appear in gainax website?, thanks for answering ;)

I noticed that you have tagged uploads modified by How (talk · contribs) in the past, and that he removed those tags. One of them has been under discussion for deletion for a few days now, and I have nominated two more. The files that you were involved with that are now up for discussion are File:Abdul Baha Abbas.jpg, File:Shoghi Effendi.jpg, and File:Shoghi Effendi2.jpg. His Commons upload File:Tehran - Iran.jpg is also up for discussion. He has still been removing speedy deletion tags and dispute tags, so I am nominating all questionable uploads that he has touched, so that they each get a full discussion. (He seems to have the idea that all copyrights expire everywhere after 50 years, and/or that photographers don't have names like human beings, and/or that all photographers die immediately after taking a picture. Obviously, the difference between creation dates and publication dates eludes him also.) --Closeapple (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not Victor Koulbak. Viltor Koulbak sent his authoirization the 29 of June 2010. LKedition82.229.188.209 11:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lkedition,

does the permission by Mr. Koulbak include all Koulbak-related images that you have uploaded? --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Turelio, zwei Sachen: Du hattest mich mal auf die Category:Personal images hingewiesen, siehe [3] - spricht etwas gegen ein Redirect der Category auf die Category:User page images ?? - das würde ich sonst einrichten - Sorry, ich kapiere auch nicht, ob die Vorlage User page image oder die Kategorie besser ist - gibt es ja beides. Mit hotcat ist es einfacher (scheint mir), die Kategorie hinzuzufügen?! Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, momentan zu busy. --Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make sure that I am correct?Please fill out the correct File Name, "File:Looking north toward Sihyuan Wukou.JPG".—Yiken (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—Yiken (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filename is Looking "south" toward Sihyuan Wukou,but it not in the right direction.—Yiken (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "but it not in the right direction". --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect the page User:Tp61i6m42008, he has been blocked--Twhk2011 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please removeUser:Tp61i6m42008REDIRECT--Twhk2011 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First you want it blocked; now you want it removed. I would prefer, that User:Yyatttw himself requests deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Túrelio,

The problem with 1420 Sallust de Geneve.jpg and 1420 Salustio de Ginebra Peninsula Iberica.jpg is that where I upload the pictures, I did not know that WikiMedia Commons does not allow images for non-commercial purposes.

And the site from which I download the picture, http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch, is very strict about the terms of use, I can only use their images for non-commercial purposes.

For this reason I beg you to delete these two files.

Greetings, Hermericus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermericus (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, isn't this another National Portrait Gallery-situation? Whatever has come of this? Hekerui (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The record shows you deleted File:Aafia and Ahmed Siddiqui in custody in Ghazni Afghanistan, July 2008.jpg as a copyright violation, citing two URLs that published the image, apparently crediting it to AP.

I believe that deletion was premature, and explained why, in detail back on Commons:Village_pump#.22work_of_Afghanistan.22.

I followed the events of July 2008, prior to, and just after Aafia's 2nd capture, in detail, as they transpired up until early August. If this photo had been published in July, I would have seen it.

If there had been a photo-op, on July 18, I would have seen it. If there had been a photo-op, on July 18, google would show references from that date. It doesn't. (The first three references on that list look like they are from July 17th. But they are actually from early 2010, and google's robot that determines the dates of articles got confused). There is no record of photo-op. There was no photo-op.

What do you suggest should be the appropriate steps to getting this image restored? Geo Swan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo Swan,

I had read your thread on VP before deleting it, but still found the risk of being copyrighted by AP too high. Anyway, as this will likely require some more discussion, you should formally request undeletion on COM:UNDEL. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it simply isn't possible that you read the thread I linked above, prior to deleting the image, since I drafted that comment about 12 hours after you deleted the image.

Over on the wikipedia the policies for requesting review of deleted material tell those with a concern that their first step should always be to contact the closing administrator. Nevertheless, some closing administrators routinely blow off good faith questions and concerns over their closures by telling the concerned uploaders to initiate a formal review.

Personally, I think that is a mistake. More often than not the closing administrator did not make a mistake. I regard this kind of question as a teaching moment, an opportunity for the closing administrator to explain to the concerned uploader where they went wrong. This saves time.

When a concerned uploader's good faith questions are given a fuller answer by a more experienced and knowledgeable closing administrator, the most likely outcome is that the concerned uploader will come to understand what they did wrong. This saves time three ways. First, it saves the time of everyone who would otherwise have read, and may have participated in the deletion review they would otherwise have started. Second, now that the error of their ways has been explained to them, they won't waste their own time making the same mistake in future. Third, since they won't repeat that mistake in future, no one's time will be wasted cleaning up after them. It seems to me that at least some of the time those fuller answers will be of the sort, "have you read section X of policy Y? I think your upload lapsed because of Z." -- ie. not a lot of work when the closing administrator feels their decision was firmly based on policy.

Sometimes the closing administrator's attempts to provide a good faith answer to the concerned uploaders good faith questions will save time because in the course of answering the questions they will realize that they did err in the deletion -- and they can then restore the material without involving anyone else in a deletion review.

And, I suggest, even if after the closing administrator's good faith answers the concerned uploader remains unconvinced, their explanation when they initiate the deletion review may be more focused, and easier for those at the deletion review to read and respond to.

Now maybe you meant to acknowledge that I raised valid issues, but you don't consider yourself competent to respond to them? Or maybe you think responding to them properly will require more time than you are willing to budget for this image? If this is what you meant could you say so explicitly? Thanks.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply to the very first statement of your long comment. This thread was surely present, at least to my eyes, before I decided to delete the image. And that is what I meant in my first statement.

And to answer your last questions: yes, when reading the speedy rationale and your above mentioned first statement on VP, to me it seemed somewhat more likely that the image is copyrighted by AP (as stated already in my first reply). Of course, I may err in this, but - as per our policy - with potential copyvios it's better to err on the save side.

Now, as I have no stake in the deletion of this image (I erroneously thought it to be a routine deletion) and as your heart seems to be in it (no offense meant), I can restore it, but only to immediately file a regular DR with the same rationale as in the speedy-request. If you prefer that way, say so. --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You, and other contributors have interpreted the credit line "AP File photo" to mean AP owns the intellectual property rights to the image. Over the years I have seen this credit line used for lots of images that I knew, for a certain fact, were PD images. I believe you are all mistaken, and that AP adds images to its files in different ways, including:

1. photos taken by its actual employees;
2. photos taken by freelance photographers, and purchased by AP;
3. photos taken by whistleblowers and secret leakers, and, again purchased by AP;
4. photos which, for one reason or another, are in the public domain.

Some people suggested at the village pump discussion that I contact AP, and request the provenance of the photo. Given that I believe this photo was sold, under the table, by a corrupt official, the possibility that AP would reveal their sources is about zero. Geo Swan (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not unlikely that you are correct, IMHO that doesn't change much. If we are aware of a claim by AP that an image is theirs, we cannot simply ignore that. This could only be justified, if an image is proven to be PD (or under another free license). --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- that we can't simply ignore image credits that say "AP file photo". But is there is a difference between ignoring an AP credit and recognizing when it is clearly can't mean that AP is asserting it owns the intellectual property rights to the image. In this particular case those asserting AP owned the intellectual property rights assumed:

1. That a credit line saying AP file photo implied AP owned the rights to the image;
2. that if this image had a credit line that said AP file photo' that meant that an AP photographer took the image at an organized photo-op.

I don't think either of these assumptions are supportable.

AP and other similar agencies acquire images from all over the place. Other news services buy images from them. Other news services that don't have the resources to download and keep public domain DoD images, when they were released, willingly pay AP for those images for AP's file. AP's customers don't seem to care that the images were originally PD.

In fact Afghan and American security officials did not make public that Dr Aafia had been in Afghan custody for over a week after she was handed over to American security officials. There was no photo-op in Afghanistan. The first opportunity reporters had to see Dr Aafia was when she appeared in a NYC court about a month later.

If an American GI or security official had taken this image, it would clearly be in the public domain, because all images taken by employeees of US Federal agencies are in the public domain, when they took those images as part of their official duties.

The copyright status of images from Afghanistan is more complicated. The position of some contributors is that the Berne Convention says that images taken by a citizen from a country with copyright protection, in a nation like Afghanistan with no copyright protection, should still be considered automatically copyright. But images taken by Afghan citizens are not automatically copyright. The giving or selling of this image, by an Afghan policeman, to the AP, constitutes publication.

In the village pump discussion it was suggested that I contact AP for the provenance of the photo. I have actually done this with some images. There was an image of a Colonel, in his uniform, posed before an American flag, just like hundreds of photos the DoD uses to illustrate officers' official biographies. This image I downloaded from the Miami Herald. Well, it was challenged. I contacted the Miami Herald's photo editor. The Miami Herald is a serious paper. Unlike other photo editors I have contacted they did reply. I believe what they told me was typical, even of serious papers. They told me that the Miami Herald does not record the source of the images they use, other than in the credit they published on the photo itself. If a photo had no credit I should assume it was in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Túrelio, I'm writing to you because I disagree with this. The image I uploaded a few days ago is exactly of the same coin, but with higher resolution and true color. Whereas the other side of the coin I had made the same request, in fact, it was replaced. I think it's best to proceed in the same way with this one.

Sincerely, --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banfield,

though it was also me who substituted/deleted the second one, I disagree with you in regard to the first set of images, as the photos are very different and may both be of use. Actually the one you want to have deleted, looks slightly better to me as it shows less flash or light reflection on the coin. Anyway, though I rejected your speedy-request, you are free to open a regular deletion request that allows for input by other users who may agree (or disagree) with you. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error in identifying the photos of the Freddy Mercury statue as copyvio - I was unaware that Switzerland had FOP laws. After reading the FOP guidelines on the commons I was hoping you could help me with some questions. 1) Are we legally supposed to attribute the original work depicted to its original author when that author is clearly identifiable (like with this statue)? 2) In countries like Switzerland that have freedom of panorama laws but do not have their own tags for this on the commons should the generic "FOP" tag be added to these pages even though it makes reference to German law? Thanks! 70.112.184.148 04:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

1) yes, if not for legal reasons, at least out of fairness or honesty any work of art should be attributed to the artist. Therefore, a photography of a work of art should carry the name of the original artist and eventually of the photographer. 2) As of yet, this is handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on who works on it. At a minimum, such images should be categorized as FOP, just by adding Category:FOP. However, for re-users that is likely not enough as it provides no legal information. As of yet there are indeed no country-specific FOP-templates (Category:FOP templates) for Austria and Switzerland, who have different FOP provisions by law. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Túrelio,

Picture en:File:Picea brewerianafullform.JPG has recently been uploaded in the English wikipedia.
I want to transfer this picture to Commons so that I can use it in other wikipedia sites.
I have forgotten how to access the template for doing it. Can you please help me?

Thanks in advance, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with me, as I have never used it. But I found our former talk about that. The tool is here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(You're fast, I thought I'd preempt you here :) I use the Move-to-commons assistant to create an original upload log and the basis for the information box before using the "basic upload form" at Commons:Upload. To this image the uploader added no description, but added the caption when adding it to the Wikipedia article, so I used that. I also checked the metadata for the date of creation and whether the category is correct. Compare File:Picea brewerianafullform.JPG. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When saying template, perhaps you mean Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons? I think that one can be handled by a bot (perhaps requires review still, idk). Hekerui (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to you both! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio. Just have a small question. The above category would be better off into subcats of Category:Aerial photographs. Is it a bad idea if I move the files into the relevant cats? I though it would be a good idea to ask you since you know the Commons more than me. ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rehman, thanks for asking me. One might object that such a cat could be justified as there are several wikipedia articles with the same lemma (see interwikis on cat page). On the other hand I agree that it may be difficult to discriminate between Bird's-eye view and Aerial photographs. You see, I'm not sure for myself about that. Therefore, I would recommend you to open a discussion thread at a public board such as COM:VP (broad) or COM:CFD (focussed). --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take it to CFD soon then. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again, just doing a brief cleanup of Category:Aerial photographs. The above category, can be moved straight to subcats of Category:Aerial photographs (or Category:Aerial photographs of unidentified locations) right? Or is it still a good idea to CFD it? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a rather clear case for moving the cat. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will do that then. This category also caught my eye, similar to the Flight cat, but a little more official? Move that too? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is already a subcat to Aerial photographs, so nothing more to do IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one above also has numerous identical images (with tiny differences). Do Commons have any policy to delete such replicas? Is it ok if I CSD-duplicate-tag very-identical images (like this and this)? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me thats ok, but opinions may differ. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm offline now, at least until tomorrow. --Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will be bold and try to properly categorize this. If I do something wrong it can always be undone. Thanks for your time. Good night? ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in participating in this and this deletion discussions. Also, is there a way to add the deletion tag to those files by bot? There is so many to do manually... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following your sensible comment here and the fact that I found two uploaders of the same book cover I've blocked some socks. Based on those deleted these look like they come from the same place I think. It is always possible it is actually the publisher but they don't seem to pay attention to messages sadly. Email too! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found 2 of the 3 Tonetta photos on her (?) Facebook page, which has a lot of photos of similar size and quality and thereby may be authentic. Whether they are legal by copyright is another question, of course. Eventually we have to directly contact her. Have a nice "break". --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a response at "Category talk:Women with blond hair". I've also left identical messages at "Category talk:Women with black hair", "Category talk:Women with brown hair" and "Category talk:Women with white hair". The same issue arises with all these categories, so I suggest we discuss the matter at "Women with blond hair". (Love the cat picture, by the way!) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. Too busy ´for the moment. --Túrelio (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is nonsence deletion - Turkish copyright allow use this photo like " national heritage" see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29 "Article 47 ("Expropriation")"

please, restore file "evren.jpg" --195.113.197.35 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me whether concerns that File:ISN 743 CSRT 2004 transcript Pg 5.png was a duplicate was discussed anywhere prior to deletion? I don't believe I received a heads-up on my talk page.

I accept that it was a duplicate. But if this was a summary deletion -- one with no prior discussion -- then I want you to know that it took considerable time to clean up after this deletion. Note that my first edit to clean up was at 10:18, and my final edit was at 10:39. If I count drafting this request to you, then cleaning up after this deletion cost me something like 45 minutes.

If you come across duplicate files could you please avoid summary deletion? Could you please verify, if they were tagged with a speedy tag, that the individual who placed that tag fulfilled their responsibility to advise the uploader?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your 1st question, I don't know and I usually don't check for this, as with removing a duplicate file nothing is lost, because there is still the remaining one. When aiming to delete a speedy-tagged dupe, I do check whether it is used on any project and, in case it is, I order the DeLinker to replace it, as I did in this case[4]. The actual deletion is performed only after the Delinker has confirmed that all uses have been replaced. Therefore, I don't understand why there was any remaining clean-up work.

Anyway, sorry if this was caused by my action. --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for these heads-ups.

• The reason it took so long to clean up is that once I had uploaded the correct image for page 5 I had to go and edit all 14 files where the delinker bot had replaced links to page 5 (which had erroneously contained a dup of page 4) I had to go and re-edit them to make them point back to new version of page 5 that actually contained page 5. Not having a bot it took more than a minute per each.

• Anyhow, thanks again for the heads-ups. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Turelio, I have beeen checking the user's uploads as he contributes in es-wiki, as you can see here I've deleted 3 images because of clear copyvios and a fourth one clearly scanned from a publication. I have not been able to find the rest, but they all look too suspicious to me, some are very small, some look like collages and none of them have EXIF data, so I think they all should be deleted. Do you agree? Regards. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio, thank you for deleting copy right violations. I believe here's one more File:Pipe-from-Sanbruno-explosion.jpg. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't overlooked this. The difference to the two deleted ones is that here was no "Courtesy: Kron 4 viewers" on the Flickr page. Therefore it seems justified to assume that the Flickr user is the photographer, until we have evidence/input to the contrary. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the similarity is that it was also taken by Bryan. So, if we are to assume that Bryan is flickr user, then 2 others should be undeleted as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it looks like Flickr user works for Kron 4 [5]. So maybe it is OK to have those images?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you get the Sherlock-Holmes-award. Only 1 small mismatch, EXIF has Bryan, he calls himself Brian. Anyway, I'll take care of that tomorrow. Too tired after performing some 700+ deletions over the last 2 days. --Túrelio (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is imperative as an illustrator that the actual printed format of the magazine is shown. This is the only way to reference actual work. The printed Magazine is becoming obsolete, and therefore is even more reason for illustrators to include a jpg of the image as a historical document. I have recently had a few of the images taken down, and unfortunately I just received the notice now so I didn't respond in time. For Illustrators to either reference or have a citation to a graphic example is extremely important for the proof of creation. Thanks so much Turelio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertman (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lbertman,

I not sure what you want me to do. As explained on your talkpage, if you can and want to give permission for your uploads (that can be easily un-deleted), go to Commons:Email templates, take the boxed "Declaration of consent for all enquiries", enter the filenames of all files to be covered by that permission, enter the name of the license of your choice, put the date and your legal name under it and mail that all from an account clearly associated to your office/studie/legal name to the email address mentioned on OTRS. This permission will not be made public, but can only be accessed by our OTRS volunteers, who will then give "clearance" for the covered files. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I really want removed is my proper name from the permissions fields. Is that possible? ---Kilbad (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilbad,

of course, that is no problem at all. You can do it by yourself or I will gladly do it for you. I would only ask you to add a license tag to File:Pilosebaceous Unit 4x.JPG, at least a {{PD-self}}. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but your way leaves it in the history. You need to delete some of the histories too. ---Kilbad (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I've re-uploaded File:Insertion of sebaceous glands into hair shaft x10.jpg, as this is easier than to involve an oversighter. However, if you want to go this way, you should make an edit in this file, just writing in the edit summary something like "Confirmed by User:Kilbad". Instead with File:Pilosebaceous Unit 4x.JPG, you could simply add the {{PD-self}}, as explained above. I would then do the same with the other images and, after your confirmation, substitute them for the old ones and delete the latter as dupes. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! Whether I have received the letter from the manager with a question I am NINA SILAEVA under anybody NINAEVA???? I am not so sensible I understand in english and have decided to make a new nickname NINA SILAEVA, now at me two nicknames and pictures are loaded under anybody ninaeva. Help me if I something not that have made many thanks

I will take care of that next weekend. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, ce fichier est également visible sur http://www.coupe406.com/albums/Mawell74/0164.jpg mais c'est avec l'accord de l'auteur qu'il a été uploadé sur wikimedia. Je vais donc ré-uploader ce fichier en le précisant dans sa description, en espérant que cela suffise. --Malsa (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheMalsa, I'm not that good in French, but with the help of Google-translator I could understand you. The problem is, you need to provide a written permission by the original author/photographer. Therefore I've tagged your re-upload not as copyvio, but with permission-missing. Please follow the instructions in the message/note on your talkpage. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, je vous transmet la copie du mail indiquant que l'auteur m'a fourni et autorisé à mettre ces photos. J'espère que cela suffit. Hi, I send you a copy of the mail stating that the author has provided and authorized to use these pictures. I hope that's enough. (sorry for my bad English) voilà la copie partielle du mail de l'auteur :
De : "Mawell74" <xxx@orange.fr>
À : "Malsa" <xxx@yahoo.fr>
Envoyé le : Jeu 7 octobre 2010, 20h 23min 20s
Objet : photo pour wiki
Bonsoir Malsa,
Comme demandé, je te fournie les deux photos que tu souhaites mettre sous wiki.
Pour la protection dont tu me parlais, je n'y connais rien alors je te fais confiance.[...]
A+
Manu

Mercy, mais, send the original permission email to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org (it will be treated confidentially), please. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour votre aide, c'est chose faite ! En espérant que les suppressions du fichier cessent ! Cordialement. Thanks for your help, it's done! I hope that can stop serial-delete of this file! Regards. --TheMalsa (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've replaced the no-permission tag by a OTRS-pending tag (thereby signaling that a permission has been sent to OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit, I don't know whether I mind or not, because I don't understand the significance of your edit. Instead of a red link, I now have what displays as an empty page. I think I prefer the red link. I look forward to your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is up to you to put something on the empty page ;-). Besides, it is not really empty as it contains an interwiki to :en. In addition, a blue userpage link gives you a slightly better standing than a red one. But if you prefer, I'll delete it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

Well, it is up to you to put something on the empty page ;-). - Agreed. I chose not to.

Besides, it is not really empty - I didn't say it was empty. I said: "I now have what displays as an empty page."

as it contains an interwiki to :en. - Agreed. Can you either explain, or point me to a page that explains, the significance of that? (Thanks in advance.)

In addition, a blue userpage link gives you a slightly better standing than a red one. - That's interesting to know. Thanks.

But if you prefer, I'll delete it. - As I said above: "I don't know whether I mind or not, because I don't understand the significance of your edit." I'll answer your implied question when I understand.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you like to keep pseudocoloured ilustrations to Verne's novels I have not against it but you should notice that the orginal illustrations were b/w (only few of them were ful coloured but not only pseudocoloured in one shade of colour like this one). These pseudocoloured illustrtion were coloured probabyly by Andrzej Zydorczyk who used them to illustrate some Verne's novels, see here -> http://jv.gilead.org.il/works.html. Here ->http://jv.gilead.org.il/rpaul/ you are oryginal scans. Also the pseudocoloured ilustrations have worse resolution than the b/w oryginal scans. Regards Electron  ^<Talk?> 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I don't have a strong opinion about that. However, I found some of the colored version simply looking better. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turelio, The majority of images which assigns author and source both as Chhora were cliqued by me only.I will try to provide link for the images i didn't cliqued.Please let me know what should i do to keep them here.RegardsChhora (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suggest, you make a list (here or on your talkpage) of the images that were originally shot (cliqued) by you. And you make a second list of images, though shot by you, but where you reproduced an already existing image (such as File:SriSawai Bhoj templeAsind.jpg, File:Shri Devnarayan BhagwanVeerGurjar.JPG, File:Shri Devnarayan Bhagwan the imperialGurjar.jpg for example). --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,Thanks for your consideration.Images which were originally shot by me are :File:Gurjar Samrat MihirBhoja TheGreat.JPG, File:Shri Devnarayan BhagwanVeerGurjar.JPG, File:Saadu Maata Gurjari.jpg, File:Gurjar-pratihar art.jpg, File:Gurjar-pratihar2.jpg, File:Gurjar-pratihar3.jpg.

And the images such as File:GurjarPratihar9thCentury.jpg, File:Shri Devnarayan Bhagwan the imperialGurjar.jpg, File:Statue of Gurjar Samraat Mihir Bhoj Mahaan in Bharat Upvan ofAkshardham Mandir New Delhi.jpg were first uploaded on forum them on wikpedia so i will provide the OTRS for that from the owner of that forum. It will be helpful if explicitly tell me the procedure for that. Image File:Gujjar Girl Jammu-Kashmir in traditional costumes.jpg is taken from blog of a Gujjar of jammu, he has no offence in it.If you can retain the image by just providing right author as in case of File:GoddessNainadeviGurjars.jpg, please do it.RegardsChhora (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons:Email templates you will find a permission text template that should be used as it has all necessary statements. You should enter the filename or complete URL and the license of choice and mail all together to the rights holder. He/She should then put the date and his/her legal name under it and mail it back to

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

A caveat in regard to photos taken from blogs or forums: before asking the blog/forum owner for permission, you should ask him whether he has shot the photo himself or is really the rights holder for the photo. Otherwise, any permission by him has no value at all. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i will do that but what i need to do for the images originally shot by me as they are totally my own work.ReagrdsChhora (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check the latter and perform what's necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks.Also i have forwarded the permission email from the owner of that website (Ashok harshana) to permissions-co and added otrs pending tag to concerned images.RegardsChhora (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turelio, I come to know this link, which says that The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.).So i think the images which are really my work will need no further source(The list which i quoted u initailly as images shot by me originally).regardsChhora (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya le añadi la informacion de autor , año y categorice --Cesar8807 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me, youre the best. KirmiziAdam (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very good, thank you

Decio Mure (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Turelio, kannst du bitte die Bilder File:KKM-Logo.jpg, File:KKM-Logo-alt.png, File:KKM-Logo-neu.jpg löschen? Der Rechteinhaber will dafür (zumindest zunächst) keine Freigabe erteilen. Grüße --Bjs (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sind die nicht PD-Text? LG, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, ich bin für {{PD-textlogo}} kein Experte. @Bjs, ist damit zu rechnen, dass der vermeint- oder tatsächliche Rechteinhaber doch eine Freigabe erteilt? --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich denke schon, das will er aber nicht, bevor er es als Marke angemeldet hat. Textlogo ist es m.E. nicht, da ja anders als z.B. bei File:CDU logo.svg auch ein Graphikbestandteil im Logo enthalten ist. --Bjs (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, das mit der Markenanmeldung ist verständlich, aber steht die denn in Bälde bevor? --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich denke nicht, dass die einfachen graphischen Elemente die Schöpfungshöhe erreichen. Siehe andere Beispiele hier. LG, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da die uploads mit Bjs assoziiert sind bzw. der Eigentümer/Urheber ihn/sie möglicherweise kennt und wir niemandem unnötig schaden wollen, scheint es mir trotz des möglicherweise fehlenden Schutzes angemessen, die Logos momentan gelöscht zu lassen. Ich möchte euch aber bitten, sie für "Wiedervorlage" in spätestens 3 Monaten vorzumerken, weil die erwähnte Markenanmeldung bis dahin erfolgt sein könnte. --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, das würde ich so machen. Herr Kraemer hat uns sehr großzügig mit Bildern über die Kraemer’sche Kunstmühle versorgt, für die er schon die Genehmigung erteilt hat, weitere, besonders historische Photos sollen folgen, da können wir ihm hier ruhig etwas entgegenkommen. Ich denke nicht, dass es lange dauern wird, bis die Marke angemeldet ist. --Bjs (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turelio, I noticed you recently deleted several images of artwork that I globally replaced with higher quality images. However, the original images came from different sources, usually different uploaders, and were typically not scaled-down or exact duplicates. Some may contain information that the new versions do not. These would have to be nominated for normal deletion if they are to be deleted. I'm going to restore the affected images. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Except may be the backlog of 2000+ speedy-requests and 3000+ DRs from 2010 ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Is the same picture wihtout "Oruro". "Oruro" was just cleaned from [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 29. Oktober 2010, 17:15 Uhr (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little comment, I think mr. Arafael is sort of harassing Erios30 due to edit warring on the es-wiki, and is deleting all the pictures replacing them for the also copyrighted photos of the server promperu [8] [9] [10] [11] also he has been trying to delete this image that wasn't any copyright violation at all, and there isn't any rule forbidding to use "non-photos" in Commons, ermm I think it'd be wise to avoid extending the edit warring here and let the admins on the es-wiki take care of it for now. I'll let you know of any news, but could you please retire the sign on File:Testimonio de un músico peruano.jpg the other one of Erios can remain till you get an answer. Best regards. 200.87.152.180 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've downgraded the warning on File:Mascara 1880 paria oruro bolivia.jpg to "disputed". The copyvio-tagged files are likely to stay for some time, as we have so many and so few admins. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the quick response, and what about these two other photos? File:Testimonio de un músico peruano.jpg and File:Musica diablada 1862 oruro.svgthose are from uninvolved users that has nothing to do with this problem. 200.87.152.180 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one really has a problem, as it says to be a copy of a newspaper article from Los Andes 1968; likely copyrighted. I've asked the uploader about it. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then about the second one, it's form 1862 transformed to svg, the uploader cited the creative commons license from where he took the information. or there is a problem with it? 200.87.152.180 21:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently crawling through its edit history. I've converted the speedy to a DR, which gives time for a discussion. Anyway, should be PD-old. --Túrelio (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then I leave you with it, you're the expert for those things sorry for taking your time but I think the amount of proposed deletions related to this article proposed by this user it's a tad excessive, one last photo I saw is File:Mascara de Diablo - Oruro 1830.jpg just one thing I have been checking on the history is that the photos taken with information of this site have the cc-sa-3.0 license it's stated at the bottom of the site "the material published in this page was placed with informative and/or educational goals and are can be made use of them but we beg to mention the source" I suppose it's ok but I'm not an expert. Thanks and sorry for taking your time for so long. 200.87.152.180 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake I meant to tag File:Alison Pitt at Comic-Con 2010 Cropped.jpg.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my wish besides the images are not in use and they are all simply crops of other commons images that anyone can easily recreate if need be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tùrelio, I personally know David Pratelli and he gave me that file asking me to upload it because he is not able to use Wikimedia. To shorten the process and given that he donated the file to me to put that foto under public domain, I have declared that the file is mine. During the last days there have been some confusion because the first file provided by him was protected by copyright. I wasn't aware of that, trusted him and uploaded it. Now that file has been canceled, I guess. This new file is a personal portrait of David. Greetings to your cat! --Rapitango (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. But you still should ask him, who shot this photo and, if not shot by himself, whether he really has the rights to distribute it under a free license. The latter is quite different from using it for print or other limited purposes. Sadly, the cat is not mine. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i took this photo from wikipedia and they had the source as jeffery dahmer so i just copied it. so i don't think it is a breach of copyright if its already on wikipedia. is this correct?? i need this picture for a big school assignment, and i didn't think anything was wrong with it. also i'm not too sure how to work this chat thing but someone is wanting to take down my other photos, which i took myself.

I've already deleted the Dahmer photo after I found that it was under fair-use on :en, which confirmed my suspicion that it is not free. Fair-use is expressedly forbidden on Commons. If you want to use this photo on other Wikimedia projects, you should first check whether they accept fair-use. The child/berries photo (File:Little austin.jpg) had to be deleted because it was initially Flickr-sourced, but already 7 minutes after upload our Flickr-review bot found it to be unaccessable. I tried it myself and couldn't access it, even when logged-in on Flickr. Please sign your comments with --~~~~. --Túrelio (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry im finding all this wiki stuff a bit too hard to understand, i've got to use it for school but its crazy!. i get it now that i cant use wikipedia images im sorry i thought all wiki was the same. I have to put images in my 50% assignment due in a few days and am finding this frustrating. The little austin picture is my actual little cousin and i got the photo from my mums flickr. its telling me that i cannot just upload the picture from my computer now because it was deleted. does this mean that i can not use it again now? i dont want to keep having to change everything around if i cant use a photo that i took myself..... please help?!?! Esha434 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither I nor Wikimedia made the copyright laws. Though IANAL, if you want to use the Dahmer photo for educational purposes or in school, there is likely no problem. But publishing it, requires that the fair-use requirements of US law are met.

I don't really understand your problem with the "little austin picture". Obviously you provided a Flickr source, which wasn't correct, either because the URL was incorrect or because the license on Flickr differed from that on Commons. If the Flickr source is your account, why don't you make the image openly available, when you want to publish it on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I decided to stop contributing to Wikipedia. You lose a lot of time to add new publishers and without knowledge of the subject, arbitrarily editing pages. Do not want to be making comparisons and conflict of interest. Also not want to be wasting time discussing and arguing and getting.

Please remove the files that I added. These are listed below.

File:Saulo Luís da Silva.jpg;

File:Logo LQPN.png;

File:Logo(png) Saulo-pt.png;

File:C. warnerii semi alba.jpg

Thanks and good work.

Saulo Luís da Silva (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)saulo luís da silvaSaulo Luís da Silva (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

as you also listed File:Saulo Luís da Silva.jpg, which was not uploaded by User:Saulo Luís da Silva, but by User:Saulo.ufsj, do both accounts belong to you? --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third diagram is clearly in error, there must be a phase boundary between the beta phase and the liquid. Which uploader had fixed in File:Phase711.jpg. (And of course, such files should be SVG...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are sure about that. You are the physicist, though this isn't solid state ;-). Did you see this? --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer this map on top of all towns and villages on the island, but several changes and additions would have to be made. Who could and would work on it? -- Haubi (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ähem, was meinst du mit "on top of all towns and villages"? In den jeweiligen Wikipedia-Artikeln oder auf Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ähem,an der Einleitung der Thasos-Orts-Artikel--Haubi (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia. O.k., aber das ist doch kein Grund, um die unbeschrifteten Satellitenbilder als dupes zu löschen. Und bzgl. der Bearbeitung: warum versuchst du das nicht selbst zu machen? Zumal du ja weißt, was du letztendlich haben möchtest. Am besten nimmst du dir das am höchsten aufgelöste Sat.bild und fängst einfach an. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Category moves Category:Photographs by lens → Category:Photographs by lenses, Category:Photos taken with Canon lenses → Category:Photographs taken with Canon lenses etc. were controversial and thus they should not have been made without discussion. (See Category talk:Photographs by lens#Deletion, Category talk:Photos taken with Canon lenses#Deletion, and User talk:Stunteltje#Category:Photos_taken_with_Canon_lenses for more information.) I'll re-created the deleted categories and undo the moves. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they carried a badname-speedy tag that looked quite plausible. Anyway, feel free to undelete/recreate them. However, now it might make more sense to take the cat-discussion to a broader audience and to wait until consensus has been reached. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not mean to blame you (or anyone else). What I meaned was that the {{Badname}} template should not have been used in the first place, and I just wanted to notice you about re-creation of the categories to avoid edit wars etc.

I recreated the Category:Photographs by lens category because I think it is similar to "by country" and "by city" categories, for example. However, I didn't re-create the other categories but started a discussion here. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 19:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! Ich will mir keinen Editwar mit Pieter Kuiper liefern, der meine Markierungen erneut zurücksetzt. Kannst du bei File:Wilhelm Engelhard von Nathusius d.J. - Foto, Uniform 1.JPG, File:Annemarie von nathusius, Foto Sessel, Unterschrift.JPG, File:Wilhelm Engelhard von Nathusius d.J. - Foto, Uniform 1.JPG und File:Annemarie von nathusius, Foto Sessel, Unterschrift.JPG bitte einmal sagen, welche Markierungen angebracht sind? Eine reguläre DR, wie Pieter mir rät, scheint mir in urheberrechtlichen Angelegenheiten verkehrt. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Bisherige Diskussionen dazu auf seiner und meiner Disk. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hab nur gerade vorm zubettgehen nochmal vorbeigeschaut. Also, bei den beiden alten Fotos, die schon über 1 Jahr auf Commons liegen und keine völlig offensichtlichen copyvios sind (sondern nur möglicherweise, IMHO), wäre eine reguläre DR tatsächlich besser, weil es leichter eine Diskussion erlaubt als ein speedy. Bei den beiden neuen, auf deiner Disku diskutierten Fotos ist die Lage ja völlig anders; werde ich morgen mal reinschauen. --Túrelio (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte angefangen die SLAs gegen permission-tags auszutauschen, aber auch die revertiert Pieter z.B. mit "old". Ich ging davon aus, dass die tags lediglich als Auftakt zu einer Klärung (bei nicht offensichtlichen Fällen) und der Information des Uploaders dienen, damit er zur Klärung beitragen kann. Und dass in normalen DRs eher Fragen zum Projektziel u.ä. erörtert würden. Eine Klärung hatte ich auf seiner Disk. auch exemplarisch begonnen. Er hat die überwiegende Zahl der Bilder mit PD-old lizenziert, obwohl der Urheber nicht (sicher) seit 70 Jahren tot ist. An manchen davon hat er sich selbst als Urheber eingetragen, weil diese Bilder im Familienbesitz sind. Möglicherweise ist er Teil einer Erbengemeinschaft und (mit Zustimmung der anderen) Rechteinhaber für die von seinen Vorfahren erstellten Bilder/Texte, eventuell gilt das auch für Auftrags-Portraits seiner Vorfahren, falls diese mit einer Rechteübertragung verbunden waren. Bisher hat er das aber noch nicht bestätigt, sondern hielt sie wohl einfach für alt genug bzw. sozusagen in seinem Besitz und damit zur freien Verfügung. Wir sprechen da über zig bis hunderte Fotos, von denen ich nur ein paar exemplarisch markiert habe. Für jedes Foto eine eigene DR zu starten würde viel Zeit (nicht nur meine) kosten. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da Wistula nach meinem ersten Eindruck völlig kooperativ ist (und es auch keine Sprachprobleme gibt), könnte man das ganze Problem auch informell direkt mit ihm klären. Wenn du dir die Zeit dafür nehmen kannst/willst (zumal dabei ja das LA-Stellen überflüssig wird), dann fasse doch einfach die Bilder mit gleichgelagerter Problematik jeweils in einer Auflistung zusammen und schreibe dazu, was da jeweils von ihm erwartet wird. Falls du das zeitlich nicht hinkriegst, auch kein Drama, dann werde ich versuchen, mich im Lauf der nächsten Wochen darum zu kümmern. Sofern "Familienbilder" betroffen sind, ist das m.E. eh nicht so brandeilig, weil einerseits deren schnelle Verbreitung unwahrscheinlich ist, andererseits ich letztendlich einen positiven Ausgang erwarte. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ich kümmer mich um eine informelle Klärung und melde mich, falls es Probleme gibt. Danke erstmal bis hierher. --Martina Nolte (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[12]: Sorry, I was considering that this is obvious but I'm culturally biased. :) The picture could be found in almost every primary school Bulgarian language textbook. Even the Bulgarian description made by the uploader himself says "scanned from an old drawing". A quick search gives several publications before the upload here: [13], [14]. --Спас Колев (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Is there any chance that this image is already PD (public domain) due to age or whatever? --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can see that the Picture "The Eye" is deleted from the page Bertram Schmiterlöw due to copyright issue. I own the copyrihgt to this picture (I am a relative of the artist) and It is perfectly all right that this picture is on Wikipedia. Truly yours Nimmasanima Could you help to ad that Bertram Schmiterlöw is Knight of Swedeish Wasaorden and Knight of Orden Libertador san Martin? in the english and spannish articles please? I am not reallay the one to ad this information due to family reasons. Thank you in advance. Truly ours Nimmasanima

Hi Nimmasanima,

the image File:The Eye - ögat.jpg has been deleted from the article because it was completely deleted from Commons, because Schmiterlöw died in 2002 and his works, inculding any reproductions, are therefore copyrighted until 2072. If you are the only copyright holder for the painting and the photo of it, then you can sent a permission to OTRS and release the photo under a free license. To do that, jump to Commons:Email templates, copy the boxed "Declaration of consent for all enquiries", enter the above filename and the license of choice (recommended: CC-BY-SA [15]), put your legal name and the date under it and mail it back to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This email will not be published and can only be accessed by our OTRS volunteers. This is the only way I see to get this image restored. --Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hola quiero saber cual es el problema con mis imagenes? son tomadas por mi y la de Juan Pueblo yo la dibuje en Adobe Illustrator,.,.,,., respondeme por favor, saludos XD.,..

I have replied on your talkpage User talk:Wiki2010XD. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio, ich besitze das Gemälde Hommage an Pier Paolo Pasolini gemalt von meinem vertorbenen Mann Vaclav Sprungl, und möchte eine Abbildung des Bildes in Commons speichern. Diese Bild wurde von Dir wegen Urheberechteverletzung gelöscht. Was muss ich genau tun (Lizens?) damit das Bild wieder verfügbar ist bzw. nicht wieder gelöscht wird

mit freundlichen Grüßen! Ivana Sprungl - Celivan (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Celivan/Ivana,

aus dem Namen Celivan konnte ich natürlich nicht die Verwandtschaft mit Vaclav Sprungl ersehen. Mach bitte folgendes: gehe zu Commons:Emailvorlagen, kopiere dir die umrahmte "Einverständniserklärung" (ggf. auch in anderen Sprachen verfügbar, wenn dir das lieber ist), setze den Datennamen (oder mehrere, falls du sie zusammenfassen möchtest) und die von dir gewünschte Lizenz ein. Dann setze deinen Realnamen und das Datum dadrunter und maile alles an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org. Wenn du das gemacht hast, gib mir wieder hier Bescheid, dann kann ich das Bild ent-löschen und mit einem Schutzlabel versehen, damit es in der Zeit, die unsere OTRS-Mitarbeiter für die Prüfung benötigen, nicht nochmal gelöscht wird. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Túrelio,

ich habe die Mail heute verschickt, danke für die Anleitung, Gruß Ivana Celivan (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; ich habe File:Hommage an Pier Paolo Pasolini.jpg erst einmal ent-löscht. --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried a few times to get CommonsDelinker to do the universal replacement on File:Tarnow COA.svg. It is like for like with the filetype, however, it does not progress. It shows at [[16]] though for replacements it just shows an oldie. Thoughts?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've no patent remedy for such cases. I've now manually replaced all uses except those on :pl and, once again, ordered the DeLinker to replace it. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black magic! I so love the manual replacements, so so so so so lovely.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are Narayana-publishers, a publishing-house for homeopathic literature. We would like to use your photo of Mother Teresa in a book about famous people all over the world using homeopathy. Thank you very much. Narayana-publishers, Kandern, Germany 12:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Gerne; dabei bitte den vorgesehenen Bildquellennachweis angeben. Außerdem würde ich mich freuen, wenn du anschließend hier die URL (sofern verfügbar) oder die bibliographischen Angaben des Buches posten könntest. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the information for you required. --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But, I think we have a problem here. As being a statue by a contemporary artist, it is still copyrighted and, regrettably, the freedom-of-panorama-provision of Argentina excludes sculptures. --Túrelio (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Turelio. Danke fuer deine Hilfe in meiner Ordnung Arbeit der Kategorien Italy. Nun frage ich mich warum du eine Diskussion beauftragt hast fuer die Aenderung des namens "Wells in Grosseto", da alle parallel namen als "Water wells" formuliert sind. Es ist doch gar keine Diskussion wert! Soeben fragte ich mich nochmals warum du wieder eine Diskussion beantragt hast fuer die Aenderung der namen der Kategorien der Provinz "Massa-Carrara" in die korrekte formulierung "Massa and Carrara", da die Diskussion - wie angegeben - schon statt gefunden hat. Danke fuer deine Antwort. Liebe Gruesse, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ähem, ich bin mir nicht klar, worauf du dich beziehst. Eigentlich erinnere ich mich nicht irgendeine Kat.-diskussion angestossen zu haben, zumal ich das i.a. sehr ungern tue. Beziehst du dich vielleicht hierauf und [17]? Falls ja, das ist keine Kat.diskussion, obwohl die Vorlagenachricht den Eindruck erweckt, sondern der übliche Befehl, wenn eine nicht-leere Kat. verschoben werden soll. Ich kann sie dann ja nicht einfach löschen und habe natürlich auch keine Lust, jede Datei manuell umzukategorisieren, wenn das ein bot machen kann. Hattest du das gemeint? --Túrelio (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nein. Fuer "Wells in Grosseto" ist keine Diskussion vorhanden; nur eine Sache von coherence with the other parallel categories. Diskussion hatten wir im "Bar italiano" ueber die namen der doppelten Provinzen Italiens. Die Angabe findest du im Delinker, wo ich eben die Aenderung der namen verlangte. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetzt versteh ich garnichts mehr. Du hattest geschrieben "warum du eine Diskussion beauftragt hast". Aber ich wüsste nicht dass ich das überhaupt getan habe. --Túrelio (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich meinte soeben hier oder hier oder hier. Fuer die "Wells in Grosseto" hast ja den Antrag unterdessen gestrichen, samt der Kategorie. Ueber die doppelten Provinz Namen die Discussion wäre hier. Wahrscheinlich wusstest du gar nichts davon. Entschuldige mich bitte wenn ich nicht klar gewesen bin, oder wenn ich mich falsch ausgedruckt habe. Liebe Gruesse, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS: Ok, verstanden: die Cats sind nicht leer und die Vorlagenachricht ist (noch) keine Diskussion. Entschuldige bitte nochmals, wenn ich es falsch verstanden habe. Tchüss: --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACK. Kein Problem. --Túrelio (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created category:Children in military costumes. Still I supplement this category and other categories to each my files. What you propose to the description: "This is only the costume. The Polish law prohibit recruiting of children to the army".? Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is o.k. The second seems too openly defensive. Instead, I would add to the first sentence a reason/rationale about why they are wearing these costumes (remembrance of ...; like a sort of re-enactment play) and eventually someting about the popularity of this celebration/parade in the general population, which I expect to be quite popular, especially after the April 10 catastrophe. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invented the suitable caution. Temporarily only in one file. Please, evaluate: file:preparation to Parade of Independence in Gdańsk during Independence Day 2010 - 18.jpg. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have received your message about UAI Urquiza logo which I had been uploaded via Commons. Other user let me know about this issue and therefore I then replaced the wrong file in wikipedia.

Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how are you! Sorry, my english is very bad. But I treat to speak to you. Look: The User:Robertoe are uploaded some photos in copyvio. They photos are the following:

Please, delete this copyvios. Thank you for your understand.

P.D: And now, you respond to me in Spanish please. Greetings!!! --Diego HC (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por la notificatión. Saludos. --Túrelio (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I invented the suitable caution. Temporarily only in one file. Please, evaluate: file:preparation to Parade of Independence in Gdańsk during Independence Day 2010 - 18.jpg. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen it, but wasn't totally convinced. However, at that time I'm too tired to provide you a better proposal. Tomorrow. --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viewers were not obliged to costumes. If a participant does not has a costume, the equivalent was a vehicle. Because I do not know German language, please also add the issue of vehicles. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that all is well here, I proceed to describe the other files in this category: File:Preparation to Parade of Independence in Gdańsk during Independence Day 2010 - 01.jpg. Greetings. --21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)~

Yes, I think so. Probably for the description in Polish you don't need our "disclaimer" ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee that in Poland nobody thinks otherwise. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, recien estoy aprendiendo a subir imagenes, borra nomas las que te parecen inapropiadas, voy a tratar de subir imagenes respetando los derechos.

Dear Túrelio,

As in the past Mark Griffiths, a cyclamen specialist, had kindly provided me with these unique pictures for the purpose of completing pages of the French, English and Dutch Wikipedias, for which no picture was available yet.

Yesterday evening I have sent Mark a message, in which I am asking him to confirm to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" that these 8 pictures, as well the 22 others, which were uploaded in the past (for which a message similar to that I have sent to you was found satisfactory), are actually under "GNU Free Documentation License", using the Wikimedia form "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" for this purpose.

Hopefully Mark Griffiths will reply promptly. As soon Wikimedia receives Mark Griffiths’ e-mail, Wikimedia will at once restore the upload of the 8 pictures, which were removed in the meantime. Hopefully Mark will not be discouraged by this bureaucratic procedure, so that Wikimedia will take advantage of his expertise in the future.

Kindly yours, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it looks to be a "bureaucratic procedure", but releasing an image under a free license is actually a legal act with long-lasting and long-ranging consequences, though we do it every day. Requesting an explicite permission under a specific license ensures (more or less) that the rights holder is made aware of what he is doing and at the same time provides our re-users with a certain safety not to be sued by a rights holder who doesn't want his images printed on commercial book covers, posters or coffee-cups. --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Túrelio, although I have used the same procedure as I did in 2007 and 2008 for uploading a total of 22 pictures, which I got from Mark Griffiths, doing so was considered this time as "copyright violation". Are the rules or the policy actually changed? I was not aware of it and I was really shocked by the fact that they were simply removed. Mark and I have a 7-year collaboration. He provided me already in 2003 pictures for my publication on Cyclamen in the luxurious magazine Les jardins d'Eden. Moreover he let me know that he is happy with the pages I have written on Cyclamen species on the French wikipedia, particularly that on Cyclamen cyprium with pictures of his own, which I thereafter also put on the existing English page. Hopefully Mark will fill-in the Declaration of consent for all enquiries and send it soon to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, so that these valuable pictures can be re-uploaded. Hopefully too he will not be discouraged by this hanky-panky to provide wikimedia in the future with pictures of cyclamens or other inspiring plants. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Réginald, I didn't know of that and I'll contact my deleting colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi colleague,
as to my experience Réginald is a totally reliable user and, in addition, we were already in communication about "updating" the licensing of the Griffiths-photos to our current requirements (see [18] and [19]). Therefore, yesterdays deletions are rather unfortunate and IMHO unnecessary, especially as Réginald has already contacted Griffiths for a permission. I would suggest undeleting the files and adding an OTRS-pending tag. --Túrelio (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Túrelio,

I haven't seen your discussion before tonight. As we haven't any clear permission yet in OTRS, these pictures are still copyvio. But thank to your message, I will not delete the other pictures but just tag them as no permission.--Bapti ✉ 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Túrelio, thank you for your kind support.

As expected Mark Griffiths has confirmed in the late evening to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" that these 8 pictures, as well the 22 others, which were uploaded in the past, are actually under "GNU Free Documentation License", using the duely filled-in Wikimedia form "Declaration of consent for all enquiries".

I have asked Bapti to inform me if he by chance finds similar instances among the more than 2,500 pictures I have uploaded to inform me so that I can take the required measures for regularising it (hopefully without removing them as he did for the last 8 uploads).

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your colleague Bapti has yet neither re-uploaded the last pictures nor removed the "no permission" from the other 22. Is there something wrong? Thank you again for helping me in this boring issue. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too busy in real-life today and I don't know enough French to understand what he wrote on your talkpage. Better ask him directly whether there is any unsolved problem or why the last images aren't yet un-deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A real kafkaian situation! Mark Griffiths has two different e-mail addresses. The one with which he replied is not the same as that mentioned on his website. Cédric has asked me to ask him to confirm that the Mark Griffiths who replied is the same as the Mark Griffiths I have asked for confirming the license. Hopefully Mark will not find it ridiculous. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation has been sent by Mark that one single Mark Griffiths is using the two e-mail adresses. Hopefully everything is now OK. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news. I hope that over this weekend all files covered by the permission are restored. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a major maintenance is required for the FoP section of several countries

1. Kindly look at this page File talk:Dubai 051.JPG
2. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
3. All countries signed the agreement for protecting the copyright and No FoP as per This

Kindly finalize the FoP in UAE and the above doubts...Cooper Talk page is having some more details...Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio, bitte siehe in der File Discussion [20] meine Antwort zu dem Speedy Deltion Request. In Kürze: ich habe das Deletion-Template vorläufig mit nowiki deaktiviert. Herzlichen Dank für die Bemühungen.--Cayambe (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Túrelio,

I am now retired from my professional life. In my former profession I was known as a honest and integer man. Hopefully it so too by the Wikipedia foundation.

I am always amazed by the intransigence and the user-unfriendliness of some bureaucratic administrators. I have experienced it too in my former professional life. The attitude of such people has discouraged in the past some of my contact persons, who even discontinued a long-lasting collaboration. I fear that the same has already occurred and will occur in the future with Wikimedia users if these people are not changing their attitude. Let's think about it.

To avoid further administrative hanky-panky I have asked an old lady, who is a friend of mine, provided me with some pictures in the beginning of my "carrier" with Wikimedia, and allowed me to use them as they were of my own, to provide "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" with a formal document using the duly filled-in Wikimedia form "Declaration of consent for all enquiries". She did it promptly. In my mind this was not required, but who knows what intransigent people do think about it... Hopefully the list is complete and, if I have forgotten some of these pictures, they will not be put "Copyright violation". In my professional life "protocol violation" was nearly a synonym of "fraud", a reason for a blame, even for dismissal.

If you find this message unsuitable, do not hesitate to discard it.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The old lady let me moreover know that she already found pictures of her own, she had put on an internet folder, which were put by other (less honest) users on Commons without mentioning that she was the originator of them. She is not angry by it and does of course not want to prosecute them for "copyright violation". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered in the meantime too that I had got 3 pictures from the University Paul Cézanne, Aix-Marseilles, France of the scarce Acis fabrei, an endemic of the Mont Ventoux.

I asked yesterday the originator Katia Diadema, who allowed me to use it for wikimedia, for sending a "Declaration of consent for all enquiries of license" to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>. She has done it today.

Hopefully all my uploads which could potentially be considered as "Copyright violation" are so regularised.

Thank you again for your appreciated, helpful support, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such images, if uploaded by an user in good standing, should be considered (and eventually tagged) as "missing permission", but not "copyright violation" in the first instance. I do understand your frustration. However, for those of us searching for the 10% (my estimation) blatantly copyviolating uploads and constantly dealing with uploaders who make deliberately bogus claims of authorship, it seems sometimes not to be that easy to discern between users in good standing and the bad ones. Also, when putting 100 copyvio-notes a day on talkpages of careless uploaders, one may forget the bad impression such a copyvio-note may make to a good user who just forgot something or made a wrong entry. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted on December 3, 2010. I will be able to provide licensing information by Monday or Tuesday afternoon. The same goes for File:Ayala_BAC_Picture_2009-2010.JPG and File:Ayala_High_School_View.JPG. In the meantime, is it possible to restore the original image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiarcot895 (talk • contribs) 4. Dezember 2010, 21:42 Uhr (UTC)

Help! Dear Túrelio, I am asking you for arbitrage. Because I wanted to be fully honest I have mentioned to Cédric, that in the beginning of my carrier (2007-2008, a period when I did not yet make so many pictures by myself) I have asked a nice old lady - a freak as I of gardens - whether she could provide Wikimedia of some pictures of Trillium, Erythronium and Cyclamen. At that time she provided me with pictures of them by e-mail, confirming by the same that she allowed me to upload them on Commons. I did so and informed Commons by the same that I was allowed by her to do it. She allowed me too to look at her own paying pages on Pixagogo and, if suitable for my created wiki-pages, to upload other pictures from these pages on Commons. These pictures constitute in total less than 0.5 % of the about 2,500 pictures I have uploaded to Commons.

I have made with her a list of the uploaded pictures and she has sent an attestation of licence to Cédric for them. In addition, she has communicated the address of her Pixagogo pages so that they can be checked. Cédric is apparently not yet satisfied, because it is apparently not enough to prove that Francine Riez is actually the author of these pictures.

I begin to be riled. I have the feeling that Cédric does not trust nor Francine neither me. Does he consider us impostors? What should we further do to convince him ? Please advise.

Again, thank you in advance for your appreciated support, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Réginald, sorry for not answering earlier. But I was busy over the last days and couldn't really digg into. Anyway, I got signal from Bapti that your permission process is going well. Our OTRS-volunteers, as Bapti, have to be fussy in their work. It's not a bug, it's a feature ;-). But the permission checking may take some time. Recently, I had to wait for de-OTRS-confirmation for full 6 weeks, even though permission had been sent with upload. So, be patient and confident that every will be fine in the end. --Túrelio (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio. I have newly joined the OTRS team and is planning to actively take part in looking after OTRS permisions. Is there a group in OTRS in commons that I should be part of? Can you help me with that? --Sreejith K (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, problem is that I am not an OTRS volunteer. You might ask User:Bapti, for example. --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for rationale for my speedy photo deletion requests for my gallery. My main reason is that I recently had a bad experience with Buick, and I do not wish to "endorse" their products with my photography. In addition, three od the vehicles in the gallery are my personal cars, and I no longer wish to have them displayed. Thank you. 131.123.178.68 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are User:Mopar89, thanks for the feedback. O.k., but that is definitively not a speedy-reason. You should then file regular deletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quando trovo un file con titolo errato, propongo lo spostamento, per poi proporre la cancellazione del vecchio titolo. Tuttavia sono in grado anch'io di effettuare lo spostamento. Credi sia più giusto continuare così (doppio controllo per evitare possibili errori) oppure è meglio che effettui lo spostamento da solo ? --Ligabo (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC) [When I find a file with the wrong title, I suggest moving to proposing the cancellation of the old title. However I are able to make the move. Do you think it more just go on like this (double check to avoid possible errors) or is it better to make the journey alone ?][reply]

Sorry, I can answer only in english (or german, if you prefer): To command a file-rename, add {{Rename}} plus a reason for the renaming (if it is not evident). The actual renaming can only performed by admins and authorized users. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Grazie e buona giornata. --Ligabo (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC) [OK. Thank you and good day.][reply]

Hi. You have recently nominate for speedy deletion some of the images I have uploaded: 1.File:Simmons-flyer.png, 2.File:ACS-Law Poster.png, 3.File:Op-flyer.jpg, 4.File:Avenge Assange Anonymous.png The given reason is Derivated works. Lets see if I understand.

• The problem with Image 1. is the photo of Gene Simmons.
• with the 2 is the photo of the person.
• the img 3 is the wikileaks logo + photo of julian and the solider at the back
• the 4 are the logos/pics at the bottom and julian's pic.

If I'm right, I propose this solution: Do not delete the images, I can edit the image and take out the copyrighted parts. If the images without its copyrighted parts no longer make sense (like image 3) I will mark it for deletion. Tell me what do you think. Thanks --Neo139 (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neo139,

quite right. In the 3rd image it's only Assange, as I don't care about WL's logo. In the 4th image it's mainly the pictures of people. I doubt that the PayPal logo is copyrightable, though it's likely trademarked. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]