User talk:JuTa/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi JuTa,

I just uploaded File:WoW Corrupted Blood Plague.jpg for inclusion in the spanish wikipedia article on the subject (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidente_de_la_Sangre_Corrupta), much like it is in the english wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupted_Blood_incident). I didn't realize such a fair-use image was inappropriate por Wikimedia Commons, which now makes it clear to me why it was hosted locally at the english wikipedia site, instead of here.

Now realizing this, I will remove this image from Wikimedia Commons immediately, and would like to sincerely apologize for the mistake.

DJulivert (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I haven't been able to find how/where to delete it. The copyright statement for fair-use generated an automatic speedy deletion template. Is this enough for the image to be removed, or should I do something else? Sorry for bothering you, and thanks for your patience. DJulivert (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the template you or somebory else added {{Non-free use rationale}} leeds to a speedy deletion request. Another admin allready deleted it inbetween. regards. --JuTa 18:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(JuTa moved page Category:Industrial steam locomotives of Britain to Category:Industrial steam locomotives of the United Kingdom: per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Industrial locomotives of Britain)

...and many other categories. See Category talk:Industrial electric locomotives of the United Kingdom too.

That was a crap move. It used a three year old CfD as justification, a CfD that showed no sign of consensus whatsoever. It now manages to overlap Ireland and the UK (a political minefield) and it combines the NI broad gauge stock with British mainland standard gauge stock (a technical error). In no way did this make categorization better.

How about a couple of English editors come and re-name the principalities of Germany from a sense of sheer ignorance? Maybe mix up Brandenburg and Magdeburg a bit, because they sound much the same? It should be a key principle at WP that if you aren't familiar with a subject, then don't mess with it. This doesn't seem to stop either you or Sju (author of the "train driving cockpit" rubbish a while back). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just trying work work on the very long on old backlog of Category:Categories for discussion by month, where no other admin was working on for over 3 years now. And in Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Industrial locomotives of Britain i saw you as the only one opposing the move. I could follow the argunements pro move. You ight like to recreate the ... of Britain categories as subcatgies of the ... of the United Kingdom ones an sort suitibale images a cats across. regards --JuTa 14:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So if a CfD has been opposed, ground to a halt and is now sitting there moribund, you think that it's a good idea to come along and action it anyway, without further discussion, just to "clear a backlog"? That is a ridiculous prioritisation of admin process over quality, sadly a frequent occurrence in your editing 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. --JuTa 12:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That much has been obvious for a long time. Have you even read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Very sorry I hastily put on the web without asking permission of the snapshots' author. I requested today the grant of the author and will post again soon. BR, PhL

Hi, the copyright holder has to send an email to the commons support team releasing the images under a free license like documented in Commons:OTRS. The license {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded. regards. --JuTa 12:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

I received in reply to my request today the following (my mail quoted underneath):

eBay eBay a envoyé ce message à Philippe LEBOURG (ph.cl.l).

Le nom associé à votre compte est inclus pour indiquer que ce message provient bien d'eBay. En savoir plus

Le vendeur a répondu à votre question concernant cet objet

Bonjour ph.cl.l,

Bonjour,

Oui pas de soucis, j'accepte !

Cordialement.

- ledamoiseau

--------------------------------------------------------------------

De : ph.cl.l

A : ledamoiseau

Objet : Autre : ph.cl.l a envoyé un message concernant l'objet Rosette pin's médaille :d'officier des palmes académiques, diamètre: 6 mm n° 371098515579

Date de l'envoi : 14-sept.-14 09:28:35 Paris

Bonjour ledamoiseau,

Bonjour!

Dans un souci de partage et d'exhaustivité des informations sur wikipedia, j'ai souhaité ajouter une photo d'épinglette pour la rosette violette des palmes académiques à l'article Palmes académiques du site. J'aurais besoin de votre autorisation pour pouvoir fournir cet ajout de photos au site Commons Media qui gère ces documents car, un peu ignorant et expéditif, j'ai hâtivement transmis le fichier sans vous informer (désolé). Commons media (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/fr) demande une action pour rectifier. :Aussi vous demandé-je humblement: êtes-vous prêt à accorder les droits sur image des photos de cet article pour une telle utilisation en vue du bien public sur un site d'information général?

Merci d'avance.

- ph.cl.l

I am not sure that the owner is wanting to spend time in filling a form and sending new messages, but I'm asking this very night... BR, PhL

Hi, he has to name or agree to a specific license. Otherwise the OTRS stuff will not accept it. And the mail should be send to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. regards. --JuTa 21:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Why was this file deleted? The author agreed an, has sent the permission and got a confirmation. I just wanted to repeat the procedure, but the uploader refused to get the same picture. There are even three further pictures with art of Margarete Wiggen, that were also deleted. -PeterBraun74 (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi PeterBraun74, for images with template {{OTRS pending}} there is normaly a period of 30 days to be handeled through OTRS. If nothing happens during this period the template automaticly adds a {{No permission since}}, and about a week later the images get deleted. I don't know what the problem was in this case, but no OTRS volounteer picked up that case. There have might been ambiguities or the OTRS stuff might have been to busy with other cases (I'm not an OTRS member). You should ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for this image/ticket. If the release is valid the image will be undeleted withouts problems. regards. --JuTa 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• mtiです。おはようございます。さて、私があげた市町村と旗のファイルの削除の件ですが、著作権の違反がありましたので、削除してください。--Mti (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the deletion request(s) will normaly run for a week. I just cleaned up "your mess". All your requests were incomplete because the were not listed on the todays request log page. I decided to merge them together to one request to keep discussion together. For the future: Please try to realy create complete deletion requests. thanks. --JuTa 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Im looking into what happened with the file:PalestinaPuerto.jpg.If you do not know, this photo and the article on Palestina, Peru, were created as part of a project that became a documentary called "The Web" (teaser here [1]) I am in Mexico City and, inspired by the film, we are starting a project to do something similar with primary schools in the city. However, its hard to use the article as an example as there is no photo for it and the documentary clearly showed photos being taken and uploaded. I can contact the director of the film, but we need to know what needs to be done to restore the image. Thank you! Thelmadatter (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thelmadatter, the image was deleted last year because of the lack of any license given on the file description page. It was uploaded by an declared as own work of User:Michael.Kleiman, who is not active anymore since 2010 when he uploaded that image. If you contact the director of that film to ask for (another?) free image: He should send an email to the commons support team which clealy states that he is the author and/or copyright of the image(s) and clearly chooses a free license. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded. The procedure is documented on Commons:OTRS. There you find example texts for such an email as well. regards. --JuTa 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have emailed Mr. Kleiman and hopefully we can get some images back up on the page. Ive been using it and the clip from the documentary to help develop a similar project here in Mexico City.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, permission for this file was send with permission for File:ModerusAlfaHF01.jpg. Could you check it in OTRS? Therud (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot, because I'm not an OTRS volounteer. You can ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for it. If you know the license the auto likes to publish the image you should replace the {{Remove this line and insert a license instead}} with that license. regards. --JuTa 10:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

[2] Can you please explain why this image was deleted? I don't understand why sourcing is important, since it is a photograph of a person as a teenager who went on to fight in the U.S. Civil War, hence evading all copyright issues. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick7, you are talking about File:Cadet William S. Simpkins.JPG, right? Well the image just had a description and a license ,no source, no author, no date. It even could have been a fake a depicting a complete different person. Sources a allways important - compare Commons:Source. Anyhow, I had a deeper look into it and found a source. I undeleted the image an completed the description page. But I fear that the source page I found is based on the wikipedia page about him, then the source would be a circular source and could get invalid. No guarantee that anybody woul raise another deletion request by that reasoning. regards. --JuTa 18:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And, yeah, I'm having a similar problem. Simkins was more or less completely forgotten when I wrote the article back in late 2007, but in 2010 some academic out West claimed to have "discovered" Simkins more or less co-founded one of the earliest branches of the KKK (probably by, ya know, reading Wikipedia) and it blew up into a small scandal and plenty of source churn on the Internet has since occurred as a result (even my old college dormitory ultimately got renamed). Whatever source I had, it represented the portrait as essentially a Citadel yearbook photo, but I all I remember now is being miffed of not quite being able to sort out what year, short of taking a road trip to South Carolina. I'm not usually this sloppy though; is it possible the source got lost when it got transferred to the Commons in 2012? Then again, it wouldn't be the first time I got exited about unearthing an image from the distant past and screwed up the process! -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, digging further, I don't know if we had, or if I was simply unaware of, such sourcing requirements back in 2007, given that I gave no source for w:File:Robert_Meacham.JPG, a political opponent of Simkins during his Florida days. Although that file stands to be transferred to the Commons eventually, re-sourcing it shouldn't be too difficult, given a lack of scandal in between.... -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ju Ta, I see you used the "this file may be deleted" tag in our file Los políticos. Thank you for your time! I need some help, because I'm new in wikipedia. There is a lot information about licenses, but I don't Know what to use in this case. The image was taken by Nora Lezano, a renamed artist in Argentina. We pay her for the job, as official photographer, so we used the image in all the communications, we have the rights to distribute the picture. What license may I use? Because I am not sure what is specific for this case. Thank you! Regards. --Gp3f (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if you own the copyright of the image File:Los Políticos.jpg, you should send an email to the commons support team as documented on Commons:OTRS, confirming your ownership and choosing one or more free licenses you wish to publish it. Once you've sent that email you should {{subst:OP}} to the Permission field of the file description page. Somebody else inbetween added a license and removed the problem tag. If you don't agree to that license you may change it. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded but the are a lot of more possibilities. I will now wait a few days an if nothing happens on the file description page mark it as "no permission", because we cannot be sure that the licenses are OK or an i cannot be sure that you even read my answer here. regards. --JuTa 18:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello JuTa, the file "File:NVWA_Catherijnesingel_Utrecht.jpg" will be deleted. However, this file is taken from the official website of this governmental organization and depicts its headquarters. On the official website "http://www.nvwa.nl/organisatie/adressen/utrecht" just below this photo, it is stated "Om te downloaden: hoofdkantoor NVWA"; in English: To download: headquarters NVWA". To my opinion this means that this particular photo is free for download and may be used by whoever wants to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexernl (talk • contribs) 2014-09-25T20:05:54‎ (UTC)

Hi, a permission to download an image does not neccessarily mean a permission to use that image for any purpose for anybody worldwide, which is a requirement on commons. Please see Commons:Licensing for details. You are allowed to download and watch the image on your private PC at home, but its unclear if you are permitted to i.e. print it in a book or on t-shirts and sell that. regards. --JuTa 22:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Siehe hier [3]. Kannst Du das erklären? --79.240.250.100 20:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ich bin zwar nicht JuTa und ich kann hier auf Commons auch keine gelöschten Dateien einsehen, aber wenn das fragliche Bild keine Quellenangaben hatte, dann war die Löschung vollkommen in Ordnung. Weniger lachhaft, aber ziemlich dumm ist es halt, wenn man nicht weiß, wo ein Bild herkommt und die Uploader vergessen, sowas anzugeben. Selbst wenn das ein offizielles Foto des US-Kongresses war: freie Lizenzbausteine verteilen kann jeder auf Commons, aber es muss auch nachvollziehbar sein. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, da war leider keinerlei Quelle angegeben. Es stan dort mal "transfered from en: ..." aber as ist keine valide Quelle. Das Bild hatte also jemand ohne Quelle auf en: hochgeladen und jemand anderes hatte dies dann nach Commons hochgeladen. Ein dritter benutzer markierte es vor gut einer Woche als "missing source" und ich habs dann schließlich gelöscht als ich die entsprechende Tageskategorie abgearbeitet hatte. Gruß --JuTa 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

köszi tőrlést is kiszáltam inét a wikiméda cosmso bol köszönöm az edigi segicséget — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbera levente (talk • contribs) 2014-09-30T10:59:26‎ (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand, and google translate does not realy help here. Could you try to translate it to english? Thx. --JuTa 15:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JuTa, on September 28 you executed deletion of audio file File:Cs-Krusne_hory.ogg (this is the Czech name for the Erzgebirge Mountains). Thank you for your well intended cleaning effort but in this case I feel it was done in vain. :-) Why? Here is the explanation: Today I returned to the Commons after a summer absence and learned that there were a notice of pending deletion on my talk page some 10 days earlier (of course I was away from the project thus unaware about that warning at that time). The deletion was apparently due to lack of source information. And indeed, there was no such info attached. But bear in mind that in 2005 there was no upload form with mandatory source info like today. In fact I am not only the uploader but also the creator of this file (and of c. 100 others from that period representing Czech pronunciation of various prominent geographical or personal names). Most of the files feature my voice, a smaller fraction feature voice of another person, now deceased, whose relative and sole heir I am. Alltogether this makes me the only person legally responsible and legally authorised for copyright of those files and as such I would like to ask you for restoring of the file. In order to prevent any future RfD on other related (and so far 9 years unchallenged) files I am going to add the source (i.e. that I am the creator) statement to their description pages. Unfortunately I am very busy outside Commons in these days and not sure whether I would be able to appropriately update all the descriptions to current standards within this week or so. But anyway I'll try to do so as soon as possible. Thanks again in advance for your understanding and collaboration (and BTW best regards to the upcoming national holiday of your country :-)) --Miaow Miaow (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Miaow Miaow, I undeleted the file and renewed the problem tag now. Please update the decription page within a week before the file gets deleted again. regards. --JuTa 07:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JuTa,

I added the required data link for the source so people can now verify the copyright status of the photo. I also added the permissions link associated with the photograph. The author is as previously mentioned but can now be verified through the source link. I apologize JuTa for the mistake, it seems like about the time I think I have everything figured out in life, I then realize I have much more to learn LOL. Thank you for your time and also your help in keeping me in order. --Patriot1514 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,

Patriot1514

Hi Patriot1514, thanks for fixing the source. Unfortunately the image has been published on flickr with a "non commercial" license, which is not accepted on commons. Every content on commons has to be reuseable for anybody in the work for any purpose, in including commercial ones. I marked the image by that reason as "no permission" now. regards. --JuTa 07:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JuTa,

Thanks for the quick response! I apologize for the mishap on my part, I did not realize the photo was required to have a commercial license to be accepted on commons. I will remove the photo from the page immediately, its a shame its such a beautiful photo. Again I apologize for the mishap, thank you for your time and help JuTa. --Patriot1514 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,

Patriot1514

Hi Juta, You removed photo Larry Wall and Olga Kowalska on YAPC 2013 Kyiv.jpg. Prior you left me a message saying: “Thanks for uploading File:Larry Wall and Olga Kowalska on YAPC 2013 Kyiv.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.”

And I asked work owner to send confirmation to the above email adress, so she did it. The email was sent on Sep the 21st, with the subject "copyright-holder of the photo". She used proper template, described in Commons:OTRS. What did I do wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario1ua (talk • contribs) 2014-10-01T09:34:35‎ (UTC)

Hi, you missed to put the template {{OTRS pending}} onto the file description page. Thats easy to miss for new users. That template indicates that an OTRS mail has been sent by the copyright holder. It prevents deletion for about a month or untilthe case will be decided as valid or invalid by OTRS stuff. I now restored the images and applied the template. regards --JuTa 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Juta, thanks for clarifying how it works and adding the template, because i'm new here indeed. Best wishes!

Heya JuTa: When you speedy images such as [4], please use more of a reason than "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: source=internet". Since you apparently found it on the internet, and there is no source given on the file, it would be really great if you'd include the URL of the location on the internet on which you found the image. Otherwise, please say something descriptive like "Uploader said it's from the internet, but I didn't go look". I didn't delete these Cyrillic files because of the description for speedy being only "source=internet", I am sure someone else will, but I didn't feel comfortable with that level of proof - or non-proof. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well,thats the source the uploader himself wrote to the description file. I checked it via google search [5]. But google coul find an external source. It should be obvious that this is not own work, and a license is missing completely. --JuTa 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is "If you've found it on some other page and know it's a copyvio, paste the search string or a link to the *other* website instead of just typing source=internet as while that may repeat what the uploader said, it's not informative." You could provide the google search string here , so therefore you can do it on the speedy forms. I'm saying this to you because you speedied a whole pile of Cyrillic named files all source=internet and I don't think speedy nominators should expect the deleting admin to search it all over again themselves. If I come across more of these, I shall change them to DNs and we can discuss the concept with the community, ok? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm regularly working on Category:Media uploaded without a license and was asked by other admins not to mark obvious cpvios just as no license but as cpvios. That was a try to invest more time and not using "visual file exchange" to mark all images but to check them one by one and mark them indiviually. regards --JuTa 03:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, the description (Gezeichnet von Lacambalam.) of these files (and an OTRS ticket) says that they aren't scans, but drawings. As such, in my opinion, some of them *might* be above TOO – please see User talk:EugeneZelenko#Special:ListFiles.2FLacambalam.    FDMS  4    11:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it might be an own drawing. But it looks like an mostly exact reproduction of a very old work, and he scanned/fotografed the drawings even if they are self drawn. --JuTa 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the uploader replied (I have publishing permission):

I am quite surprised. Of all my drawings, only the Chinkultik image might be confused with another existing drawing. All my other drawing are codex drawings which are very different from any other drawings! Of course they are my creation, and only I can copyright those! If anyone thinks diffently, then they may show me other images which are similar to my drawings!

Ping User:EugeneZelenko.    FDMS  4    01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is fake historically images (no existing images were used as basis), why should we keep them of Commons? But I don't think it's case, it too similar to other Mayan art I saw in books. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When you have a OTRS confirmation that these are indeed own work, switch back the license and author on the file description pages, and add an OTRS template. If someone thinks they might be out of scope he can raise regular DRs. regards --JuTa 03:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of the uploads contain "Drawing by Lacambalam." (in English or another language), which should have been enough to be able to keep them in the first place in my opinion. The OTRS ticket essentially says little more than exactly that. Additional information includes Originally it is a disc made of stone. However, I will add {{PermissionOTRS}} tags anyway to prevent the uploader's drawings from getting problem-tagged again. @EugeneZelenko: I doubt you will find any "real" historical images (photographs, …) of the Maya civilisation, so drawn reconstructions of motifs could be very useful for Wikimedia projects as an alternative … User:FDMS4 11:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Danke für den Vorlagen-Fix auf File:Jagdlappen_Clemenswerth.jpg - hatte mir dabei vergeblich meine Zähne ausgebissen ;-) --Bullenwächter (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Aber immer gern doch :) --JuTa 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Vietnam has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, What is the copyright status of a company logo when used in a wikipedia article? Although they are registered trademarks, can they be used in articles (e.g. [6]? Thanks, Evolution and evolvability (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is a template {{PD-textlogo}} for simple logos, best used together with {{Trademarked}}. But be aware: thats onl for simple logos below the so called Commons:Threshold of originality, which differs from country to country. regards. --JuTa 06:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the book cover I added.. The book cover had a similar license to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheBellCurve.gif.. I am not wrong here I think.. So I think the deleting was wrong.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, "fair use" is accepted on english and some other wikipedias but not on commons, compare en:Wikipedia:Fair use and Commons:Fair use. You may like to reupload it to the english wikipedia. regards. --JuTa 07:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is useless and pointless site I would cancel my suscription please delete my accounts because I feel offended by these sites, I don't care politics are not intended to help up ppl I guess because I am being witness of how loss democratic are nowadays. I am questioning the system always you're implementing causes people to unsuscribe and go to social, it is more than akward, precisly I need the site to work on and I've been witness to closed during radio program itself it's on air equally "El Show Debe Continuar" is don't care. I think you can't own a wikipedia for else to be admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Show Debe Continuar (talk • contribs) 2014-10-09T14:16:47‎ (UTC)

I'm sure what ou are talking about. But commons has a scope. Your userpage seems to be outsite this scope. ou recreated it now and another user started a regular deletion request, which will run normaly for about a week. regards. --JuTa 14:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You deleted File:Coffin block in 1888 -- the future site of the distinctive Gooderham and Wortz HQ.jpg upon the basis that it was a duplicate. I uploaded several images of this building recently. I thought I checked, and confirmed that while there already were some similar images, none of the images I uploaded were duplicates.

Am I remembering this wrong? Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it was marked as duplicate by User:Secondarywaltz. It had much lesser resolution and slightly differet colours than File:Corner of Front and Wellington, circa 1888 -a.jpg. I followed the request. Do you realy think we need that slightly different version? regards. --JuTa 13:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is best to reserve the {{Duplicate}} tag for demonstrably identical images. If someone thinks there is a legitimate reason to delete a file that is merely similar to another image I think they should have to use a different mechanism than the {{Duplicate}} tag.

I invite you to look at the images in Category:Gooderham Building -- the category for the building that replaced the coffin block. Note particularly that the following similar images are all taken from the same viewpoint as the Coffin Block images. No one has suggested deleting any of them, because they are similar. They are taken in different years, so there are differences in the buildings in the background. They are taken at different times of day, so there are differences in which facets are lit by the sun and which are in shadow. Some are taken when the sun is obscured by clouds.

There are locations where we have a thousand or more images -- like the Statue of Liberty. I am not aware of anyone ever suggesting "Stop uploading images of the Statue of Liberty! We already have over a thousand images of the Statue of Liberty!" I am not aware of anyone ever suggesting we delete half, or 75 percent, of the images of the Statue of Liberty. I'd disagree with such a suggestion. Rather, if we have lots of similar images I think the best response is to classify them into subcategories. The last time I looked the images of the Statue of Liberty had been effectively subcategorized.

Should we have one rule for images of the Statue of Liberty, the Louvre, Red Square, and another for lesser known venues? The commons isn't going to run out of Terabytes. When the number of images of the Coffin Block, or the Gooderham building, grows large enough, those images should be subcategorized, same as we did with the Statue of Liberty. Geo Swan (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the gallery you show are very different images of the same building. The 2 images in questions are same the foto/print only slightly different colours and resolution. But anyhow, I restored the image and converted the dupe tag into a regular deletion request. regards. --JuTa 14:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Okay.

There is a misunderstanding here. In my first message, on October 9th, I wrote: "I thought I checked, and confirmed that while there already were some similar images, none of the images I uploaded were duplicates. Am I remembering this wrong?" Your reply sounded to me like confirmation that the two images were similar, not identical. No, of course I would not have requested restoration of a genuine duplicate. You first say the two files were genuine duplicates in your comment immediately above. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Smile. Yes that was a misunerstanding. But now let the regular DR run. You might like to put your opinion there. --JuTa 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I already requested speedy deletion. I thought a DR would be a waste of other people's valuable time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I deleted it. --JuTa 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi JuTa:

Greetings Girardelli G.Escucho 18:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Posdata - Postscript:ve - see

Hi, thats a borderline case, but normaly (non)accuracy is not a reason to delete diagrams on commons. I now marked the image with {{Disputed diagram}}. regards. --JuTa 18:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: I now found it elsewhere in the internet - i.e. here an marked it as copyright violation. But that might be below COM:TOO as well. Lets wait what another admin will decide. regards. --JuTa 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PPS: And it got deleted now... --JuTa 18:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Español: ¿Podrías responderme a mi página de discución? Así me avisa. Gracias por todo!

English: Could you answer my page discucion? So let me know. Thanks for everything!

Greetings Girardelli G.Escucho 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Me gusto tu foto, por aqui un amigo, Anesio para servirte Ynfiesta (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo
Du hattest auf meiner Diskussionsseite so einen "Baustein" wegen Lizenzproblemen gesetzt. Im Prinzip wäre das nur hilfreich, wenn da nun nochmal wer hinschaut, um die Lizenzfrage auch zu klären... Weiterhin hab ich keine Möglichkeit gefunden, die Lizenzangabe irgendwie zu bearbeiten - gibt es die?--Katzmárek2 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, laut Quelle ist der Rechteinhaber Bernhard Waldmann und der Auto selbst unbekannt. Da stellt sich ie Frage wer Bernhard Waldmann ist und wie er an die Rechte gelangt. Das wäre dann hier der Baustein {{Anonymous-EU}}. Allerdings vertraue ich der Quelle nicht wirklich, denn wenn das Bild wirklich erst 1935 aufgenommen wurde, wäre es doch recht wahrscheinlich dass der Fotograf noch mehr als weitere 6 Jahre lebte (vor 1944 verstarb). Eine Google-Suche nach Bernhard Waldmann auch in Verbindung mit Fotograf/Photograph brachte mich auch nicht weiter [7]. Auch eine Google-Suche nach anderen Quellen für das Bild ([8]) brachte nur das Gen-Wiki. Du dast nun 3 Möglichkeiten:

• Du belässt es so wie es ist. Dann wird das Bild nach ca. einer Woche gelöscht.
• Du setzt selbst den (unsicheren) Baustein {{Anonymous-EU}} übernimmt damit aber die Haftung bei evtl. Urheberrechtsbeschwerden order gar -klagen. Es gibt auch keine Garantie dass nicht jemand anderes das Bild dann wegen dieser Unsicherheiten zur Löschung vorschlägt.
• Du fragst nach weiteren Meinungen z.B. auf Commons:Village pump/Copyright (kann ruhig auch ein Deutsch erfolgen). Ich sehe grad: das hast Du auf Commons:Upload_help#Is_this_file_"free"? bereits gemacht und im Prinzip die gleiche Antwort erhalten.

PS: Deine Frage auch Deiner Diskussions-Seite hatte ich übersehen. Es sind teilweise mehrere hundert Bilder die ich hier täglich kontrolliere un entsprechend markiere. Gruß --JuTa 10:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, danke für die Antwort!

Im Prinzip hänge ich nicht an dem Bild - vielleicht schreib ich den "Rechteinhaber" auch mal an. Ich wollte nur allgemein eine Antwort haben (ob man so einer Angabe allgemein trauen kann oder lieber nicht). Einstweilen werde ich es löschen (oder, falls das nicht geht einfach die Löschung abwarten). Danke soweit.--Katzmárek2 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JuTa! I am "I have had sock puppets a. j.". Please delete the HW Treasure logo photo. I have had sock puppets -a. j. 23:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. PS: Don't play too much here. Its not a playground. You could get blocked. --JuTa 23:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay JuTa. I have taken a lot of photos myself now. I will try not to get blocked. I won't take any more photos from other websites. Can I upload photos from other Wikis Like this one: http://www.wikia.com/Wikia? And another question: How do you get userboxes? I see you have a few so I thought you might know.

Thanks, I have had sock puppets -a. j. (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The images displayd on the page you linked are looking like screenshots of movies or video games. Those are normaly coprighted. So no: ou shouldn't uploa those images. And as far I can see you have more userboxes on you userpage than me. regards. --JuTa 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the removal of this "shadow-picture" of the statue (in one of the most photographed places in Larvik) was nescessary, but it is OK with me :-) --Eaglestein (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Norway. regards. --JuTa 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please explain how/why photo File:Tanc_Sade.jpg was deleted; this was provided to me specifically as being suitable as upload to Commons (no copyright attached)? I very carefully read the rules and the upload followed them so I do not understand why it has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozedits (talk • contribs) 2014-10-19T13:28:41‎ (UTC)

Well, it was previosly published at Facebook [9]. Everything in the internet is per default copyrighted with all rights reserved until otherwise explicitly stated. I you know the copyright holder you can ask him to write an email to the commons support team as documented at Commons:OTRS. If everything checks out OK the image will get undeleted. regards. --JuTa 13:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, du spricht Deutsch, bitte! Das waren noch Zeiten, als man die Fotos im deutschen Wiki hochladen konnte. Ich verstehe den Anraunzer absolut nicht! Bis auf mein aktuelles Bild war bereits alles geklärt. Die "fair use"-Bilder befinden sich nicht in meinen Uploads. Die anderen wurden auch schon angeraunzt und sind geklärt worden. Nun geht es um das Stromaggregat. Die Erlaubnis des Urhebers hatte ich zeitgleich abgeschickt. Wenn sie nicht aufgefunden wird, dann bitte: ich kann sie nochmal schicken ... entschuldige, ich bleibe immer cool, aber allmählich habe ich keine Lust mehr, – ich weiß, du hast auch viel zu tun, aber an mir liegt das Durcheinander nun garantiert nicht und es wiederholt sich einfach. [File:Stromaggregat_im_Anhalter_Hochbunker.png], Ich sende die Erlaubnis nun nochmals unmittelbar darauf ab.Gruß -- User:GerhardSchuhmacher 16.14

Nun, in dem Bild fehlt leider jeglicher Lizenzbaustein. Das ist mir bei einer Routinekontrolle aufgefallen und ich hab ich drauf aufmerksam gemacht. Falls Du, wie auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite angegeben, das Bild selbst geschossen hast, braucht es keine Freigabe. Dann einfach ie Lizenz Deiner Wahl eintragen - {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} ist empfohlen, es gibt aber noch vieeele weitere. Falls Du's nicht selbst geschossen hast, war die Freigabemail schon richtig. Die Mail kann ich aber nicht einsehen, da ich kein mitglied des sog. OTRS-Teams bin. Dann frag am besten auf Commons:OTRS Noticeboard nach. Gruß --JuTa 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the File:Monarch LOC 01.jpg you sent me a message about the copyright not being clear. I don't understand what I need to change to fix this. The image is linked to the original source for the LOC site and is public domain? What tag do i need to change? What do I need to change it to? The info box links are not helpful. Nyth83 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was simpl no license template on the file description page. You corrected it inbetween an I now removed the problem tag. regards. --JuTa 05:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear JuTa: I have emailed OTRS to forward the written permission which I received from the International Balzan Foundation. I have also copied in the Foundation's officials. I trust that this will satisfy the requirement to provide evidence of permission but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries. Kind regards, Sandy Skinner 19 October 2014

Hi, that fine. I'm not a member of the co called OTRS-team. If it takes too long (>>2 weeks) you can ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for it. regards. --JuTa 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm writing you regarding your deletion request on this and other files uploaded by User:Casalmaggiore Provincia. As it is written there you can use this file for a non-commercial use if you attribute the photo to the author. I think that the correct licence is CC-BY-NC. Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lkcl. This is the Italian text in each source page: "Le immagini presenti in questo sito possono essere liberamente copiate, utilizzate e distribuite, purchè non a fini di lucro e purchè, in caso di utilizzo, se ne citino l’autore e la fonte.". Basically the author has just requested to mention the source (web page) and the author (his name), and that what "Casalmaggiore Provincia" has done. Please provide further details to understand is the problem persists or if it has been definitely solved. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

But unfortenutly uncommercial licenses are not accepted on commons. Every image on commons has to be reuseable cemmercial, compare Commons:Licensing. regards --JuTa 05:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, we didn't know that the NC license is not compatible with commons. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have marked File:Udby Kirke (Vordingborg Kommune) - kalkmaleri detail.png with 'missing license'. The file is just croped from File:Udby Kirke (Vordingborg Kommune) - kalkmaleri.jpg already here with an accepted license, so can I just add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} ? There are many croped files here on Commons, so I presume it is just a minor thing to make it right?
-- Regards PHansen (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is solved by User:MGA73. -- Regards PHansen (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, das Wappen dieser Familie wurde von Karl-Heinz Bakalarz-Zákos eingescannt (aus einem Buch von 1898) und auf wp:de hochgeladen. Ich habe es bearbeitet (weißer Hintergrund, größer etc.) und hochgeladen. Was fehlt noch?, kenn mich bei den Lizenzen nicht so aus. lg --Hannes 24 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, wenn man weiß wer das Wappen ursprünglich entworfen/gezeichnet hat, sollte man diese Person als Urheber eintragen. Wenn diese Person vor mehr als 70 Jahren gestorben ist, ist as Bild gemeinfrei und man sollte z.B. die Lizenez {{PD-scan|PD-old-70}} verwenden. Wenn der Urheber unbekannt ist und auch beim Erstellem/Veröffentlichen des Wappen bleiben wollte käme die Lizenz {{Anonymous-EU}} in Frage. Gruß --JuTa 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Ju, ich hab jetzt PD-scan und den Erstautor des Buches ergänzt. Das nolicense-Kastel hab ich noch gelassen. Weiß nicht, ob ich das entfernen darf. lg --Hannes 24 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, ja sieht gut aus, ich hab' den Problem-Tag entfernt. Noch besser wäre es wenn man wüsste wann Herr von Reichnau verstorben ist. Gruß --JuTa 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, in der [DNB] steht, dass er begonnen hat und die beiden anderen Autoren dann fortgesetzt haben. Man kann also annehmen, das er vor Erscheinen des Buches 1898 schon tot war. lg --Hannes 24 (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ich kann den link zu wp:de nicht eingeben (das ist in jedem wiki-Projekt anders), könntest du das noch ergänzen. Der link ist in der Anmerkung und hier nochmals: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Karl-Heinz_Bakalarz-Z%C3%A1kos&action=edit&redlink=1 Danke. --Hannes 24 (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hab's gefixt. Gruß --JuTa 07:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not speak English well. I received your message on the license of the file. I do not well know how to make this file is the same that this one: [[10]] My file is in fact the new version of this logo.

It is about a logo protected as a mark, it is a label Grand Site of France.

I do not know well how to bring in to himthe same rights as that quoted previously.

I have just noticed that there is a link at the bottom of the page ' to Import a new version of this file ', I am thus going to make that! What do you think about it?

Thank you in advance for your assistant.

Hi, the french image you linked to was uploader with the so calles "fair use" clause. Thats not accepted on Commons - see Commons:Fair use. In this case you coul try to use {{PD-textlogo}} an {{Trademarked}}, because its lookin like a simple logo to me. regards. --JuTa 17:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Português: Paz e bem!
Trata-se de obra derivada de File:Octavio Paz for PIFAL.jpg

.
Espero agora ter colocado a licença correta.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

.Hi, its fixed now. --JuTa 07:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I see User:Gustavo Girardelli (es-N en-0 fr-0) and I (es-0) failed to communicate efficiently about DW, templates issues, with now a confusion between how to treat the description of the files he has previously overwritten and how to document files he creates as DW.

If you want to take that communication in charge (but he's de-0 too :/), you'll find useful the summary I let at the Commons:Café, where I've asked help from a Spanish-speaking contributor. --Dereckson (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what i could help in this case. I'm es-0 as well. regards. --JuTa 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hola JuTa:

Nosotros nos entendemos, Dereckson no quiere entenderme.

Saludos de Girardelli G.Escucho 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a public domain book published in 1866. I vectorized a page from it. What license should I apply to it? Is it ok if CC-BY-4 or should it be public domain too?

Hi, you talking about File:Page005.svg, correct? I've changed the license now to {{PD-scan|PD-old-100}}. Except you claiming own copyright for vectorization that should be correct. Perhaps you should consider to change your other uploads too. regards. --JuTa 19:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Can you restore this image? Thirty seconds of Googling revealed that it is an official US Navy photograph, NH 97127. Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 00:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, the image is back and the description page is corrected. Thx for letting me now. --JuTa 09:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Juta.

About this, the reason that I have added that tag was because I could not find any ticket on OTRS with a permission sent for that file. I think it should be deleted as the file seems to be copyrighted and that OTRS tag may have been placed by mistake. I will leave a message on uploader's talk page referring that I could not find it.
Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 21:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, when you are sure, that there is no mail pending in OTRS, remove the {{OTRS pending}} template and renew the no permission tag. regards. --JuTa 21:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Please help out...how do i upload pictures to Commons from ISPR.gov.pk...---License--- Images All rights reserved by Pakistan Government. Therefore, it is a Public Domain. Released and published by government ministry: Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR)... Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure which image you talkinga about, but generally All rights reserved by ... is the opposite of Public Domain. regards --JuTa 16:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If You still have questions re above mentioned file, pls have a look to page of newspaper dated 2/2/1941 http://www.minpress.gr/minpress/efimerides1.jpg Regards Macedon-40 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you sure that the photografer of a 1941 photo died before 1943? That would be neccessary to make it {{PD-old}}? --JuTa 18:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many reasons for that. But the most important point is that author remain UNKNOWN, while this photo reproduced in hundred books, magazines and e-sites and name of author did not appear. Macedon-40 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are sure that the author intended to be anonymous you may apply {{Anonymous-EU}} at "own risk". regards. --JuTa 20:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Was soll ich tun bei Hochladung eine Datei, wenn es handelt nicht um ein Werk (dort ist kein Werkcharakter), sondern eine Formular (Formblatt)? Vojtík (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite war leider keinerlei Lizenzvorlage, weshalb ich es am 18.10. mit {{No license since}} gekennzeichnet hatte. Ob dieses "Formblatt" Schöpfungshöhe besitzt wage ich nicht zu entscheiden. Du könntest versuchen es erneut hochzuladen und z.B. dann {{PD-simple}} zu verwenden. Das schließt aber nicht aus ass irgendjemand dann doch einen Löschntrag arauf stellt, weil es besagte Schöpfungshöhe überschritten sieht. Gruß --JuTa 18:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour, Vous avez supprimé le fichier Tilletia_caries.jpg. Il s'agissait d'un document ancien tombé dans le domaine public, les références sur l'auteur était indiquées dans le fichier, je ne peux plus corriger, je ne peux plus accéder au fichier. Pourriez-vous me renvoyer ces indications pour pouvoir restaurer ce ficher. Cordialement, --Bildoj (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you missed to apply a valid license temaplate and got informed about that. One week later I deleted the file. But you are correct: The image is public domain. I undeleted it and corrected the description page. regards. --JuTa 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Merci. --Bildoj (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)