User talk:Stebunik/Archive 5
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. |
Copyright status: File:B Bonifatius VIII2.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:B Bonifatius VIII2.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
And also:
No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarek Tuszynski (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. | |
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. |
Source: http://www.vaticanhistory.de/pm/html/bonifatius_viii_.html
I only uploaded it from thisfile, medieval picture, because author died more as 100 years ago
What were you doing there? And why? Hands off my images! -- j.budissin+/- 08:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- It was probably Stebunik's mistake, I've restored an original version of the file. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 14:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. -- j.budissin+/- 20:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, I would only help and I gave better license: not PD-old, but PD-100, because author of bridge died more as 100 years ago. That picture I found on internet and I did not know, that it exists on Wikipedia aleready, so I uploaded it with one other name and later I saw, that it is already on Wikipedia and that you are author of that picture. Bridge is older as 300 years and we can use license, that author died more as 100 years ago: not you, but builder of bridge. I think, that it was not wrong thing. Many luck with Wikipedia, and do not be angry!--Stebunik (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Stebunik, brige is in public domain, but the photo itself is not. License information is about the photo not the object in the photo. All regular photos have licenses like this, only scans and other faithful reproductions are exceptions. Best regards, M★Zaplotnik (edits) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
File:Stmca-Sodrazica.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Eleassar (t/p) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I photographed --Stebunik (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
File:Sodrazica-oltar.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Eleassar (t/p) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is my own photo. I do not understand why is deleted.--Stebunik (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
File:Sodrazica-cerkev.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Eleassar (t/p) 20:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- My own photo. Do not delete! --Stebunik (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Bitka-kod-nikopolja 620x0.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Bitka-kod-nikopolja 620x0.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarek Tuszynski (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted content
File:Bitka-kod-nikopolja 620x0.jpg
- use in any work, regardless of content
- creation of derivative works
- commercial use
- free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.
Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:Miroslav-Bulovic MK.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Miroslav-Bulovic MK.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Miroslav-Bulovic MK.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Kelly (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Magyar kurir meni, da so stvari, ki jih objavlja, v javni lasti. Tako morda tudi slike.--Stebunik (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Hocevar-Perko-Turk.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Naj ostane
Ne vem, kaj je narobe s sliko, ki sem jo posnel, z dovoljenjem in odobrenjem nadškofa Hočevarja. Če so obenem gori slike tudi drugih škofov, to ne moti avtorskih pravic, saj so majhne v primeri s celo sliko oziroma fotografijo. Naj ostane.--Stebunik (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Domicijan-kamen.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
File tagging File:StiAPf, Urk. 24.04.1462.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:StiAPf, Urk. 24.04.1462.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:StiAPf, Urk. 24.04.1462.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
File:Unam sanctam.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Enzian44 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Naj ostane. Če ta okrožnica morda ni iz 14. stoletja, pa je po virih to njen prepis vsaj iz 16. ali 17. stoletja in zato ni razloga, da bi se brisala. Morda so pa napačni podatki, da izvirnik ne obstaja - slika govori naprotno.--Stebunik (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okrožnica je že dovolj stara, vendar je fotografija te okrožnice kreativna (ni golo skeniranje), zato ima sama po sebi avtorsko zaščito. Ta koncept je treba razumeti in upoštevati pri objavljanju tujih del. — Yerpo Eh? 04:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tamkaj piše, da je in public domain. Morda je to v prid objavi.--Stebunik (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Pope-Clement VIII-coffee.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Takeaway (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If I write to author of file File:Pope-Clement VIII-coffee.jpg Sam Guzman, I am sure, he that he give his permission for this nice adapted file. I have not his e-mail. Let you help and ask him for permission, than you!--Stebunik (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
|
File:Battaglia-del-garigliano.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
File:Battle-hips Garigliano-915.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
What does the image say? Evrik (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Pravda za Uroša Mišića" ("Justice for Uroš Mišić"). — Yerpo Eh? 07:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Karl-I Zita marriage.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
File:Karl-I Zita Otto 1916.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Copyright status: File:Ante gabrić.jpg
Copyright status: File:Ante gabrić.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Ante gabrić.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
Yours sincerely, JuTa 04:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
File tagging File:Endredy-Vendel.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Endredy-Vendel.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Endredy-Vendel.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
File:Ghirlandaio Sassetti-StFrancis.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
File:Vietnam-Saigon Majcen.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Copyright status: File:Stepnac govor-1a.jpg
Copyright status: File:Stepnac govor-1a.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Stepnac govor-1a.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
And also:
Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Croatian law allovws
This is what I scanned of originally tipped speech. It could not be possible to stamp it either during NDH either during comunistic SFR Jugoslavia, nor now in Serbia or in BiH. I do not know, if exist more examples of this speech that I scanned. The original is in public domain as here it stays. Author is Aloysius Stepinac or Archdiocese of Zagreb, I only scanned it:
- Hrvatski Zakon o autorskom pravu dopušta reprodukciju "javnih političkih, vjerskih i drugih govora održanih u tijelima državne ili lokalne vlasti, vjerskim ustanovama ili prilikom državnih ili vjerskih svečanosti te izvadaka iz javnih predavanja" (v. čl. 89[1]. Where is a problem? If necessary, I will ask copyright from Archdiocese of Zagreb and I will it receive. Brisanje je bila pom mišljenju saradnika GregorB pogreška (Cleaning was by sentention of User GregorB a mistake, let you see below: --Stebunik (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Htio bih skrenuti pažnju na dvije pogreške:
- Brisanje je bilo pogreška, jer hrvatski Zakon o autorskom pravu dopušta reprodukciju "javnih političkih, vjerskih i drugih govora održanih u tijelima državne ili lokalne vlasti, vjerskim ustanovama ili prilikom državnih ili vjerskih svečanosti te izvadaka iz javnih predavanja" (v. čl. 89[2])
- Istek autorskih prava nastupa 70 godina od smrti autora, a ne 70 godina od objave. S obzirom na prethodnu točku, ovo nije bitno; govor se može iskoristiti u skladu sa zakonom. GregorB (razgovor) 17:57, 22. ožujka 2014. (CET)
Мržnja na Stepinca?
Nerazumljivo zašto su opet brisali ovaj govor na tri stranice, koji sam skenirao iz originala. Prema gornjim članima takve su publikacije in public domain. Izgleda da se ne radi o public ali ne public, nego o mržnji na Stepinca, od koje su i danas nekoji opsjednuti. Blaženi Stepinac, načini čudo i obrati te svoje mrzitelje! To će biti nepobitno čudo za kanonizaciju, također za skeptike.--Stebunik (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Stepinac govor-1a.jpg
Copyright status: File:Stepinac govor-1a.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Stepinac govor-1a.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
And also:
- File:Stepinac govor-1ap.jpg
- File:Stepinac govor-1b.jpg
- File:Stepinac govor-1bp.jpg
- File:Stepinac govor-1c.jpg
- File:Stepinac govor-1cp.jpg
- File:Stepinac govor-1d.jpg
Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
File tagging File:Perko-Grozde 1992c.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Perko-Grozde 1992c.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Perko-Grozde 1992c.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
File tagging File:Grozde-28 reliquary.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Grozde-28 reliquary.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Grozde-28 reliquary.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
And also:
- File:Perko-Grozde 1992b.jpg
- File:Perko-Grozde 1992a.jpg
- File:Grozde-23 singers.jpg
- File:Grozde-22 BlazJelen-volunteers.jpg
- File:Grozde-20 canon.jpg
- File:Grozde-21 trubunes.jpg
- File:Grozde-19 prinos darov.jpg
- File:Grozde-18 youth-image.jpg
- File:Grozde-17 clergy-crowd.jpg
- File:Grozde-16 crowd-Celje.jpg
- File:Grozde-15 beatification-Celje.jpg
- File:Grozde-14 beatification.jpg
- File:Grozde-11 bishops.jpg
Yours sincerely, JuTa 23:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand, what is wrong. My brother Blaž Jelen wrote to me e-mail, that all his photos, which sent to me with e-mail in 2010, can be published under Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0). If it is not enough or not good license, let you write, what is wrong and Blaž will give his agreement. Let you see agreement for all(!) photos which sent to me. Why you make so great complications, when it is clear, that he gave his agreement? I waited it 10 years! Here is his e-mail: --Stebunik (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Jaz, Blaž Jelen, sem fotografiral beatifikacijo Lojzeta Grozdeta v Celju dne 13. Junija 2010. Dovoljujem, da se te fotografije objavijo pod dovoljenjem »Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Skip to content
Using Gmail with screen readers
Search Search mail
12 of 3,991
Dovoljenje
Inbox
x
Blaž Jelen Sat, Apr 18, 10:01 PM (7 days ago) to me
Translate message
Turn off for: Slovenian
Jaz, Blaž Jelen, sem fotografiral beatifikacijo Lojzeta Grozdeta v Celju dne 13. Junija 2010. Dovoljujem, da se te fotografije objavijo pod dovoljenjem »Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
I, Blaž Jelen, photographed beatification of Lojze Grozde in Celje on 13 June 2010. I give permission that these photos publish under license Wikimedia Commons cc by-sa 3.0 (his email: hmeljar@gmail.com --Stebunik (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
File:NovoBrdoKosovoAbove.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
File:Perlez Mary-Immaculate.jpg
The above file is described as "Picture of Mary Immaculate in Orthodox Church in Perlez, Vojvodina" and it certainly appears to reflect the iconography of the Immaculate Conception. But it also says it is in an Orthodox Church. It was my impression that while the Orthodox Church recognizes Mary as "spotless" and "pure", they do not recognize the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as they do not accept Augustine's view of Original Sin. In which case, is it possible that this picture is known by another name? Manannan67 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is a picture that exists in Perlez (Banat, Vojvodina). All orthodoxes are not so hard and exclusive. Most of them do not know their own theology, and it is not so consistent and complete as exempli gratia Scolastic theology. I shall show examples.--Stebunik (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Picture of Mary Immaculate in Perlez
Acceptance of the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Immaculate - this dogma was proclaimed in 1854 from Pope Pius IX, especially on the basis of the veneration shown to her as such by the Church Fathers in the East (from 1054 Orthodoxy). Today's Serbian Orthodox Church is politically influenced by Russia, and religiously also under the influence of Protestantism (there do not venerate Holy Mary). If an Orthodox says that he does not worship Mary the Immaculate, he does not know his liturgy, which sings: “Dostojno jest jako vo istinu blažiti tja Bogorodicu. Prečisto Djevu Blaženiju i Mater Boga našeg. Suščnjuju…” =”It is very worthy to glorify the Mother of God, the Immaculate Virgin Mary”. If she was all pure (prečista), she had no sin (bezgrešna). If she is above the angels, who are all full of chastity, it means she is Immaculate, without sin, without sin original. Out of spite - because the pope proclaimed that dogma, some Orthodox do not want it, even if their own liturgy confirms that worship. It is the same with images, which again express the faith of the Christian people. This image is based on the Holy Scriptures (Apocalypse 12: 1), which the Holy Fathers apply to Mary but also to the Church. This painter applied it to Mary Immaculate - no matter what her name was. It is similar with prayers for souls in purgatory. Orthodoxy generally believes that the soul cannot go to heaven immediately after death, but must purify itself, as they say, to travel for several days. This is similar to what Catholics believe about purgatory. How true that is there, the dogmatics does not say - but through fire and torment one must purify oneself to come to heaven - except those who are doomed to eternal hellfire - there is no salvation for them. If the Orthodox would not believe in purgatory, then why would they pray for the dead? Why would a liturgy be served for them, as it was now on the 40th day after the death of Patriarch Irinej? In the meeting with the Orthodox, we often encounter great ignorance - and that is why the dialogue is difficult. Especially when faith is mixed with politics and privileges, which the Church enjoys - it does not pay taxes, no one supervises what it does… as there were protests because of that in Montenegro: "Ne damo svetinje! We do not give sanctuaries!" (= We will not pay taxes, we will not give the state of money – but the state and people must to give it us!) Without politics and power-loving, pure faith is the same - only the forms and traditions are a little different.--Stebunik (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)