User talk:Túrelio/Archive3

Talkpage archive from 2008

Klimadiagramm-Kategorien

Hallo, Túrelio! Ich habe dieser Tage endlich W+L-Klimadiagramme von Baden-Württemberg hochgeladen (bin ein langsamer Arbeiter ...) und dabei, mehr durch Zufall, die neueren deutschen Klimadiagramm-Kategorien von Kolling entdeckt. Ich stimme Dir vollkommen zu, daß da was passieren sollte (also hin zu englischen Kategorienamen und meines Erachtens mit einer hierarchischen Struktur unterhalb von Category:Climate diagrams of Germany – zumal es, so wie ich sehe, keine Klima-, sondern ausschließlich Niederschlagsdiagramme sind. Meine Frage erstmal: Hat sich außer Kolling/Lokilech (das ist wohl die gleiche Person? *grübel*) bisher noch jemand dazu geäußert? Und wo diskutieren wir das weiter (wir, falls Du ggf. dazu noch ein paar Worte dazu verlieren möchtest)? Gruß -- JörgM 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

lol

;) Rocket000 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As voting and polling is serious business and at least sometimes aggressive comments can occur, I tried to create a more mellow atmosphere. -- Túrelio 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for that. I was just scrolling down looking at all the votes and then all of a sudden I see a lolcat.. I couldn't stop laughing. Sometimes we just need a little reminder why we're here. :) Cheers, Rocket000 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Doris Leuthard.gif

Hi, I don't want all images of Swiss Federal Councillors to be present in the category, quite the opposite: I'd love to make subcats for most of them, and reduce the number of images by moving them into the subcat. However, I think it is important to have a category that contains exactly one (only the official one) image of each Councillor. That would mean 111 pictures (at the moment) + the official group pictures, which is large, I admit, but I think that it makes sense. It seems logical to me to put these in the main category for this topic, but we could also create a subcat for "Official pictures of the Swiss Federal Council". Schutz 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiamat

Hi. Did the same misstake as you Category:Tiamat is for the group Tiamat not, the sea-monster. /Lokal_Profil 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no longer. I changed that to be consistent with the Marduk (god) and Marduk (band) problem. Cheers. --Túrelio 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. /Lokal_Profil 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Valued images evaluation

Dear Túrelio,

This is a standard message to the 18 different users who so far have been involved in testing Valued images candidates as either a nominator, reviewer or project editor. We are interested in hearing what you think about the project and what your positive and negative experiences have been. We would be grateful if you would voice your opinion here. Thank you,

-- Slaunger 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Churches in Poland

Hello Túrelio, please see Category talk:Churches in Poland. Fransvannes 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orchids

Hi! My English is so bad, but... Let's go. Image:DSC02263.JPG it's a Blc. Nobile's carnival. The Image:DSC05625.JPG it's a Phalaenopsis. Here you have all the names. Thanks! Anne Valladares 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know a little spanish, but no portuguese, sorry. Could you also tell me in which town this Horto Florestal is located? Gracias. --Túrelio 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure! Horto Florestal is located in Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brasil. Anne Valladares 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Does any one of these Category:Rio Claro (Rio de Janeiro) or Category:Carmo do Rio Claro apply? Or do we need a new category in Category:Municipalities of São Paulo ? --Túrelio 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, answer in my user talk page. So... I think we need a new category in Category:Municipalities of São Paulo, yes. Anne Valladares 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Biez

Hey, you've deleted the wrong foto! biez2.jpg was INSTEAD OF biez.jpg! Please, delete biez.jpg, not the biez2.jpg (i'll reupload biez2 in a minute)

rotate images

Hi Túrelio, instead of that it would be expedienter to do that then Rotatebot does the rest automatically. :-) Thanks, --Luxo 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Again learned something ;-) --Túrelio 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Horto Florestal

Please, answer in my user talk page. So... I think we need a new category in Category:Municipalities of São Paulo, yes. Anne Valladares 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Turelio, I missed to add the license but it's done now. --20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended

Dear Túrelio, Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup. We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready. Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate. In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images. I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer. Happy editing, -- Slaunger 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PR template at Image:Abed Fahed.jpg

• Thank you, I did not know that. Does it in any way mean that it could be deleted on this basis? --Nasib Bitar 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No not at all. This template does not say or mean that this image actually violates the personality rights of the depicted person, but it is a sort of warning to re-users that — though the image is free (from copyright) — the depicted person still has her/his personality rights. With this we try to prevent abuse such as manipulating it in a way to mock the depicted person or using it for advertising without asking consent of the depicted person. It is only used for living or very recently died persons. --Túrelio 10:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks again.--Nasib Bitar 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

benamung der bilder

hi Túrelio, ich verstehe nicht ganz, weshalb du user bei der namensgebung ihrer bilder so einschränken willst? solange die fotos richtig und ausreichend beschrieben und kategorisiert sind, kann dir und uns der name (soweit er nicht anstössig ist) egal sein! dontworry 10:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Die Dateinamen auf Commons sollen möglichst deskriptiv sein, also einen Hinweis auf den Inhalt geben (was bei cp.jpg und ks.jpg zweifellos nicht gegeben ist; natürlich ist img_08154711.jpg noch schlimmer). Deshalb gibt es ja auch das template {{Please name images}} , was ja nicht ich erfunden habe. Korrekt ist, dass eine saubere Kategorisierung sicher wichtiger ist; andererseits wird seit kurzem jeder Uploader auf Commons auf eine ordentliche Dateinamensgebung hingewiesen. --Túrelio 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

dann solltest du aber auch deine sprache dem/der durchschnitts-user/in (deskriptiv!!) anpassen, damit er/sie nicht nochmals nachfragen muss. bei der vielzahl der bereits vorhandenen und noch folgenden bilder halte ich dies für eine schnapsidee - lieber wert auf eine bessere beschreibung legen und dazu die maske verbessern, indem das hochladen nur mit kategorie und beschreibung möglich wird! dontworry 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jim Lee.jpg

I'm not sure if I have the permission or not. I found the image on Flickr under a cc-by license, so it is hard to know if the photographer had such permission. I figured a crop was the best bet. Sorry, this is all a bit new to me. Hiding 19:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kehlsteinhaus

Hallo Túrelio,

ich hab' dieses Foto (Kehlsteinhaus im Winter) im Gebäude fotografiert. Also, du hattest Recht, der July war nicht so schneeig. :) Ich kenne nicht die Regeln, wenn es missetätig ist, kannst du ganz ruhig löschen. Die Karten, ja ich dachte, daß es ein bisschen problematisch ist. Aber ich weiß so, wenn eine Karte draussen ist (also, nicht in einem Gebäude), kann ich solche Karten fotografieren. Das heisst, in Ungarn geht es. Danke für das Lob, ich wünsche dir schöne Arbeit!

--Tobi85 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another CC template?

Hi, after a few talks on the theme on COM:VP, and after being convinced on advantages of "CC-by" towards "Attribution", I started to design a more intelligent user-editable CC-template (well, the developer+programming-work would be done by Rocket000).

I now learn that CC and Attribution ARE the same, such template therefore would not be of any use.

In case you're interested, I please invite you to talk on User talk:WeHaWoe/TestSite#Looks like bad luck for the project 8( for kind of brainstorming. Best, Wolfgang, WeHaWoe 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as above quoted stuff is not really "ALL of it", please have another look at User talk:WeHaWoe/TestSite --WeHaWoe 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Kat. Memmingen

Hallo,

ich habe nun die Category:Memmingen ordentlich aufgeräumt und alles Kategorisiert (in Unter~). Hoffe so passt es nun?! Ebenso habe ich eine Seite über Memmingen angelegt, wo alle Bildchen und die eine Ogg-Datei drin sind. Falls noch was zu machen ist, bitte bei mir unter Wikipedia melden. Danke! --Memmingen 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speedy material in use

Hello. About your speedy deletion of Info:Edgar Degas, this info page is no "unnecessary duplicate" since {{:Info:Edgar Degas}} is transcluded on both Edgar Degas and Category:Edgar Degas, so as to share the multilingual leads and the interwikis; deleting it would result in losing them entirely.

This was visible in both the page's history, and Special:WhatLinksHere/Info:Edgar Degas showing it transcluded. 62.147.39.118 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I stumbled over that strange Info-page because it was not categorized. Though I'm sorry if I made you additional work, I'm still not convinced of an additional page that is linked into only 2 other pages. Why not include that information, that probably will not be changed over time, directly into Edgar Degas and Category:Edgar Degas? --Túrelio 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now added it to its Category:Info Pages, sorry to have it trigger the "uncategorized page" alarm. As for the content, those leads are regularly changed or updated every time someone adds a translation in a new language, or tweaks the existing leads -- two identical copies quickly get out of synch since people update only Edgar Degas or Category:Edgar Degas, so shared Info: pages are one answer to that common problem. Though in truth, it's as experimental as many things on the beta-level Commons (I had tried to document this at Help:Namespaces#Info). Leads duplicated on galery and category pages are currently a problem with no single solution; one solution is shared Info pages, another would be to make it a rule to have leads and interwikis only on gallery pages and nothing at the top of category pages (except a {{Main}} link to the gallery page), but it doesn't look like the sort of topic people want to tackle and find a consensus for at the present time ;-) 62.147.39.118 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Thanks for that update. Cheers --Túrelio 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Carte Miscou.svg

Dear Turelio. I'm confused. They say you have permission to use their maps for comemrcial purpose but you have to ask their permission first. I used them as the base for this map (and others) because I saw other people use this particular source. Also, I saw some text on the french Wikipedia that that said you could use it. I actually completely redrew the map, it's not exactly a copy. What is your opinion about that? --Dr Wilson 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wallenstein-2008.jpg

Hallo,

kannst Du mir vielleicht auf Deutsch erklären, warum das Bild von der Löschung bedroht ist? Soll es "nur" unter Wikipedia hochgeladen werden, weil es in den Commons nicht gewünscht ist, oder gibt es hier ein grundsätzliches Problem mit dem Copyright? Die Schöpfungshöhe ist definitv nicht hoch... Danke für die Antwort! Grüße aus --Memmingen 09:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Zunächst mal, weil die Quellenangabe nicht stichhaltig bzw. unzureichend ist. Der Uploader hat das zwar sicher selbst gescannt (damit aber rechtlich nur ein "derivative", kein eigenes Werk erstellt), aber m.E. hat der Bierdeckel durch die Kombination von Bild und Schrift durchaus eine ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe (abhängig vom Inhalt des Bierglases, ääh) und enthält auch das Logo der Brauerei. Wenn ernsthaft Interesse an dem Bild besteht, sollte jemand einfach die Presseabteilung der Brauerei kontaktieren und um Erlaubnis bitten. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass die sogar zustimmen würden, sofern sie selbst die vollen Rechte daran haben und nicht noch eine weitere Stelle. --Túrelio 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle, prompte und gute Antwort :o) --Grüße aus Memmingen 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

lacomarcadelasidra.com

Yes I have the autorization, you can see it here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/www.lacomarcadelasidra.com.

Hope it's ok, and please help me to do it right if I had make anything wrong.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isertia (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12. Jun. 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. IMHO that should be enough, though we have to check whether that authorization has to be copied to Commons as es-Wikipedia is an independant project. I'll write you if there are news. --Túrelio 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cats

Well - categories then. I take it you know about Bryan's bot as far as these are concerned. Great for keeping an eye on specific categories that are of interest (my page is here). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And would admin tools not be useful to you? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready for your acceptance & then I'll transclude it. Thanks for being prepared to help, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of two Valencia images

I see that you approved the renaming of Image:Umbraculo Valencia.jpg (from P9150209.JPG) but not its twin, Image:P9150213.JPG, and was vaguely wondering why. Was it because the second suggested name (Umbraculo, Valencia(2).jpg) was too close to the first? (If so, then perhaps as you know Spanish (I don't), you're in a position to come up with a better suggestion.)

As the one who nominated both images (I think I was logged in, though I don't recall), and because these are beautiful and striking (and potentially useful) images (such a pity they're not quite large enough for FPC status), I think they ought to be kept together by giving them similar names. -- Korax1214 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

O.k.  Done. Now, we've to wait for the next run of the renaming bot. --Túrelio (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Me podras Ayudar.

Hi Túrelio, tengo problemas con una imagen mia que he alzado a commoms, al instante que subi la foto sonde me retrata recibi un mensaje indicandome que no se permite imagenes donde retratan personas vivas. Quisiera saber si eso necesita otro tipod de licencia, o no admitiran luego mi foto aunque cambie la licencia. Esperando una respuesta favorable te saluda con afecto y respeto Mil va (talk · contribs)09:24 16 jun 2008

Hola Mil va,
perdon pero I don't know enough Spanish to reply en castellano. I put the template "Personality rights" on your image not to disturb you but to protect you from misuse of your image by others outside of Commons. Images of private persons qualify for a higher level of protection than images of famous persons like the president of the United States for example. No es necessario de cambiar la licencia. Cheers --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus-Benet

Hello. Es una fotografia del album familiar, actualmente la tenemos en una exposición pública en Villar del Arzobispo.

Al ser de nuestra propiedad no creo que tengamos que solicitar permisos ¿No?.--Un valencià (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

Helo. La foto es de mi familia, tengo el original, pero es de hace tiempo y no tengo posibilidad de contactar con el autor de la foto.

Si es un problema, se borra, no problem. Saludos. --Un valencià (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pero un foto con PP Benedicto XVI no puede ser tan viejo? --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GBFF

Natasha-Charotte + Bethany-Rose have their own Bebo page and Piczo page. We copied one off their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashabethany (talk • contribs) 14:32, 22. Jun. 2008 (UTC)

Flickr

HI I took the picture at [1] and only because I have an account on Flickr. I hope you understand. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarium (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22. Jun. 2008 (UTC)

I know that you have that image on your Flickr account, but that does neither answer my question nor does it prove that you have copyright over it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

About this: Image:Joao cruz sporting com equipa.jpg

Hi,

no he dont die on the spot...hehehe...

Cause the picture is from Sporting (a soccer club)...then the rights of the picture belong to the club...if that the autor is Sporting...and the club lose the autor rihts after 70 years, that is the maximum time here in Portugal for an entitie have exclusive rights of anything, its like the autor as died...;)....

Compliments,

Geosapiens (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geosapiens,

thanks for the clarification! To avoid more questions like mine in the future, eventually write that about Portugal in the description or on the talk page of that image. Have a nice sunday. --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Attribution" or creative commons license with BY

Please, where and how do I change the licence?--Jdvillalobos (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Glückwunsch, lieber Administrator!

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...

Herzlichen Glückwunsch Túrelio! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons. Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to see it and thanks for helping. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Take it easy in the start and you'll be fine :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Rocket000 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Unfortunately you ran while I was away on holiday, but you would certainly have had my support. Best wishes, WjBscribe 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

David Giménez Picture

Hola Túrelio, I'm writing to you because of the picture of David Giménez Carreras that I posted, I'm new in wikipedia so I hope it is correct to open a new comment to ask you about it. The credit of the picture is as I wrote, of Fidelio Artist, an agency of Barcelona. They authorized the use of the picture for wikipedia (this picture is also used by many theater) so what kind of copyright do I have to put in order to see the picture back in Commons? Thank you for you help

Elena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Fidelio (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30. Jun. 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elena, thanks for asking. A permission for the use of the picture for wikipedia is actually not enough to upload an image to Commons. Media uploaded to Commons have to be free from copyright restrictions and must be free to use for more or less everything including commercial use. So, somebody can take the image and print it on a t-shirt and even sell that t-shirt (Of course, in this case the personality rights of Mr. Giménez Carreras also have to be considered, but this is separate from copyright). So, the first thing to do would be to ask the copyright holder, the agency Fidelio Artist, if they really agree to put this image in a resolution of your choice under a free license. If yes, you should forward them the permission template in Commons:Modelos de mensajes (sorry, only in spanish, not in catalan) and ask them to email it back to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . Of course, you might help them and insert the image URL (Image:David Giménez Carreras©Sonia Balcells-Fidelio Artist.jpg) and a fitting license. For the license, you might simply use {{Attribution}}, that means free to use for everything, but credit of the author/photographer is required. If you prefer a more elaborated license, I would recommend the Creative Commons licenses {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-3.0}}, both mean, the image is free to use, but proper credit of the author/photographer is required and, for the first variant, if "you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license." This is to avoid that somebody takes the image, alters it slightly and then puts it under a less free license. Hope this helps. --Túrelio (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Recht

Von welchem Recht spricht Du eigentlich, wenn Du dies auf meiner Diskussionseite hinterlässt? Gruß --Weissmann (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wie mehrmals erwähnt, geht es - abgesehen von der fehlenden Quelle und Erlaubnis - um das Persönlichkeitsrecht, konkretisiert hier im de:Recht am eigenen Bild.

Und was meinst du mit "dies"? --Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Die Frage nach dem Recht scheint mir elementar. Ich denke, wir setzen die Diskussion bei mir fort und hoffe, Du bist damit einverstanden. Danke für Deine Geduld. Gruß --Weissmann (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Maybe but maybe he/she was only mistaken. Eagle Beer (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ähem. To whom or what do you refer? Ah, eventually to Flickr user "Rendezvous_Text"? If yes, well maybe, I don't suggest any bad intention on anyone's side. But nevertheless, to self-license an image with an easily recognizable watermark/caption ... And here Image:Angel Locsin.jpg we have the next case of wrong copyright claims by this Flickr user. --Túrelio (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Beer (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of GoblinTech (talk · contribs), created after I blocked that account. Same Flickrwashing, same images, different Flickr account, same persistent lying about it. I for one will suggest bad intentions. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Sad to see how much effort people take to deceive us and to make us additional work to do. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message regarding User:Eagle Beer. All the suspicious uploads from this user have been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi at Purim image

On w:Purim, it is customary to get somewhat inebriated. In general, I do not think having pictures of inebriated people posted without their knowledge and consent is proper unless the activity happened in public, which may be construed as ipso facto consented. This image was obviously taken in a private structure, and I am afraid that there may be issues. Furthermore, I am malso concerned with the Hasid in the background right who seems sleeping. The image as a whole is not flattering, nor even neutral, and I'd prefer one which, at the least, has the consent of those taken. -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put RFD on both versions. --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated

I am bored and frustrated. I was kind of wanting to find a way to figure out if it was LaTeX that was broken when I tried to use it in an article at English wikipedia and the article became deleted for some extremely minor reasons.

I am sorry that I am bored and frustrated. I wanted to look into the problem and try to find a person in what is probably an extremely small group of people who could fix that, not wonder if they were assigning me a seven or eight year old mentor, or whatever it is they do for entertainment there.

It does seem that the using of vulgarity is not a problem for the people who are really in charge of things though.

I looked though your contribution list, and I must say, if sorting some images is worth more than sorting images, your list works that way for me. I think ten to twenty plant articles managed within the existing categories and/or gallery system is worth one of the images you were sorting through. At least it is to me, Eek!

Anyways, I was interrupted elsewhere. Finding the people who could work out the latex problems (and it might have been me) and the authoring of an article that qualifies for a Did You Know (note, I did not say accepted for) which has less than 18 actual words of article and doesn't cite anything that is not public domain. -- carol (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Check

Thanks. All contribs has been deleted.--Trixt (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ruins in the canton of Zürich

Hallo, ich habe die Kategorie geleert zugunsten von Castles in the canton of Zürich, da da nur Burgen drin sind und im allgemeinen Burgen unter "Castles in ..." kategorisiert sind (ich würde sagen 95% zu 5% gegenüber "Ruins in ..."), ich hoffe, Du bist damit einverstanden. --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Hatte die cat nur angelegt, weil sie eine von den benutzten, aber nicht angelegten Kategorien[2] war. Gruß --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming files

Hello! I got your message to rename the files I uploaded.. I have one question though... The photos I used are on the slovenian Wikipedia and I wonder what will happen to the links if I rename the files? Can I make a redirect for images? --Jeancaffou (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, de/re-linking is done automatically by the bot that actually does the renaming. So, you don't need to do anything. However, you may still fine-tune by yourself the proposed new file names. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A favour

Hi Túrelio. I work for EORTC IT, and Ms.Meunier has asked me to change the picture on the wikipedia site. I've just started an account but apparently not only do I have to wait four days, I also need to make ten edits. But I don't really have any edits to make, I just want to update the picture. Could I send it to you so that you can change it? Thanks, Vincent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.5.45 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9. Jul. 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vincent, may I ask what is Mrs. Meuniers objection? If you don't want to answer in public, you may send me an email; just use the "Email to this user link" in the left-hand menue. Also, I could then send you my email address, so you could use it to mail me a newer image. --Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Túrelio. The picture is old and she would like a more recent version, is all. Email would be great but I have problems logging in (that is, I can log in on the main page but as soon as I go to your user page I'm no longer logged in and logging in again fails). So I'll just be daft, and say send me an email at phvincent[at]hotmail.com. We'll take it from there. Thanks, Vincent.

File:Love Marie Payawal Ongpauco.jpg

What do you want? That are not my Picture and I haven’t upload them, I could only ad it to categories (hate pictures without categories!), but now they are deleted and I can only see who has uploaded it. FxJ (talk) 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I assumed you would Flickr review those images. But, since my message from this morning they have been deleted anyway. Cheeers. --Túrelio (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

teatro Colón pics

Thanks and sorry! I realized after that it said copyright! It was fault! I thought the Flikr pics were free until I saw the note at the right but it was too late! Please excuse me! --DEDB (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See my answer on your talk page. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect photo delete

You were incorrect of this image's deletion as there is two reason you reason for deletion is wrong. 1) That image was taken by a Wikipedia user and originally posted himself to the English Wikipedia. 2) The cite your useing is another Wikipedia user uploading the image to his Photobucket himself and incorrectly cites WWE as the owner be cause I know for a fact that when WWE took a photo of their new set with Raw graphics, it was done standing in the entrance way with the Raw mini-tron graphic playing. So could you please restore it. There was NO reason for that photo to be deleted. Thank you. If you need proof...let me know. Although I will give you WWE's photo of their new set now. Here it is. The only reason that photo is on a different site is cause I couldn't find it again on WWE.com...they must have deleted it but I have given you a link to the photo they had though. So there is your main proof.--  † ChristianMan16  05:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you eventually say about which image you are talking, I've no clue. --Túrelio (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted this image and it shouldn't have been for the reason's stated above. (Log for image deleted)--  † ChristianMan16  05:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Now, which user did upload it originally on :en. Obviously is wasn't User:Techarrow, at least not under this name. --Túrelio (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

JBZA2003 on EN WP.--  † ChristianMan16  06:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So on :en it was probably named "Image:WWERawHD.jpg". --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was...are you going to restore or not? Cause this is all I got to visually explain Raw on Simple English Wikipedia.--  † ChristianMan16  06:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't invest that much time without the intent to do something. Now, after it is restored, it would be nice if 'you eventually correct all wrong statements in the current description and add some rationale to prevent further deletions on the wrong "Photobucket"-assumption. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do...thanks!--  † ChristianMan16  06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is still something fishy as the link to the "original description page" on :en shows totally different image. So, best would be to ask the original uploader to re-confirm the license by an edit made by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what the problem is but this IS the correct image.--  † ChristianMan16  06:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know the image is now up for deletion. Here.--  † ChristianMan16  19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DC license plate

Hi. There is an image I would like to upload that is located at: http://www.dcvote.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=226

The press release contains the following information:

An electronic image of the ‘TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION’ license plate is available for use by the media at: http://www.dcvote.org/images/dclicenseplate.jpg or by clicking on the image above.

Can this image be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If so, under what license? Thank you for your help. Best, Epicadam (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Epicadam, sorry but no. See my comment on Image talk:DC license plage.jpg. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok. The media licensing makes sense. My only question, then, is this: the image they are hosting is a representation, in whole, of a District of Columbia vehicle license plate. I checked with the D.C. government and their representative said that standard D.C. license plates are not copyright protected; the only copyright protection offered relating to D.C. license plates is the use of organization-specific logos (like universities), which remain the property of the organizations themselves. Since that image does not have any logo whatsoever, why would the public domain license not transfer? In other words, how can DC Vote claim a copyright on that image when its contents is in the public domain? -Epicadam (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there we are. You might be right and, frankly, we often make the experience that even professional museums claim copyright over items clearly in the public domain. But as I'm no lawyer, I can't give you a definite solution. If you totally ignore their claim, they may sue or not, but, more importantly, in some weeks, someone else will stumble over it, eventually check the source and issue the next deletion request. So, even for practical reasons, I would recommend you to ask dcvote.org for a free license for that image. Actually, it should be in their interest as on Commons they get a larger audience. But if you don't like to do that or they do not grant you a license, then fair-use on :en (but not on Commons!) is the way. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I'll have to do that. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DC_2000_SAMPLE.jpg ? -Epicadam (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is from the same source (dcvote.org), it has the same problem. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually an image that another user (User:SAM-123) uploaded himself, I believe it's an image of an actual license plate taken with a digital camera (or scanned). -Epicadam (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There are more, see: en:History of vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C.. Is this slogan "Taxation without Representation" really printed on official license plates (issued by the "Government of the District of Columbia")? I can't believe it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. It's a protest since we pay taxes but can't vote for Congress. I think those images are probably all okay because no content on them is protected under copyright law... I think. -Epicadam (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Images

Umm, the site I downloaded the picture from (Cardcaptor Sakura sleeping angels)is a free site in itself. The people who contribute their creations there, do so willingly. I also have no idea how to email them. What am I supposed to do now??? La Alquimista (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There should/might be a user name and eventually an email adresse associated/linked with the respective images. If there is only a name, you could send your permission request to the webmaster and ask her/him to forward it to the respective uploaders/artists. --Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

34th G8 summit

A week ago, some question arose about the copyright status of a number of G8 summit photos which had been uploaded from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). The following images had been tagged for deletion:

• Fukuda arriving at New Chitose Airport, July 6th - [3]
• G8+8 Outreach Working Session, July 7th - [4]
• G8+8 Outreach Working Lunch, July 7th - [5]
• Tanabata, G8 leaders in a group, July 7th - [6]
• G8 Working Lunch, July 8th - [7]
• G8 Afternoon Working Session, July 8th - [8]

As you may recall, I responded to this perceived problem with alacrity, but I did so in a somewhat confused manner. Despite the awkward qualities of the e-letter I sent to MOFA, that attempt did engender a relatively prompt response. I hope it is not premature for me to believe that the necessary permission or release of whatever-it-is has now been satisfactorily documented?

As construed from the perspective of the Japanese government, a MOFA secretariat official has now confirmed that there was nothing improper in what I have already done. Is something else still needed? My limited experience at Wikicommons causes me to wonder if the imprecise words might not be inadequate? If the proffered paragraph is deemed sufficient, what next? I'm not sure what to do about removing those warning notices on the description page which accompanied each image?

I have already posted an update at Commons:Deletion requests/G8 images; but there may be something else I should have done? Will you please help me identify any further steps I need to take? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission confirmed by MOFA

from g8summit-press@mofa.go.jp

to [Ooperhoofd's e-address deleted]

date Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:33 AM

subject Re: 34th G8 Summit -- official photos, permission for use in Wikipedia context

mailed-by mofa.go.jp

Reply

Mr. ... [Ooperhoofd],

Thank you very much for your e-mail. There is no problem you use summit photos in Wikipedia as you do now, which "author" and "permission" are put down on each photo. We do not set an online set of statements concerning the prospective use of summit photos.

Regards,

Secretariat for the G8 Summit

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

重要度 : 普通 発信元 : - <Ooperhoofd's e-address deleted> 日付 : 2008/07/10 06:13:23

宛先 : g8summit-press

件名 : 34th G8 Summit -- official photos, permission for use in Wikipedia context

==> Regarding the letter sent to MOFA -- see HERE for copy of full text.

Further follow-up:

As suggested by Bidgee, I re-visited en:Wikipedia:OTRS; and I did send e-mail follow-up to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio claim

Any text is owned by his/her author, therefore it is not free from ANY right as requested by commons. This is true not only in this case, but in general. The subject of the picture is not the case but the leaftlet. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

O.k., I understand your rationale. But I doubt that such a simple text is copyrightable at all, as it is comparable to a timetable at a bus-stop. Also, the small images ion the right half should be no problem as they are staffage or de:Beiwerk. Then, how about Category:Plaques in Italy ? --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hello,

First sorry for the quality of the message, used an automatic translator.

You acted correctly to remove the pictures. I'm having some problems with the license of these images. Neither do I know whether they are mine. If I solve these problems, upload the images again with the appropriate licence.

Thank you for having eliminated the pictures and the contact.

Thank you. J.P.Chagas (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image montage help

Hi Turelio. I have a quick question. How do I license an image montage that I created from a number of other images (all of which are freely licensed on Wikimedia Commons)? Thanks, Epicadam (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no experience in that. I think that depends on the images you use for the montage. If all are PD, you may choose any license you want, if the composition has enough "merit" to justify own copyright. If all are under GDFL, you should choose the same. If all are CC-BY, choose the same. If it is mixed CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, you should choose CC-BY-SA. But I've no idea what to do if you use images of that some are licensed only GDFL and others only CC something. You may find something on Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia or the links on that page. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you move

"Hi Sarindam7, you will have to move this Image:Satyajit Ray shooting.jpg, this Image:Satyajit Ray in his office.jpg, this Image:Satyajit Ray on a set.jpg and this Image:Satyajit-ray.jpg to :en, where fair-use is permitted. Here they have to go. Sorry. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)" - How do I move images from commons to en??sarindam7 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Move" was just said out of courtesy to allow you to store the description info before they are deleted here. You will have to upload them again on :en (here: [9]). I don't think there is any other way. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Atleta

hi, Atleta it's a Roman statue, but I don't know when it was created, I'm sorry. I'll do a research. Bye--Dr.Conati (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AB:Image Tagging

Hi Túrelio, so sorry, 2 days, my bay.

Túrelio I see your comment...it ok Túrelio to me, I'll fallow you and keep on good ways.

next sunday I'll back here to talk wich you about it, so sorry Túrelio, but sunday or satday can answer better.

stay with God Túrelio and thank you with All my heart.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio...All pics be deleted, I have say thank you to halp and...so sorry about it.

You're good person, God bless you Túrelio!

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete it, please

I want delete my own work. If Wikipedia or the sisters projects do not delete it unfortunately i must advise the public that it is not a good idea to collaborate in a project that do not respect the copyright of his users. Coronellian (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wrote you a friendly and helpful note and you answer by threatening or blackmailing. Do you really think, you can achieve anything that way, here or elsewhere? --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We do respect copyrights (more than anyone else I know), but licenses are irrevocable and we also respect the users of our content. If someone says something is free and makes a legal contract with the public to allow free use (what these free licenses really are), it's unfair to everyone else to delete it simply because someone changes their mind. Licenses speak louder than troublemakers. Rocket000 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Can someone please explain to me what I am doing wrong instead of leaving default messages? I uploaded an image, and applied a license, added a source, etc.... and it was deleted. I do not understand.Red4tribe (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. Let's keep this discussion at one place. --Túrelio (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Washed out

The author of this serie of images has left wikipedia, he wanted to delete his images, there has been a edit-war and blocks, en than the author has reeplaced the original images by a image of a white page. The page was not "wiki-blanked", and therefore, I said "washed out" instead. I think, the best is just to remove all these images now. Havang (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just categorising, and found these useless white images; I see the originals are restored now; reason for me to let administrators do wat they think best; I also shall not give them categories. Thanks and greetings Havang (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OKE Havang (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft photos

you deleted three aircraft photos from the wiki commons because you are under the mistaken impressions that they are in copyright violation - maybe you need to read what is a copyright violation...the three pictures all came from museums that are US Government run, maintained. The employees are US Government employees (or volunteers) and the subjects are US Government Property. This makes the pictures copyright free Davegnz ( )

Replied on your talk page. --Túrelio ( ) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Detail 2008.jpg

Hello ... Please be advised that I, Michael Gomez Burton, request to have removed all information uploaded/ changed to file(s) initially posited by mistake (Michael Gomez Burton Studio) under the terms and conditions of Public Domain in accordance with Wikimedia Commons agreement. This was an error on my behalf and we do appreciate any actions to accommodate my request(s) in full.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

Best,

Michael Gomez Burton

O.k. I've corrected the format of your speedy-deletion request as you can see on the page of Image:Detail 2008.jpg. Any other admin may perform the actual deletion. If only the Public domain license is what disturbs you, you should also know that you may upload images under slightly more restrictive licenses such as {{Attribution}} or the Creative-Commons (CC) licenses BY-SA that guarantee your attribution as artist. Nevertheless, any image uploaded to Commons must also be free to be changed/altered, and that may actually be unacceptable for an artist. --Túrelio ( ) 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

about u're remarks

the pictures come from www.monumentebihor.ro, and "locuri" in romanian means places, and the title of the category is the same with the category from wikipedia that includes all that places.

i hope that i clarified u. --King-danny (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Túrelio ( ) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Custom taillight.JPG

Thanks. I didn't notice that til after it was uploaded... I'll see if I can upload a cropped'n under the same name. As for the blurred faces, I don't think it's a big ish, & one of them is the owner, but... Trekphiler (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Both things are not big issues, you might leave them as they are if you prefer. None of the images would be nominated for deletion for that. (Don't take the comments by User:carol too serious, she has a sort reputation here ...) --Túrelio (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming images

Hello, Turélio, This user is gone, I have succeeded in identifiing some 40 of his images, which all have number names, I can make propositions for new image mames and make a list, wait for that before you take action. Havang (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He or she made 1 edit in July 2008 [10]. And I don't intent any "action". I've only added our current info template to some of the images. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have part of the list, so I give it here. To be continued. Havang (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Voici la fin de la liste, tu sauras en faire usage ou sauras le transmettre à qui. Havang (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Merci. But I am not so fluent in French to understand the second half of your final note. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it says: here is the end of the list, you will know how to use it or where to put it for others to use. In titling I willingly used fr and en to have no risk of double naming; all key words are in the titles. Havang (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Turélio, I have transferred the list to the Commons:Village pump, not knowing what will come out of this there. Havang (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) - And I removed the list now. Havang (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ranaming

Auch an dich: Renaming ist für kryptische oder irreleitende Dateinamen und nicht für irgendwelche Scherzaktionen. -- Cecil (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite my demand you didn't provide any proof for your unfriendly and IMHO unfounded insinuation of misbehaviour. So I have to regard this as slander. --Túrelio (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which demand? Just checked your contributions if I didn't get a message, but there was no demand to provide any proof. Anyway, that can easily be done: Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle02.jpg, Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle03.jpg, Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle04.jpg, just to name a few images, where you added the rename-tag. In all those cases you just added a 'a' to the number. You know that if you feel bored there is the Category:Unknown which has a backlog and several other things to do here either. You don't need to create more work by unnecessary renaming. -- Cecil (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk facts.

1) Which demand? - This one on your own talkpage, since 20:24, 9 August 2008, 18 minutes after your first edit above.

2) In all those cases you just added a 'a' to the number - Wrong, I requested[11] a rename from Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle04.jpg to Image:Bas Relief Cuverville04a.jpg; that is removed the third l in villle and added an a. Why the "a"? As you could have easily read from my edit commentary[12], I changed a "badname" by User:Esby to "rename" because the badnamed Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle04.jpg was not totally identical to the correctly named "duplicate" Image:Bas Relief Cuverville04.jpg (I compared them by viewing). As the correct name "Bas Relief Cuverville04.jpg" was already in use by the newer image and as the older image one was but a variant, I choose to denote this with an additional a.

3) In all those cases you just added a 'a' to the number - Wrong, I requested[13] rename from Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle03.jpg to Image:Bas Relief Cuverville03a.jpg. The rest is identical as described in paragraph 2), again the rationale for the rename request was clearly denoted in my edit summary[14].

4) In all those cases you just added a 'a' to the number - Wrong, I requested[15] rename from Image:Bas Relief Cuvervillle02.jpg to Image:Bas Relief Cuverville02a.jpg. And again for the same reason, as clearly denoted in my edit summary[16].

So, every one of your allegations is disproved. And please, stop insinuating bad faith in my work (if you feel bored). In addition to violating AGF, this poisons the atmosphere on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Image:HS Psara F454.jpg

Excellent forensic investigation. Congratulations! Sv1xv (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Also, it was the URL provided by you that paved the way. --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That image

Yes, it's highly inappropriate, IMO, and is a violation of the subject's personality rights. It's currently only being used on en:Jelena Janković, and is not the primary image there. This image is the current main one, and is used cross-project. It may be just my personal bias, but as a woman, I'd like to see that image deleted immediately. Wikipedia, nor Wikimedia Commons' purpose is not to hurt people. Indeed, the first Google hit to be returned is the enwiki page, with the above image. Licensing looks okay, re. Flickr, but that's not the point here, of course.

I'd certainly support its being deleted - Alison ^❤ 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: possibly run this past User:Durova, too, as she'll probably have something to say on this - Alison ^❤ 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

... and I've just removed it from her enwiki article - Alison ^❤ 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Natasha Poly.jpg

Sorry about that, I have restored the image. I'll remember to check more carefully in future. Anonymous101 ^talk 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem. Actually, the speedy/copyvio templates are lacking an eye-catching tag or place where to add additional information after nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello Túrelio, I uploaded a photo on Wikimedia Commons recently, and you said that it was a copyright violation, nevertheless I found it with the search of Creative Commons. Where can I found free images ? Thank you. -- xavitenor

Answered on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Hello Túrelio, If I find an image searching in http://search.creativecommons.org/ and clicking the options "Search for works I can use for commercial purposes" and "Search for works I can modify, adapt, or build upon", is this image valid? Thanks. -- xavitenor

I don't have any experience with the above mentioned search portal, but it seems reasonable that the resulting image might be free enough for Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your proposals for speedy deletion

You put up an image that I uploaded up for speedy deletion, an image of a sculpture by Galschiøt made somewhere in the open i Kenya. I do not know much about copyright, by I do not believe that something like that could be an obvious case. Why not use the normal deletion process? "Speedy" does not even notify the user. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't put a speedy on it, but a Derivative. That it's a derivative seems to be obvious for me, but I can change it to rfd if you prefer. --Túrelio (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hello, If an image doesn't have a correct source and license, the template to use is {{subst:nsd}}, not speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is used only if you know that the image is a copyright violation. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Help:Mass nominations

Please group DRs together when images from the same user are nominated for the same reason. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yoda graffiti.jpg

Enjoy

Why do you want to delete this graffiti. Grafities often are based on a popular culture. It is a main feature of this art... Electron (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I do not want to delete this, but IMHO it has to, because this image of Yoda belongs to the Star wars people and is surely still copyrighted. If you make a photo or a close reproduction such as this one, of a copyrighted work of art you don't earn own copyright, but it still belongs to the original copyright owner. Of course, you may ask George Lucas' company, whether they would allow us to put the photo of this graffiti under a free license. Anyway, another admin will look over this cv and you may contest my opinion on the image talkpage. Cheers --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your explanations. But in some kinds of pop arts a transfomation of other art produces a new quality and in the end - a new piece of art with new copyrihts. See e.g. works of en:Andy Warhol. In my opinion it is a similar situation with this graffiti. It is not only a copy of how Yoda looks like but it is a transformed apperance of this beeing in a graffity maner and a new piece of art with new copyrigts. Regards Electron (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pdx washpark holocaustmemorial suitcase.jpeg

Hi, you tagged Image:Pdx washpark holocaustmemorial suitcase.jpeg with {{Disputed}} but didn't add any comment to the talk page indicating what the problem is.

I took this photo in a publically owned park which does not charge an admission and does not restrict access. The sculptures were donated for public benefit. To my knowledge, sculptures cannot be copyrighted, not that I've ever heard of. EncMstr (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

O.k. I put my comment in the edit summary[17]. If it had been an other object, I would have made a rfd immediately. Why? In the US, there is Freedom of panorama for copyrighted sculptures. As of its age, this sculpture is surely still copyrighted (until 70 years after the death of the artist). By the way, the image description is totally missing the name of the sculptor and the date (year) of its creation/installation. I would recommend to upload it under the fair-use clause (not allowed on Commons) directly to :en. And, sculptures are under copyright as art of course, see Commons:Image casebook#3D art .28sculptures etc.29:. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I read COM:FOP and it seems that photos of publicly owned art are protected free speech. Trying to make money from such photos is more problematic, but surely the CC-SA license makes that impossible. EncMstr (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmh, publicly owned art are protected free speech - I couldn't find anything of that in COM:FOP. May be, you could direct me where you did find that. And about your next claim, you seem not to have read the guideline I had linked in my last comment: Mere physical ownership of an original artwork such as a sculpture does not confer ownership of the copyright: that remains with the artist. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to ask about My Images

All my images are taken and owned by me! Starman322 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman322 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13. Sep. 2008 (UTCTúrelio (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for feedback, though your images have been deleted by other admins already. Also, I did not see a problem with ownership, but with COM:SCOPE, missing a meaningful description, and eventually a violation of personality rights of the depicted woman.[18] However, if you are sure you can validly contest that, you may request undeletion of your images. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Ronald McDonald doing Thai greeting.JPG

Hi. I see you just deleted this file, noting that it was a derivative work. I can't be sure of the nature of the image, but from the name, I'm guessing it was a photo of a Ronald McDonald statue. Unless I'm mistaken, this should have fallen under freedom of panorama under Thai copyright law.) --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:Jodo. --Túrelio (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

michigan central station

a good point, but i own the image, and have released that image in particular under a creative commons attribution license. no matter what it says on my website, i am releasing these images, and cannot change my website to accomodate the few images i contribute to wikipeda Urbanarcheology (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maggiori.jpg

Also, image with NC-licenses are not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC) -Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I spoke about it yesterday with the administrator Bapti who said it would be the same for pictures destinated only to french wikipedia. I agreed to return to the initial licence and he restored the picture. Bech (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Old postcards

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konigstein81.jpg is very interesting, and it would be nice if we could extract from it some useful policy or at least guidance as to how old postcards should be handled. I have hundreds which I could upload, but many will raise the same issues as this, and I don't want to have to go through the same old arguments every time. Even better would be to work out some rules on anonymous images generally, but I suspect from past discussions that that will be much harder. I am thinking of working up a policy page on postcards, at least. If you have any thoughts on the general principles that should apply, could you leave me a note on my talk page? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending permission for image(s)

Hello. On following images, you have added the {{Otrs pending}} template:

• Image:FrancoiseMeunier Jb1204 005.jpg

Unfortunately, after conducting a search, I could not locate the ticket containing the permission to use the image. Please respond on my talk page if you have the ticket number, or if you would like to send me the permission. Please note that if you do not respond, the image may be deleted. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you do get a reply, be sure to forward the permission to the address on this page, and let me know that you've sent it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we have not received the necessary release, the image will likely be deleted soon. If you end up getting the permission, please let me know and we can get the image restored. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

IMAGE OF BURNT GIRL FROM CHRISTIAN COUNCIL

The image of the partly healed girl appeared the day after violence began in Orissa, India. We do not know who took the pic and touched it up. Presumably, she was miraculously half-healed within hours. This pic from a fully biased source is now used by a Priest in the Orissa violence Page for a POV against Hindus.

Your caption of the Pic cannot be substantiated except by the Christian Council.

Jobxavier (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Corina Casanova.jpg

The tag will be corrected in a few minutes — I have reverted the image just before your edit, but haven't reverted the description yet. Schutz (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Then you can remove the disputed template. --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done ! Schutz (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Grupo Experimental Image:Image:Grupoexperimental1.jpg

Hi, Turelio:

I would like to know the problem with the image. Is just a foto, selfmade, of and old LP cover of the group made by the portorican discografic Disco Libre that doesnt exist no more. If there is needed some aditional info just let me know.

Thanks for your time

--Juanfa61 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Juanfa61,

the cover of a CD/DVD/Game box/LP is (nearly always) copyrighted, see Commons:Image casebook#Album covers. If you take an image of a copyrighted cover (or anything else), you do not earn own copyright of your image, as legally it is a derivative of the original. Therefore, you cannot upload/publish such an image on Commons, even if you own the pictured item. How long the copyright of the original item is valid depends somewhat of the country. For more details follow the above mentioned links. Of course, if you can contact the artist/copyright holder, you may ask him/her to give you (written) permission. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Turelio:

you put the answer in your talk page, not in mine, so, i´ve read it late so I repeat the same error with other works. Now I know that doing that (take pictures of covers) is not correct.

I apologize to do so and thank you again for your time--Juan 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gare Avignon TGV - Perspective by JM Rosier.JPG

hi,

"Image:Gare Avignon TGV - Perspective by JM Rosier.JPG" had just been delated, without any special notice put in advance... can you tell me why ? I am the author of the picture and it is taken in a public location... and many pictures of the inside of the train station are still available (in really less good quality !), so what makes the difference with mine ? Is there a page where this particular problem had been spoted ? There might be a detail that I have missed, but to understand I have to be explained.

Please, notice that I cannot check now what was on the picture as i don't have it with me now and i din't know it by heart.

Best regards.

--Jmrosier (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jmrosier,

the image had been tagged for speedy deletion due to copyvio for "Modern Architecture. No FOP in France. Copyright owned by AREP" by User:Zil. As it is a modern building and as there is no Freedom of panorama in France, the building is still copyrighted by the architect. Any photo of it is a derivative work and not allowed on Commons without a written permission by the original copyright holder. Therefore, it was deleted by me.

And about notifying, you got a note by Zil on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, I did not know about this architect copyright point, thanks for your explanation. --Jmrosier (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

About "Image:Mains du vigneron Beaume de venise by JM Rosier.jpg", you might be right... it is a town symbol, but for sure less than 40 years of existence. Ok for removing, sorry for that, normally I try to be careful, but the cave who order it for the town told me to take it as it is a symbol... I did not thought of the right of the author. --Jmrosier (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Book Cover Totems & Shamans designed and published by ... me

Hello, I uploaded a book cover (totems1000.jpg) that you had deleted on suspicions of copyright violation. The thing is... I published the book myself, and he copyright for the cover is fully owned by my company. If I decide to upload the cover on Wikimedia Commons, is it really a problem? Thanks for your help, I'm a little confused. Julien Flak, director of Galerie Flak

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rumble Logo

SatNet Radio Works has authorised the use of their logo for these purposes, I therefore call for you to remove your objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdevl1 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3. Okt. 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But, as the image is present on a commercial website, we need a written permission by the copyright holder. Therefore, you take the permission template (Declaration of consent for all enquiries) from Commons:Email templates (also available in other languages), fill in the image URL and the choosen license and send it to your contact at SatNet Radio Works and ask him/her to mail it back to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After arrival of the permission mail, the images will get a so-called OTRS-ticket on the description page and everything is fine. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Túrelio, I haven't read my User talk until this morning. I saw your copyright warning, so I added an explanation on the description image. I assume the responsibility for publishing the 2 photos because I know people in the pictures and they agree. Tell me if there is any problem because I don’t have much experience in Commons. --Edeneden (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. Both photos has been deleted again and I will ask for undeletion (Undeletion requests).--Edeneden (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayor Brown photo

Hi Turelio,

Danny W. Alano is my uncle, he has a collection of old photographs with him, most of which my grandfather took and left in his care. My uncle has since moved with his family to NJ, and have decided to digitalize the collection which he then shared to members of www.debasilan.net, of which I too am a member. Since he did not take the pictures, and neither did I (actually the one who took it died in 1966), and since the photo was shared to everyone on the aforementioned website, then I assumed it would be alright to post the picture on wikipedia, but made sure to acknowledge the source anyway.

The picture was taken in the 1950s. Not 1950. And Mayor Brown was mayor from 1954-1975.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I am still pretty new at wikipedia and would appreciate it greatly if I could be coached more about the "fine print", some of them could be quite confusing.

Jjarivera Same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjarivera (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6. Okt. 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!

Since my grandfather took the picture (taken during a party at his house sometime in the 1950s), I am qualified as an heir or relative of the one who took the picture, right? Or do I need my father's written permission?

Same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjarivera (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6. Okt. 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pretty BoA.jpg

huh ? -Well... there is no description, no author, no source, no date, no license and no permission. I thought it might be enough for a speedy ? --Lilyu (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Image:Prince-april20-2004-housequake-3.jpg

Hello,

I made it very clear in the description a long time ago, but also on the talk page a shorter time ago. You just removed an image that's already years on Wikipedia without any discussion, explanation and warning. I think that's not very polite. Please restore the image and explain and discuss the reason why you want it to delete? --Jeroencommons (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

O.k. I've done that. However, I'm not really convinced by your statement on the talkpage. And I'm obviously not the only one, as the image was tagged as Disputed (not by me) since August 22[19]. Here is now the regular rfd. The best way to contest this would be to ask the people at Housequake directly. --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please give me time to ask Housequake.com about the photo. If it's not possible to use this photo, maybe they have another one that we can use. --Jeroencommons (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You can delete the image, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prince-april20-2004-housequake-3.jpg. Cheers, --Jeroencommons (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Monika Hauser.jpg

Hi, after an undeletion request, I restored Image:Monika Hauser.jpg but I'm with you on that one. Maybe requesting user has more info. Regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

D'accord and thanks for notifying. I've asked the uploader to try to get a direct permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Westside

Hi Gab01,
Thanks for uploading. But you should check whether Image:Westside 4.JPG and Image:Westside 3.JPG are really covered by the Freedom-of-panorama law of Switzerland. As modern architecture is considered work of art and as the architect of this building hasn't died >70 years ago, he still has copyright over the building. FOP usually covers only images from outside. --Túrelio (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Túrelio,
thanks for warning me. Do I have some time for checking it? If I had about one month, I could ask a lawyer who would tell my if those pictures are covered by the Freedom-of-panorama law. If not, the best thing to do would be to delete the pictures and maybe re-upload them later. I also contact user:Ikiwaner, maybe he knows that law better than me.--Gab01 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I have some time for checking it? - I will not tag them as derivative, but it is possible that someoe else does. But even if they are deleted, that wouldn't be really a problem as nothing is final here. Any deleted file can (and will) be un-deleted if new evidence is provided. And you really don't need to invest any money for consulting a lawyer. There are plenty of people here, who know a lot about copyright, only in this case it has to be Swiss copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And you really don't need to invest any money for consulting a lawyer. No, I know him: I am going to meet him in a month (that's the reason why I asked for the delay). I will just keep an eye on those files and If they are deleted, it isn't a drama. I'll contact you again if I get some news. --Gab01 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at that link: Admin.ch. It seems that two-dimensional reproduction of a work of art visible in a public place is allowed. Could you please confirm if I am right? Thanks! --Gab01 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right - and it doesn't help ;-). The link shows the usual description of Freedom of panorama. The problem is oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet as this may not be valid for inside buildings. (By the way, we can communicate in German, if you too are a german language-speaker.) --Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer talking in English because I am from Suisse Romande, but I understand German. This document, see page 5 suggests that this kind of pictures may not be allowed, but there is a debate ("Ob auch frei zugängliche Innenräume unter die Bestimmung fallen ist umstritten"). Another point is that Daniel Liebeskind wants its building to become kind of a forum (E.g. this interview, but it is not very explicit in this one, others are better), a real public place — I know, thats worth nothing neither — but I think Libeskind himself wouldn't be angry to see those pictures. I'll add the FOP-model to my pictures. --Gab01 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be used filenames

Hey - thanks for your help. Here are a few of those to be blocked (I've checked them up to 21... enough for this evening :))

• Image:PICT0006.JPG
• Image:PICT0009.JPG
• Image:PICT0019.JPG
• Image:PICT0021.JPG

(oh, the ones with jpg not capitalised should also maybe be protected) (i.e. Image:PICT0020.jpg etc.)

-- Deadstar (msg) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Found this btw, the "badname" pages give you a good idea of what's there or not. -- Deadstar (msg) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and good night. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

books

Hello, I understand English. But I'm not scanning the cover, just taking photos. It's my own work.

Where are the rules you are refering to? --Bolando (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Montebello fire after.jpg and Image:Montebello fire.jpg

Hi Túrelio.

You sent me Pay attention to copyright messages for these two photographs, which I had transwikied from WP:en to Commons.

I generally only transwiki images if they are licensed on WP with licenses acceptable to Commons, and I hope I did this in this case. Of course one of the consequences of the images now being deleted from both WP:en and Commons is that I cannot go back and check to see what I missed with these two files.

Unfortunately the messages you sent me don't give me enough information to tell me what I got wrong, which makes it difficult to learn from my mistake. Can you help?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

• Image:Montebello fire after.jpg had been tagged by someone else (who obviously forgot to notify you) as non-commercial on the Flickr source [20]. I notified you and deleted the image as NC is not allowed on Commons. If you need it on :en, try to upload it locally if that is allowed.
• Image:Montebello fire.jpg had been tagged by the same user as NC and ND, though I don't have the full Flickr URL, only http://www.flickr.com/photos/club306/. I notified you and deleted the image.

Hope that helps a little bit. (See also here.) --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess what I learn is that if the WP version of the image has a link back to an earlier source (such as a Flikr url), I ought to cross-check the WP license against any license or copyright info there. But that still leaves the majority of cases where there is no link (for example where the original uploader asserts 'own work'). In those cases, all I can do is take the WP license at face value. -- Chris j wood (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And it may even be more complicated when the Flickr user changed the license after an image was uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons. To minimize resulting problems, today we have Flickr review. But that wasn't available in earlier times.

And, if you've acted in good faith, don't take the Pay attention personally, it's just the standard message produced by the copyvio template. --Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:L prod id 0000003237.jpg

Hi , i´m Toni Wayne I talk about the photo Image:L prod id 0000003237.jpg

Violations, copyright ??

A simple picture for non-profit Wikipedia ?? Nothing

I know how this works . if you want, do not download more photos .

I just wanted to do this for a hobby and that is a singer that I like very much, nothing more

Although I doubt it very seriously

Thanks for the warning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni Wayne (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13. Okt. 2008 (UTC)

Hi Toni,

I don't remember the image. As of the deletion log, I had tagged it as {{Cover}}, so it was probably a CD//DVD/LP cover. Such covers are usually copyrighted. Even if you own a CD//DVD/LP, you are not allowed to upload a photo or scan of such a cover without an explicite permission by the copyrights holder.

And about non-profit Wikipedia: here is Commons, not Wikipedia. Commons requires images to be free also for commercial use. That leaves out all educational-only images, but I can't change that. You may try to upload your image locally, i.e. directly on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Harry E Donnell house.jpg

Not sure why my photograph was deleted. I created the photograph, and own it. I filled out the description indicating that I am the photographer, and you should have contacted me before taking such action. I also sent a similar note to "cecil" who took the same action as you did. hixguy1@gmail.com Thank you. Hixguy1 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)hixguy1

Hi hixguy1,

as the image has been undeleted already, I can't easily see the deletion log and I don't remember the deletion cause. But I assume that we suspected a copyvio because we found it on a website that we didn't identify with the uploader. That is strong proof of copyvio in 99.99 percent of cases. However, in your obviously not. Sorry for the hassle. By the way, Image:Harry E Donnell house.jpg is a duplicate of Image:B&B.jpg. The latter will probably be deleted.

Additionally, I've added the standard info template to Image:Harry E Donnell house 2.jpg, but you need to add a license to the latter, otherwise it will be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explaination and for adding the info template ... also, how do add a license? I've tried to amend the upload file, but can't seem to find where the info is. Can you explicitly guide me as to how I go about adding a license. Thanks again. Hixguy1 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)hixguy1

about Image:Escudo Boca Juniors.svg

Yes, the picture is used in 3 wikis, but its under a fake license. That's a copyrighted football logo (see the institution website) and this is just a .svg derivated work. The club is the only owner of the rights. Please delete it. Fernando (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Túrelio (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Doppeltes Bild

Hallo Turelio, dieses Bild dümpelt schon lange bei den Löschanträgen zu den doppelten Bildern rum. Wäre es Dir evtl. möglich, es zu löschen? Danke im voraus!!! Bis bald --Grüße aus Memmingen (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Würd ich gerne machen. Leider kann ich momentan ("Due to database corruption, our copy of the commons database is incomplete.") nicht prüfen, wo diese Verion derzeit noch genutzt wird (und entsprechend ersetzt werden muss). Wenn diese Funktion wieder läuft, werd ich es machen. Falls du ohne viel Aufwand herausfinden kannst, von wem die Originalarbeit (nicht das Foto) stammt, könntest du das noch in der Bildbeschreibung ergänzen. Danke und Gruß --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Das Foto wird nirgends eingesetzt (mit Ausnahme meiner Gallerie), Du meinst Dominikus Zimmerann als Künstler, oder? --Grüße aus Memmingen (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Gelöscht. Ja; ich habe der Buxheim-cat zusätzlich die Category:Dominikus Zimmermann vepasst. --Túrelio (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

van Gogh Cleanup Project '08

Hi, you'd be more than welcome to give badly needed feedback on Category talk:Vincent van Gogh to my ideas on thisone, and to possibly promote it among competent people. Most of the questions are about technical "how-to", about optimized filenames, sub-categories, etc. -- no need to be expert in van Gogh. Thanks, --WeHaWoe (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Teisseyre

Hi, Turelio. This Image:Teisseyre.jpg stone is located in Geological Museum of Wroclaw University. I don't remember exactly date but this sculpture was made about 2003 - 2005. When I send this photo to Commons I interpeted "copyright holder " as "I am author a photo" (similar situation is when I made a photo a building - I am not architect of this building but I am owner a copyright to photo of this house). However, now I see that it is another situation in case of sculpture and painting. Sorry for problems :) --Piotr967 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Please review when a speedy is acceptable and when it's not. The "other" speedy category isn't for DRs - things like this belong on a DR. Instead of having a discussion on a speedy, convert it to a discussion. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, [21]

Sorry, it was a private joke with a friend, as i know Diti XD

Thought i should have add some obvious </joke>, i was not expecting someone to come on that deletion review, as i had convinced DIti to keep his image :D

I are not serious kitthen--Lilyu (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

O.k., that wasn't evident from the context. I would recommend to add ;-) next time. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Obelix.jpg and Image:Asterix.jpg

I think that there is no question of FOP here, because this principle applies only to work of art permanently installed in public places. These two photographs depict individuals in fancy dress. The official policy of WP says that any image of individuals in fancy dress can be published under a free license, whatever the place. --Pah777 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

May be. Anyway, I didn't tag them for deletion, as I'm never really sure about this sort of copyrighted/trademarked figures. However, I removed the incorrect statements by the uploader in regard to FOP. In case you didn't notice it yet, Image:Asterix.jpg wasn't uploaded correctly, no image is shown. --Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Prohibited filenames

Hallo Túrelio! Ich habe gesehen, dass du vor Kurzem einige Bildnamen mit der Vorlage {{Prohibited name}} gesperrt hast. Bitte denke auch daran, die entsprechenden Seiten zu schützen, da sie sonst wieder überschrieben werden können. Grüße, →Nagy 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Noch ein kleiner Tipp:Ich persönlich blockiere ungünstige Dateinamen nur, wenn sie zuvor schon mehr als einmal gelöscht wurden (quasi "in flagranti"). →Nagy 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke für den Tipp. Ich hatte angenommen, dass der Schutz automatisch durch die Vorlage erfolgt. Wieder was dazugelernt ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedydel

Just curious: when do you decide to blank the page, and when is a speedy deletion in order? Just so I know for next time. Cheers, Ciell (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What deletion/page are you actually refering to? --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The ones you did just now, [22] for instance. Would Image talk:SPQR.svg be a candidate for speedy deletion or is blanking the page enough with this one as well? Ciell (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, speedy deletion is used to remove an entity, not just content of something that will remain. A talkpage of an image cannot really be removed if the image is not removed also. Therefore, if you want to remove some nonsense or useless text from a talkpage, just delete it the regular way as you would do it in Wikipedia (editing). The only exception I can think of, but have never been seen here on Commons, would be, if the to-de-deleted content is really unlawful or a danger to someone (for example, publishing real personal informations about a real person). In such a case, the edit that put this content in, can be totally removed; though I'm not sure how that works here on Commons. Hope that helped a little bit. And it's just my opinion. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's a bit clearer now, thanks! Ciell (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten to answer about Image talk:SPQR.svg. In this case, the question on the talkpage was quite legitimate. I answered it on the imagepage and then removed the question from the talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rotation of WTM project images

Unfortunately, it is not so simple to do this pre-uploading in a decentralized project. We aim to correct this in the successor project next year. However, I have never wanted to place the burden of adding the Rotate tag on other users, and so have been systematically placing these myself for quite some time now; I believe 95%+ of such markings have been by me, unless someone else happens to catch one first. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me a hint what you are relating to; I don't have a clue. --Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Friends

OK, I'll try, but they probably don't what is difference between public domain, GFDL, attribution or CC. When I asked them for images for Wikipedia, they all said OK, no problem, use whatever you want. Is there any deadline for this? --BokicaK (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi BokicaK, thanks for your reply. Your friends don't need really to know the subtleties between the licenses. It would be your task to honestly explain them the consequences. If they don't ever care about an image, you can propose PD; otherwise I would recommend CC-BY oder CC-BY-SA. As you may know, the "BY" requires any re-user to attribute/credit the image to the photographer (then the name of the photographer should be in the image description under Author, of course). As the images aren't tagged as problem images as of yet, you have some time. But you should watch them and as soon, as the photographer has said o.k., you might put the following tag {{Otrs pending}} on the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For picking up the scope/attack whatever image & multiple users. There was a third which I have also blocked. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:VP.JPG

Hey - I came across Image:VP.JPG - there are two versions: the first a "bad filename" placeholder, the second a photograph of some official looking people, both uploaded by you. I seem to have a caching issue as the "new" version doesn't show (+ it's likely it needs a rename anyway)? My explaining skills seem to be out of order today... sorry. I'm usually a bit more coherent. I hope you understand what I mean. Can you have a look and see what is going on? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew already, but have no solution. And I didn't upload the non-placeholder version. I did upload the placeholder shortly after deletion (not by me) of the previous VP.JPG and first thought it to be a cache problem, but it didn't go away. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Odd. I reverted to placeholder version, then it had (for a moment) two placeholders (both your uploads) and the "other" version beside my name. And then I refreshed and it now has three versions of the "bad filename" thing. Sorted I think. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

copyvios: Attis1979

Thanks for your message on English wiki, though I managed to make quite a few more before noticing. Haven't used the {{Copyvio}} before, so I'll read up on it before applying it. In any case, I'll leave this users photos for now, though I suspect few - if any - really are his, disregarding the photos uploaded from other wiki's and sourced as such. • Rabo³ • 10:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I put my note on :en, don't know where my head was. And about using {{copyvio|reason}}, it's even easier than an rfd. Put the same text you wrote in the rfd where "reason" stands; and place the copyvio URL at the beginning, behind an 1= . --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

to delete or not delete

Hi Túrelio! A small detail about [23]: I was used (from the french wiki) to simply blank such vandalism/sand-box when it's on the talk page, but I've noticed that on commons, most of such pages are simply deleted . Another user told me the same (see my talk page). That's why I've added the speedy. Well anyway it's not very important... :-) Have a nice evening. Vonvon (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vonvon, my remark wasn't meant as policy or something like that, just my opinion. Reading the remark on your talkpage, I acknowledge that there may be reason for a speedy - only a speedy takes actually longer than a direct deletion, if you arn't an admin. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Scrambled image

See Image talk:Mirador del pujol.jpg please.--Espencat (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

About images

Dear Mr. Túrelio I`m new in wikipedia and I don`t know how to upload correctly this images that are of my own property.Please tell me how to do it and what license I have to put correctly to them Thanks for your aid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrs62 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23. Nov. 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rdrs62,

the problem with most of your uploads so far seems to be that they are copyrighted. Even if you own a book or a CD/DVD/LP, you don't own the copyright of the cover or of the images in the book and, consequently, you cannot upload it here under free license. See here for more examples. --Túrelio (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploading images

Ok Mr. Turelio I understand the point, so If I upload the original personal photos that are Family photos , that will be ok. But what tipe of license I must put in the space whare it is ask for? ( please excuse my english of course) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrs62 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23. Nov. 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rdrs62,

please sign you comment on talkpages with --~~~~.

If the original images have been taken by a family member, you still should ask the photographer for the permission, if he/she is alive or otherwise his/her children. In most countries of the world, the copyright of the creator of a work of art lasts until 70 years after his/her death. (I'm going to bed now, so next reply make take till monday.) Cheeers --Túrelio (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

About License for images

Hi Túrelio How can I demonstrate that I taked the photos I upload ? Thanks--Rdrs62 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Permission letter

Hi Turelio,

I have sent a permission letter to wikipedia commons from the owner of the images. I am ready to delete the images uploaded before while waiting for your decision. Please kindly tell how I should proceed.

Thanks, Dashakob (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Dashakob

Hi Dashakob,

that's fine. As all of your uploads have been deleted in between, you should either re-upload them (tagging with OTRS pending) or ask for un-deletion (Commons:Undeletion requests) by mentioning the permission letter sent to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Avril

Why you did delet my picture?? i did all right!!--Vitor mazuco (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vitor, 1. I did not delete your image, I just tagged it as cover image and thereby probable copyvio. 2. As others already have written to you repeatedly on your talkpage, covers of CDs/DVDs/LPs etc. are copyrighted, usually by the record company. Even if you own a CD, you are not allowed to scan or take a photograph of the cover and publish or upload it under a free license. And surely, you will never get permission for that from the record company. The website from where you have taken it, also does not own it and therefore cannot give you a valid permission. Sorry. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image: Mr. Gorgeous6.jpg (Pic of Ray Parker Jr.) that was changed on 11/25/08 date I received message.

Hi Túrelio: Thank you for the change, for I do not wish to be in violation of any images. I have a tremendous amount of images for this artist and am attempting to understand what I can use as 'free content'. I have read the help pages however, am still having trouble. Would you be able to help upon your return, on what exactly is 'free content'? I keep thinking images released for the public, autographed pictures from the artist, etc. Also, advice on inserting images into the article as well? Thank you in advance for your time. --Cybdisco (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:SH 05AUG06 84.jpg

That's a fair-point. I'll keep it in mind TheCreator (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Käppele Würzburg

Hallo Turelio, könntest Du bitte diese Kategorie löschen? Ich habe die Bilder auf das übliche Format Category:Käppele (Würzburg) hier verschoben. Auf Wiki verschiebe ich es auch noch gleich. Wäre super. Danke! --Grüße aus Memmingen (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Erledigt. --Túrelio (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2 images to deleting

You deleted Image:Adonis apennina.jpg but there are 2 more images from this uploader: Image:Adonis wolgensis.jpg, Image:Adonis turkestanica.jpg. These pictures are from sole site. Uploader pleaded guilty here. --Gruznov (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, though I didn't understand any word in Russian ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks! I gave this link as satisfactory argument, for appearances' sake ;) --Gruznov (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Puziveri.jpg

Protect this page please, and block vandals - User:Staljaroff, User:A Ghost of Stoljaroff (impersonators of User:Stoljaroff). Thanks!--78.106.233.106 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Amber Rives image

I wasn't sure who to get the ticket from I just requested an e-mail from the source of the image,is that correct?Much appreciated.--Vacenal (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo doc

I documented the picture Image:IMG_0384.jpg.

You may correct my broken English. Thanks in advance. Graphophile

Thanks for the feedback. I've added the standard info template and categories. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem?

Why should that be a problem? Either this are real names, or someone is using other people's names. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Every user on Wikimedia projects has the right to disclose or not his realname. No other person has this right. Publicly associating a username with a realname might even endanger the person with the realname in his/her reallife. For the moment, I've only the policies on :de de:Wikipedia:Anonymität, :en en:Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting of personal information#User accounts and authorship and meta meta:Privacy policy at hand. On :de and :en, you might have been blocked for that. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But these accounts used real names, and there was a suspicion that these were not real names. If these are the uploaders' real names, there is no problem with "outing" (""Soweit ein Benutzer seinen Namen in der Wikipedia preisgibt, ist es unbedenklich, diesen auch zu nennen/verwenden), and if they are not real names, there is a problem with impersonation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image description

Hi. The problem about rotating, is that on my desktop they are rotated in the right way. About the descriptions, I will improove them ;). Thankyou for your feedback. Fale (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

O.k. thanks for feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

I noticed you deleted File:2301159.jpg, but I'm pretty sure the duplicate, File:2301159 2.jpg has an incorrect license. I just deleted the page on en.wiki that used it and I was wondering if you would delete that file as well. Thanks. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. But a quick search on wccsports.com didn't yield the image, so it's not proven as clear copyvio for the moment. --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Sasuke.jpg

Hello !

Maybe you pressed a wrong button when dealing with this image, cause you restored it before locking it as a prohibited name :x ... and it's a copyvio from the manga Naruto... Lilyu (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lilyu, thanks for your attention. But, did you even look at the current image under File:Sasuke.jpg? I deleted the copyvio and, after seeing the history of many deletions for this filename due to copyvio, I uploaded a dummy image under that name and blocked it thereafter, so that this name cannot be used anymore for uploading. --Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I got owned by the cache... sorry, i saw it with the previous picture (as if you had restored it), and i didn't thought about refreshing XD

A thousand excuses--Lilyu (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use?

How can I change type of license for this image Image:O.K.Garage movie poster.jpg to "Fair use" because it's cover or movie poster like this picture en:File:Biglebowskiposter.jpg for example. Thank you --Wikiarius (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikiarius, sorry but fair-use is not allowed on Commons. If you want to use the image on :en, you might upload it there as they allow fair-use. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Have some cake

yum

Have some cake on me. Evrik (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(alleged) Inapropriate use of COM:SCOPE

You added this to File:RECO0078 021 0001.jpg

{speedy|out of COM:SCOPE and eventually a copyvio}

Please understand that COM:SCOPE is not a reason for speedy deletion and in fact means nothing in this context, the picture is a copyvio and should be deleted as such. what is not apropriate is your use of COM:SCOPE here please cease and desist from this behavior and use a valid reason for requests for speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.204.58 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20. Dez. 2008 (UTC)

The file was deleted as a copyvio.[24] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

re:mal schauen

Hallo Túrelio, ich wuerde es auf jeden Fall wieder löschen, er hatte es zuerst in en:Fragile X syndrome eingefuegt und von irgendeinem Forum kopiert, siehe [25] von [26]. LG., --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vielen lieben Dank, lG., --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mklum

Concerning your question on this page: The image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is substantially larger than the one on Klum's firm website. That makes it obvious that it is not just nicked from the web, but comes from someone with access to the original file. (The press images page has another version of this image, but that is black and white and still not as large as the one on Commons.) Moreover, as you will see from that webpage, the author, Samuel Svensäter, works for Klum. Klum probably just passed through to upload an image of himself that he likes and that is owned by him or his firm. He is unlikely to ever come back to Wikimedia Commons to read your message. --Hegvald (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to info@klum.se. Further discussions can be made on File talk:Mattias Klum portrait.jpg. //Knuckles (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. -Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Innenaufnahmen in Kirchen o. ä.

Hallo Túrelio,

Vielen Dank für Deine Nachricht zum Thema Panoramafreiheit. Mir ist schon bewusst, dass die Panoramafreiheit nur für Außenaufnahmen gilt. Bei den Innenaufnahmen zur Erlöserkirche habe ich die Erlaubnis zum Fotografieren eingeholt und auch die zur Veröffentlichung in Wikipedia. Da Du Dich offensichtlich mit rechtlichern Fragen beschäftigst, habe ich noch einige Fragen. Vielleicht kannst Du mir weiterhelfen:

Alle drei Fälle in Deutschland

Fall 1: Ich fotografiere im Innenraum einer alten Kirche. Fotografieren ist erlaubt. Ich habe mir aber keine spezielle Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung eingeholt. Alle Kunstwerke sind so alt, dass der Künstler vor mehr also als 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Ist die Veröffentlichung in Wikipedia ein Problem.

Fall 2: Gleicher Fall wie oben, aber die Kunstwerke sind neuer, der Künstler ist vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstorben.

Fall 3: Ich fotografiere im Außenbereich auf öffentlichen Boden. Das Kunstwerk, das ich fotografiere, ist neueren Datums (z.B. Skulptur). Brauche ich die Erlaubnis des Künstlers zur Veröffentlichung in Wikipedia.

Außerdem habe ich noch eine Frage zur Angabe der Lizenz:

Dazu Beispiele der von Dir hochgeladenen Bilder, Innenaufnahme in einer Kirche: AachenStJosefMarienkapelle 8926.jpg oder die Innenaufnahmen zur Frankenburg.

Die Angabe der Quelle als own work bezieht sich nur auf die Fotografie. Das Objekt selber ist ein Kunstwerk –Künstler vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben. Muss ich diesen Sachverhalt nicht auch noch bei der Lizenz angeben?

Es wäre schön, wenn Du zur Klärung beitragen könntest.

Gruß --Barghaan (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Auf User talk:Barghaan beantwortet. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

http://flickr.com/photos/lynnmwillis/2067733964/

Du hast dieses Flickr Bild gelöscht - kannst du mir auch noch sagen, wo die ungelöschte Variante ist, damit es richtig kategorisieren kann? --Kersti (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Da ich als admin zwangsläufig eine Menge Bilder löschen muss, komme ich mit diesen "Angaben" nicht weiter. Wenn es als Duplikat gelöscht wurde, sollte im Lösch-log der Name der "Variante" stehen. Aber um ins Lösch-log zu schauen, muss ich natürlich wissen wie die gelöschte Datei hieß (und am besten auch noch wann sie gelöscht worden ist). --Túrelio (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)