Burrito678

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Burrito678!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

')

Copyright violations

---

Hello Burrito678. You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

--:bdk: 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:JesusOlmedo.jpg

File:JesusOlmedo.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Túrelio (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings

---

Hello. This is a reminder for you that it is important to address the identified issues instead of simply removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions according to our community guidelines. You can have this done automatically for you -- simply place {{subst:User:Jeff G./usertalksetup}} or {{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and then old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details). If you have received warnings for copyright issues, please familiarize yourself with our policy on licensing. You can also ask for help at the village pump or the help desk if you need assistance.

Hi Burrito678,
from where did you take the donkey photo in your upload File:XdXDxDXd.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Mousche by Scott D.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

---

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

If you can't find a comment or an older discussion here, take a look whether it is in one of my archives:
Archive1 (latest), Archive2 (2007), Archive3 (2008) (big!), Archive4 (2009) (huge!), Archive5 (2010) (huge!).

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Burrito678!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:JakeCuenca.jpg was uncategorized on 20 April 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Image:Regione-Basilicata-Stemma.svg

Hi Túrelio!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallo Amada44,

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

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

Thanks for your help, Alphonse Gallegos and and a new question

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

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

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

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

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

Never too late...

Hi!

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

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

Hi Maps & Lucy,

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

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

Bahnbilder Diskussion

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

Hallo Dschwen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entwurf (bitte dran rumfummeln)

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

Materialien: Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache

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

files tagged as copyvio

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions for User:How

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

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

permission from Victor Koulbak

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

Hi Lkedition,

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

category: Personal images

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

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

File:Looking south toward Sihyuan Wukou.JPG

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

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

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

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

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

Please protect the page User:Tp61i6m42008, he has been blocked

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

User:Yyatttw

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

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

Please, delete it!

Hi, Túrelio,

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

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

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

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

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

Your assistance please

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Geo Swan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duplicate files

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

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

Hi Banfield,

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

Freedom of Panorama

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

Hi,

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

Transfer of a picture from a wikipedia site to Commons

Dear Túrelio,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Bird's-eye view

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

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

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

Category:Flight Warsaw-Chicago 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch maybe?

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

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

Discussion on categories relating to people by hair color

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

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

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenan_Evren&action=history

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

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

a request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thanks for these heads-ups.

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

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

User:Cesar8807

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

One more

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

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

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

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

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

image referencing for illustrators

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

Hi Lbertman,

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

Regarding my Speedy deletion requests

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

Hi Kilbad,

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

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

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

NINA SILAEVA

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

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

File:Interieur Amarante 406 coupe.JPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

+iw, if you don't mind

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

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

Thanks for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Verne-Etoile.jpg and others pseudocolourd "Verne's" illustrations

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

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

Suggestion for the images i cliqued myself!!

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

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

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

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

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

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

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

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

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

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

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

Hola

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

Thank you

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

Stazione di Toledo in costr. DEFOG

Yes very good, thank you

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

Bilderlöschung

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning about deleting as duplicates

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

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

Copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

Pratelli.jpg

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

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

jeffrey dahmer

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

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

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

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

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

I decided to stop contributing to Wikipedia

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

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

File:Saulo Luís da Silva.jpg;

File:Logo LQPN.png;

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

Thanks and good work.

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

Hi,

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greece_Thasos_NASA_closeup_labeled.jpg

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

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

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

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

Category:Photographs by lens etc.

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

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

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

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

File:Кирил и Методий.jpg

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

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

File:LubosMarek.JPG

--Túrelio (diskuse) 15:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC) You cannot simply copy images from a website. --Túrelio (diskuse) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am an emploee of the university, the pictures of our Dean and vice-deans are our property (copyright and all...), I was delegated by the board of faculty to upload it to wiki commons under public domain and use it to create Wikipedia atricles about our faculty and its management http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakulta_informatiky_a_statistiky_Vysok%C3%A9_%C5%A1koly_ekonomick%C3%A9. That is why I actually CAN "simply copy images from a website" ... it is the website I am a webmaster of ... If in doubt, please contact me on my work email: antonin.pavlicek@vse.cz If I was wrong and filled some of your entries incorrectly, I am sorry. Lets change it accordingly, however, do NOT DELETE the files. Let them be, they are ours and we totally agree to publish it under public domain.

A. P.

Hi A.P.,

if your university has the full rights (from the photographer) over all these images, then the responsible body/person should sent a written permission to OTRS. Go to Commons:Email templates (or your language version), take the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" (or the equivalent), enter the filenames (or full URLs) of all images to be covered, and enter the name of the license and mail it all to the person who is authorized to issue such a permission. He/She should then date and sign it with his/her real name and mail it back to the email address shown on the page OTRS. After doing that, you should put on all the image pages {{OTRS pending}}. --Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In between somebody else has deleted the image. So, after you get the o.k. from your university for the permission, post the filenames on my talkpage. I will then restore them and tag them with OTRS-pending. --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Mexico-Iztaccihuatl-hreben.jpg, File:Mexico-Iztaccihuatl.jpg

Well, these files "survived" on wiki commons for almost five years without any notice, and you delete it in about five hours? I dont even get a chance to delare, that the "Non-profit" exclusion can be changed to general public domain? You know what? You can either change it yourself to the status whichever suits the wikipedia, or levave it deleted. However I am not uploadig it again. Your loss, if you delete it. --Tony (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed strange that these 2 images survived that long despite clearly violating Commons policy. Now, the problem with changing the license is that only File:Mexico-Iztaccihuatl-hreben.jpg was credited to "Antonín Pavlíček", but File:Mexico-Iztaccihuatl.jpg had been credited to "Jakub Hejtmánek" by you. If you are the author of the first one, I can un-delete it, so that you could change the license to whatever complies with our policy. However, the second one? --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

After undeleting the first image, I found that the author name had been changed[15] to "R. Espinoza", by an IP very similar to aother IP which later requested deletion[16]. I assume it was vandalism, but could you comment on that if you have an idea. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I dont know any Espinoza, it is nonsense ... the pictures were taken by ME and my friend Jakub Hejtmanek. Hard to say, which one of us held the camera which time, we travelled together and took the pictures on one camera, so dont ask me about precise "authorship", the only thing I know for sure, it WASNT some R. Espinoza.

To conclude ... thank you for helping, however I am quite busy at the moment for trying find out how to tackle wikipedia and its copyright policies ... so, I delegate on you all my rights to adapt any necessary changes to keep my pictures on-line ... however I am not in the position to do it myself. Best regards --146.102.64.134 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Only use category redirects where necessary

Your thoughts may be helpful at Commons_talk:Only_use_category_redirects_where_necessary#Changes needed to turn this into a guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Túrelio, I've seen that you made a photograph of Mother Teresa when she was in Bonn, Germany, in 1986. Do you have more photographs of this event - I was on stage with her that day and would like to have a memento. --84.144.254.249 00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi unknown, so far I have published two images, File:MotherTeresa 090.jpg and File:MotherTeresa 094.jpg. Of course, I have shot more images at this event, though not all of them have been digitalized. You may contact me via my email account (see link in the tool box to the left). --Túrelio (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guty Cárdenas.jpg

Hi. Thanks. What did I do wrong on the deletion request, because I have another one. --Yodigo (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You did nothing really wrong. However, the image in question has a 350x467 pixel resolution on the alleged source website, but our version has 600x800 pixel. Therefore, the former is unlikely the source of the latter. and because of that I decided that this case "might merit some discussion", as I wrote in the new DR. --Túrelio (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Killerpilze-Pressefoto.jpg

Hallo,

für obiges Bild war die Rechtelage unklar und ich habe den Fotografen auf deinen Wunsch hin nun eine Genehmigung verschicken lassen, dass das Bild genutzt werden darf. Nun wurde es aber gelöscht und nicht genehmigt. Kannst du mir sagen wo da der Fehler lag?

Vielen Dank und viele Grüße --79.227.221.147 13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Sebhe?,

Cecil hat es am 2.2. gelöscht, weil ich es bereits am 23.1. als no-permission markiert hatte. Ich habe es jetzt ent-löscht und mit OTRS-pending markiert, wodurch es vor Löschung geschützt ist bis die eingereichte Genehmigung vom OTRS-Team geprüft wurde. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS check

Hi, i saw you at recent changes and can you check this picture's otrs? --Aşkım da değişebilir gerçeklerim de (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, seems to be o.k. to me, as an OTRS-ticket (permission checked by our OTRS volunteers) has been added[17]. However, as I have no OTRS access, I can't check the ticket by myself. If you have doubt, you should ask at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Burrito678. You have new messages at Martin H.'s talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About user:Razghandi

Hi Turelio
You have nominated some of pictures I've uploaded for deletion due to copyright policies of Wiki.
Actually some of them are not mine, but those pictures are everywhere on the web and NOBODY knows the real photographer.
As you might know in Iran copyright is not a must be done rule.
I mean when an Iranian uploades a file on the web -It is obviously implied that- he agrees that everyone can publish that file without any request
You introduced user:Mardetanha to me. and I will discuss him to remove the nomination for deletion of my pictures
But any help would be appreciated
thanks
Amir Razghandi (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Labaro (Rome) - S. Alfonso M. de Liguori 12.JPG

Purtroppo non parlo inglese (je ne parle pas l'anglais). Je ne comprend pas (Non capisco perché) cette photo et l'autre aussi (File:Labaro (Rome) - S. Alfonso M. de Liguori 13.JPG) sont menacées d'être effacées. Non capisco perché si vuole cancellare queste due foto. Qui a décidé que ces photos son des oeuvres d'arts? Con quali criteri si è deciso che sono opere d'arte coperte da copyright? Solo perché sono belle e moderne? Une photo peut violer le copyright? Una fotografia può violare il copyright? Les permissions (licenza) données sont liées aux photos, non à l'oeuvre-d'art en soi. In ogni caso è una battaglia persa, tanto le foto le cancellate comunque.--Croberto68 (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Croberto68,

though I don't fully understand what you are saying, I think, you are asking why File:Labaro (Rome) - S. Alfonso M. de Liguori 12.JPG has been tagged with "no permission". This photo reproduces a station of a Via Crucis, which seems to consists in a 3-dimensional colored sculpture. This sculpture is a work of art and was likely made by another artist. If this artist is dead since >70 years, everything is fine and you can take as many photos of it as you want. But, if the artist is not dead since >70 years, he (or his heirs) still hold the copyright over this sculpture and any reproduction, including photographies. So, you should find out the artist who created this sculpture and whether he/she is still living or already dead and since when.

Per capire questo, utilizzare il traduttore di Google o chiedere di User:Trixt, che parla italiano. (Google translation) --Túrelio 14:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Baumberge (talk · contribs)

Hallo Túrelio,

du hattest geschrieben:

---

Hallo Baumberge, du hattest bei File:Havixbeck-huelshoff-drostebueste.jpg nachträglich die Lizenz von GFDL/CC-BY-SA auf die restriktivere CC-NC-ND-Lizenz umgeändert, so jedenfalls verstehe ich diesen Edit. Das geht so nicht, zumal es auch dem anderen Lizenz-Baustein widersprechen würde. Ich habe mir deshalb erlaubt, deinen Edit rückgängig zu machen. --Túrelio (Diskussion) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Ich möchte genau das und noch einen Schritt weiter gehen. Da ich keine Antwort bislang bekommen habe kannst du vielleicht helfen: Ich will meinen Account hier in Wikimedia sowie alle Beiträge von mir löschen bzw. löschen lassen. Wie mache ich das bzw. an wen muss ich mich wenden und wie kann das möglichst einfach schnell und ohne große Diskussion gemacht werden? Baumberge

Keine Antwort? Ich hatte dir gestern binnen 1/2 h auf deine Frage auf COM:AN geantwortet und mir sogar einige Mühe gegeben statt dich mit einem kurzen "Geht nicht" abzufertigen.

Und die Antwort auf das obige "Ich möchte genau das" findest du letztlich auch dort. Wenn du nach dem Lesen meiner ausführlichen Antwort auf COM:AN noch Fragen zu deinem generellen Anliegen hast, kannst du sie gerne stellen; dann aber besser auf COM:AN, damit sich die Diskussion nicht überall verteilt. --Túrelio 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I could use a few guidelines... I'm an active editor at Wikia, so I understand the importance of licensing copyrighted images, but the licensing is so confusing for me, and differs highly from what I'm used to at Wikia. Basically, I want to contribute a few images, some of Print Screens from a video game, other that I took myself with a camera. How exactly would I license these? And how would I fill out the general information forms? You help is appreciated. SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Video games are copyrighted, and photograph of that games will be considered as derivative work. Before uploading just go through this......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SSDGFCTCT9,

beyond of what Captainofhope already explained, a practical guide is here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Flickreview

Sorry, I had no idea of this. Thank you! --Duuk-Tsarith (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[[Archivo:BritishEmpire1919.png|thumb|300px|Territorios que en un momento u otro han formado parte del Imperio británico a través de la historia. Los territorios de ultramar aparecen subrayados en rojo.]] El Imperio británico comprendió los dominios, colonias, protectorados y otros territorios gobernados o administrados por el Reino Unido entre los siglos XVI y XX.

Durante las primeras décadas del siglo XX, el Imperio británico abarcaba una población de cerca de 458 millones de personas y unos 33 000 000 km², lo que significaba aproximadamente una cuarta parte de la población mundial y una quinta parte de las tierras emergidas.

El pico propiamente dicho se desarrolló durante unos 100 años (el llamado siglo imperial desarrollado entre 1815 y 1914), a través de una serie de fases de expansión relacionadas con el comercio, la colonización y la conquista, además de períodos de actividad diplomática. Probablemente, el punto de máximo auge imperial puede situarse entre 1890 y 1920.

El Imperio facilitó la extensión de la tecnología, el comercio, el idioma y el gobierno británicos por todo el mundo. La hegemonía imperial contribuyó al espectacular crecimiento económico de Gran Bretaña y al peso de sus intereses en el escenario mundial.

El primero en utilizar la expresión «Imperio británico» fue el doctor John Dee, astrólogo, alquimista y matemático de la reina Isabel I de Inglaterra, 1558-1603.

thumb|200px|Bandera del Imperio británico.

Expansión en las Islas Británicas y Francia

Tras la conquista normanda en 1066, Inglaterra defendió las posesiones de Guillermo el Conquistador en Francia.

Los siguientes siglos vieron los inicios de la expansión inglesa, con la conquista de Gales (1282) e Irlanda (desde 1169). Se produjo un intento en Escocia, que no fue exitoso (1296).

Crecimiento del Imperio en ultramar

El Imperio británico de ultramar, —en el sentido de la exploración y los asentamientos británicos a lo largo y ancho de los océanos fuera de Europa y las Islas Británicas— ,comienza a partir de la política marítima del Rey Enrique VII, que reinó entre 1485 y 1509. Iniciando líneas comerciales para el comercio de la lana. Enrique VII estableció un moderno sistema para la marina mercante británica, que contribuyó al crecimiento de los astilleros y la navegación de la isla. La marina mercante aportó las bases para instituciones mercantiles que desempeñarían un importante papel en la aventura imperial posterior, como las compañías: Massachusetts Bay Company o la British East India Company. Enrique VII ordenó también la construcción del primer dique seco en Portsmouth, y mejoró notablemente la pequeña Marina Real (Royal Navy).

Enrique VIII y la Marina Real

Los cimientos del poder marítimo de Inglaterra, que fueron establecidos durante el reinado de Enrique VII, se ampliaron gradualmente para proteger los intereses comerciales ingleses y para abrir nuevas rutas. El rey Enrique VIII fundó la moderna Marina inglesa, triplicando el número de barcos de guerra que la componían y construyendo los primeros bajeles con armamento pesado de largo alcance. Comenzó la construcción de su Marina a través del aparato administrativo centralizado del reino. Además hizo construir muelles y faros que facilitaban la navegación costera. Enrique VIII creó la Royal Navy, cuyas inovaciones fueron la base del dominio marítimo de Inglaterra durante los siguientes siglos.

La era isabelina

Durante el reinado de la reina Isabel I, entre 1577 y 1590, fue la época de mayor esplendor para los inicios del Imperio británico, Inglaterra comenzaba su expansión ultramarina con Sir Francis Drake y también con Guerras contra el Imperio español de Felipe II. dio la vuelta al mundo, y fue el segundo hombre en conseguirlo, tras la expedición de Fernando de Magallanes y Juan Sebastián Elcano. En 1579, Drake atracó en algún lugar del norte de California y reclamó para la Corona lo que llamó Nova Albion ('Nueva Inglaterra'), aunque su reivindicación no fue seguida de ningún asentamiento. Los siguientes mapas situaron Nova Albion al norte de la Nueva España. En consecuencia, los intereses de Inglaterra fuera de Europa aumentaron considerablemente. Humphrey Gilbert siguió el curso de Cabot cuando partió hacia Terranova en 1583 y la declaró colonia británica el 5 de agosto en San Juan. Sir Walter Raleigh organizó la primera colonia de Virginia en 1587, en el lugar llamado Roanoke. Tanto el asentamiento de Gilbert en Terranova como la colonia de Roanoke duraron poco tiempo, y tuvieron que ser abandonados debido a la escasez de alimentos, el duro clima, los naufragios y los encuentros con tribus indígenas hostiles.

La era Estuardo

La derrota de la Armada Invencible española en 1588 consagró a Inglaterra como potencia naval, aunque otras victorias navales españolas durante los años noventa del siglo XVI coartaron nuevos intentos de asentamientos. Finalmente, en 1604, el rey Jacobo I de Inglaterra negoció el Tratado de Londres con el que acababan las hostilidades con España, y el primer asentamiento permanente de Inglaterra en América se estableció en 1607 en Jamestown (Virginia). Sin embargo, la política exterior se vio detenida por una serie de problemas internos: la guerra civil (1642-1645), la República y el protectorado de Cromwell (1649-1660) y la posterior restauración, todo ello aderezado con luchas internas entre católicos y protestantes. No fue hasta la Revolución Gloriosa de 1688 cuando el reino recuperó la necesaria estabilidad interna. Durante los siguientes tres siglos, Inglaterra extendió su influencia internacional y consolidó su desarrollo político interior. En 1707, los parlamentos de Inglaterra y Escocia se unieron en Londres dando lugar al parlamento de Gran Bretaña. En 1704, en el contexto de la Guerra de Sucesión Española, Gibraltar es entregado al Príncipe de Hesse-Darmstadt que representaba al Archiduque Carlos de Austria. La posesión sería reconocida como británica en el Tratado de Utrecht de 1713, que puso fin a la guerra. España cedía a perpetuidad el peñón a Gran Bretaña sin jurisdicción alguna, estableciéndose, no obstante, una cláusula por la cual si el territorio dejaba de ser británico, España tendría la opción de recuperarlo.

Colonización de América

El Imperio británico comenzó a tomar forma a principios del siglo XVII, mediante el establecimiento por parte de Inglaterra de las 13 colonias de Norteamérica, que fueron el origen de los Estados Unidos así como de las provincias marítimas de Canadá. También se produjo la colonización de pequeñas islas en el Mar Caribe como Jamaica y Barbados.

Las colonias productoras de azúcar del Caribe, donde la esclavitud se convirtió en la base de la economía, eran las colonias más importantes y lucrativas para Inglaterra. Las colonias americanas producían tabaco, algodón, y arroz en el sur y material naval y pieles de animales en el norte.

El imperio de Inglaterra en América se iba expandiendo gradualmente mediante guerras y colonias. Inglaterra consiguió controlar Nueva Ámsterdam (después llamada Nueva York) tras las guerras anglo-holandesas. Las colonias americanas se extendían hacia el oeste en busca de nuevas tierras para la agricultura. Durante la Guerra de los Siete Años, los ingleses vencieron a los franceses y se quedaron con Nueva Francia, en 1760, lo que convertía a Inglaterra en dueña de casi toda América del Norte.

Intento de colonización del Río de la Plata

El Imperio británico intentó dominar la zona del Río de la Plata (Buenos Aires y Montevideo), a través de dos intentos de dominación, denominados «Invasiones Inglesas». El primer intento de invasión se realizó en el año 1806 con la ocupación de Buenos Aires y su recuperación posterior con tropas llegadas desde Montevideo, lo que le valió a esta última ciudad el recibir el título de "Muy fiel y Reconquistadora" por parte de la corona española. El segundo intento de invasión se inició esta vez en la Banda Oriental (actual territorio de la República Oriental del Uruguay) al ocupar los ingleses Maldonado y luego Montevideo en enero de 1807. La invasión fue finalmente rechazada a mediados del mismo año en Buenos Aires, retirándose las tropas inglesas del Río de la Plata.

Colonización de Oceanía

Después, los asentamientos en Australia (que comenzaron con las colonias penales en 1788) y Nueva Zelanda (bajo el dominio de la Corona desde 1840) crearon una nueva zona para la migración desde las islas británicas, por lo que las poblaciones indígenas tuvieron que sufrir guerras y, especialmente, enfermedades, reduciéndose su tamaño en alrededor de un 60–70% en algo menos de un siglo. Estas colonias obtuvieron después autogobierno y se convirtieron en rentables exportadoras de lana y oro.

Libre comercio, el «imperio informal»

El antiguo sistema colonial británico comenzó a declinar durante el siglo XVIII. Fue un período de dominación Whig en la vida política nacional (1714–1762), el Imperio se convirtió en algo de menor importancia, hasta que un intento de subir los impuestos en las colonias norteamericanas desató la Guerra de Independencia y la independencia de las mismas (1776).

A menudo se alude a este período como el del «Primer Imperio británico», indicando el cambio de dirección en la expansión británica, que se dirigió fundamentalmente a las Américas durante los siglos XVII y XVIII, mientras que durante el «Segundo Imperio británico» se centró en Asia y África (a partir del siglo XVIII). La pérdida de los Estados Unidos mostró que poseer colonias no era necesariamente una ventaja en términos económicos, ya que Gran Bretaña podía aún controlar el comercio con sus ex-colonias sin tener que pagar por su defensa y administración.

El mercantilismo, la doctrina económica que presupone la competición entre naciones por una cantidad de riqueza finita, había caracterizado el primer período de expansión colonial, pero cedió paso al laissez-faire económico, el liberalismo de Adam Smith y sus sucesores.

La lección aprendida por Gran Bretaña tras la pérdida de Norteamérica —que el comercio puede seguir aportando prosperidad, incluso en ausencia de dominio colonial— contribuyó durante los años cuarenta y cincuenta del siglo XIX a la extensión del modelo de colonia autogobernada, que se concedió a las colonias pobladas por blancos en Canadá y Australasia. Irlanda tuvo un trato diferente, siendo incorporada al Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda en 1801.

En este período, Gran Bretaña prohibió el comercio de esclavos (1807) y pronto comenzó a forzar a otras naciones a hacer lo mismo. A mediados del XIX, se había conseguido erradicar la esclavitud de la mayor parte del mundo. La esclavitud fue abolida en las colonias británicas en 1834.

Entre el Congreso de Viena de 1815 y la Guerra franco-prusiana de 1870, Gran Bretaña fue la única potencia industrial del mundo, con más del 30% de la producción industrial global en 1870. En su papel de «taller del mundo», Gran Bretaña podía producir manufacturas de modo tan eficiente y económico que podía vender más barato que los productores locales en los mercados extranjeros. A partir de condiciones políticas estables en ciertos mercados de ultramar, Gran Bretaña pudo prosperar gracias al comercio, sin necesidad de recurrir al gobierno formal en su área de influencia.

El Imperio Británico en Asia

La victoria de las fuerzas de la British East India Company en la Batalla de Plassey en 1757 abrió la provincia india de Bengala al dominio británico, aunque la posterior hambruna (1770) exacerbada por las expropiaciones realizadas por el gobierno provincial fue controvertida en la metrópoli. El siglo XIX vio como el control de la Compañía se extendía sobre toda la India. Tras el motín de 1857 los territorios de la Compañía pasaron a estar bajo la administración de la Corona (1858). La Reina Victoria (1837–1901) fue proclamada Emperatriz de la India en 1876.

Ceilán (actual Sri Lanka) y Birmania se unieron a la lista de territorios británicos en Asia, que se extendían por el este hasta Malasia y, desde 1841, a Hong Kong tras la Primera Guerra del Opio en defensa de las exportaciones de opio de la Compañía a China.

Los intereses británicos en China comenzaron a finales del siglo XVIII, cuando Gran Bretaña se convirtió en un gran importador de té. El comercio del té creo un déficit que los británicos trataron de corregir exportando opio de la India a China, a pesar de la oposición de las autoridades chinas. El conflicto dio lugar a las Guerras del Opio, en las que Gran Bretaña derrotó por dos veces a China.

Tras las Guerras del Opio, Gran Bretaña mantuvo unas complejas relaciones con China. Aunque se anexionó Hong Kong, la mayor parte de su comercio con China se regulaba mediante tratados que permitían el comercio a través de un cierto número de puertos. Como resultado, Gran Bretaña estaba interesada en mantener un estado chino independiente, ya que su destrucción hubiera abierto la posibilidad de ganancias territoriales para otras potencias occidentales.

A la vez, Gran Bretaña no quería que el Estado chino fuera demasiado fuerte, ya que ello hubiera supuesto que China pudiera cancelar o renegociar sus tratados. Estos intereses explican la aparente contradicción de las actuaciones británicas respecto de China: Gran Bretaña apoyó a la dinastía Qing durante la rebelión de Taiping, pero al mismo tiempo, mediante una alianza con Francia, se embarcó en la Segunda Guerra del Opio contra la corte Qing.

Ruptura de la Pax Britannica

thumb|350px|right|El Imperio Británico en 1897, en rosa, que era el color en que se coloreaban los dominios británicos en los mapas. En su condición de primer país industrializado, Gran Bretaña fue capaz de conseguir materias primas y mercado en la mayor parte del mundo accesible. Esta situación empeoró gradualmente a lo largo del siglo XIX en la medida en la que otras potencias comenzaron a industrializarse y comenzaron a utilizar la maquinaria del estado para garantizar sus mercados y fuentes de abastecimiento. En los años setenta del XIX, los fabricantes británicos en los sectores clave de la Revolución Industrial, comenzaron a experimentar una competencia real.

La Industrialización progresó rápidamente en Alemania y los Estados Unidos, permitiendo a estos países superar el modelo británico y francés del «viejo» capitalismo. Las industrias alemanas en el sector textil y el del metal, habían sobrepasado a las de Gran Bretaña en 1870, en cuanto a su organización y eficiencia y habían derrotado a los fabricantes británicos en su mercado nacional. Con el cambio de siglo, la industria alemana estaba produciendo para el antiguo «taller del mundo».

Mientras que las exportaciones invisibles (banca, seguros y transporte de mercancías) mantuvieron a Gran Bretaña a salvo de los números rojos, su porción en el comercio mundial pasó de ser un cuarto del mismo en 1880 a un sexto 1913. Gran Bretaña estaba perdiendo no sólo los mercados de los países que se estaban industrializando, sino también la competición por los mercados de terceros países menos desarrollados. Incluso comenzaba a perder su hegemonía en zonas como la India, China, América del Sur o las costas de África.

Las dificultades comerciales de Gran Bretaña se agudizaron con la «Larga Depresión» de 1873–1896, un período prolongado de deflación, acentuado por las continuas quiebras de negocios que añadieron presión para que los gobiernos favorecieran la industria nacional, lo que condujo al masivo abandono del libre comercio entre las potencias europeas (en Alemania desde 1879 y en Francia desde 1881).

La limitación tanto de los mercados nacionales como de las exportaciones que se produjo como resultado hizo que los gobiernos y los sectores económicos, tanto de Europa como de los Estados Unidos, vieran la solución en mercados de ultramar protegidos que actuaran unidos al mercado nacional, defendido por aranceles y barreras aduaneras: las colonias ofrecerían un mercado para las exportaciones, a la vez que proveerían a la metrópoli de materias primas baratas. Aunque adherida al libre comercio hasta 1932, Gran Bretaña se unió al nuevo ímpetu por un renovado imperio formal, lo cual era preferible a permitir que sus áreas de influencia fueran tomadas por el comercio de las potencias rivales.

Gran Bretaña y el Nuevo Imperialismo

La política e ideología de la expansión colonial europea entre 1870 y el comienzo de la Primera Guerra Mundial en 1914 se denominan a menudo como el «Nuevo Imperialismo». El período se caracteriza por una búsqueda sin precedentes de «el imperio por el imperio», una competición agresiva entre las potencias para conseguir territorios de ultramar y la aparición en los países conquistadores de doctrinas que justifican la superioridad racial y que niegan la aptitud de los pueblos subyugados para gobernarse por sí mismos.

Durante este período, las potencias europeas sumaron casi 23.000.000 km² a sus posesiones coloniales. Dado que antes de 1880 estaba prácticamente desocupada por las potencias occidentales, África se convirtió en el principal objetivo de la «nueva» expansión imperialista, aunque esta conquista afectó igualmente a otras áreas; en especial el Sudeste asiático y el Pacífico, donde los Estados Unidos y Japón se unieron a las potencias europeas en su lucha por territorios.

La entrada de Gran Bretaña en la nueva era imperial se fecha a menudo en 1875, año en que el gobierno conservador de Benjamin Disraeli compró al endeudado gobernante de Egipto, Ismail Pasha, su parte en el Canal de Suez para asegurarse el control de esta vía estratégica, un canal para el tráfico entre Gran Bretaña y la India desde su apertura seis años antes, bajo el Emperador Napoleón III. El control financiero conjunto de Inglaterra y Francia sobre Egipto acabó en la ocupación británica del país en 1882.

Gran Bretaña y África

En 1875 las dos posesiones europeas más importantes en África eran Argelia y la Colonia del Cabo. En 1914 tan sólo Etiopía y la república de Liberia permanecían fuera del control europeo. La transición entre un «imperio informal» que controlaba a través de la dominación económica y el control directo supuso una lucha por el territorio entre las potencias europeas.

La actividad francesa, belga y portuguesa en la zona del Río Congo amenazaba con debilitar la ordenada colonización del África tropical. La Conferencia de Berlín de 1884–85 pretendía regular la competición entre las potencias, definiendo la «ocupación efectiva» como el criterio para el reconocimiento internacional de las reivindicaciones territoriales, una fórmula que precisó del recurso habitual a la violencia contra los estados y pueblos indígenas.

La ocupación de Egipto por parte de Gran Bretaña en 1882 (a raíz de los intereses en el Canal de Suez) contribuyó a un aumento de la preocupación respecto del control del valle del Nilo, que condujo a la conquista del vecino Sudán en 1896–98 y al enfrentamiento con fuerzas expedicionarias francesas en Fashoda en septiembre de 1898).

En 1899 Gran Bretaña se lanzó a completar la conquista de Sudáfrica, que había comenzado con la anexión en 1795 de El Cabo, a través de la invasión de las repúblicas afrikaner en la región productora de oro del Transvaal y del vecino Estado Libre de Orange. La British South Africa Company ya había tomado las tierras al norte, rebautizándolas como Rodesia en homenaje a su jefe, el magnate del Cabo Cecil Rhodes. Las críticas por estas anexiones condujeron al «Espléndido aislamiento» de Gran Bretaña.

Las conquistas británicas en el África meridional y oriental, lanzaron a Rhodes y a Alfred Milner, el Alto Comisionado británico en Sudáfrica, a solicitar con urgencia un Imperio unido por ferrocarril «desde el Cabo hasta El Cairo», que uniría el estratégicamente importante Canal de Suez con el sur, rico en minerales, aunque la ocupación alemana de Tanganyika evitó su realización hasta el final de la Primera Guerra Mundial.

En 1903, el sistema de telégrafo ya comunicaba las partes más importantes del Imperio.

Paradójicamente, Gran Bretaña, acérrima defensora del libre comercio, emergió en 1914 no sólo con el mayor imperio de ultramar gracias a su larga presencia en la India, sino como vencedora en la lucha por África, dada su ventajosa posición al comienzo de la misma. Entre 1885 y 1914 Gran Bretaña tomó aproximadamente al 30% de la población africana bajo su control, comparado con el 21% de Francia, el 9% de Alemania, el 7% de Bélgica o el 1% de Italia: sólo Nigeria contribuía con 15 millones de súbditos, más que todo el África Occidental Francesa o todo el imperio colonial de Alemania.

Autonomía en las colonias

El Imperio británico comenzó su transformación hacia lo que hoy en día es la Commonwealth con la extensión del estatus de Dominio a las colonias con autogobierno de Terranova (1855), Canadá (1867), Australia (1901), Nueva Zelanda (1907), y la recién creada Unión de Sudáfrica (1910). Los dirigentes de los nuevos estados se reunían con los estadistas británicos en cumbres periódicas llamadas Conferencias Coloniales (y desde 1907, Conferencias Imperiales), la primera de las cuales se mantuvo en Londres en 1887.

Las relaciones exteriores de los dominios las dirigía aún el Foreign Office del Reino Unido: Canadá creó un Departamento de Asuntos Exteriores en 1909, pero las relaciones diplomáticas con otros gobiernos se seguían llevando desde Londres. La declaración de guerra por parte de Gran Bretaña en la Primera Guerra Mundial afectó a todos los dominios.

Los dominios poseían un gran margen de maniobra a la hora de elaborar sus políticas hacia el exterior, siempre que ésta no entrara directamente en conflicto con los intereses de Gran Bretaña: El gobierno del Partido Liberal de Canadá negoció un acuerdo bilateral de libre comercio con los Estados Unidos en 1911.

En asuntos de defensa, la concepción original que entendía los dominios como parte integrante de la estructura militar y naval de un solo Imperio acabó por ser insostenible en la medida en que Gran Bretaña se comprometía en Europa y ante el reto de una emergente flota alemana desde 1900. En 1909 se decidió que los dominios tuvieran sus propias armadas.

El impacto de la Primera Guerra Mundial

Tras la Primera Guerra Mundial el Imperio británico vio su período de máxima extensión, ya que Gran Bretaña obtuvo el control de Palestina y Mesopotamia a través del mecanismo del mandato de la Sociedad de Naciones, tras la caída del Imperio otomano en el Oriente Próximo, así como las antiguas colonias alemanas en Tanganica, África Sudoccidental (actual Namibia) y Nueva Guinea Alemana (las dos últimas quedaron bajo control de Sudáfrica y Australia, respectivamente). Las zonas ocupadas por Gran Bretaña en Alemania tras la guerra no fueron consideradas parte del Imperio.

Aunque Gran Bretaña emergió como uno de los vencedores de la guerra y su dominio se extendió a nuevas áreas, los elevados costes de la guerra minaron su capacidad financiera para mantener aquel vasto imperio. Los británicos habían sufrido miles de bajas y liquidado sus recursos financieros a un ritmo alarmante, que condujo al aumento de la deuda. El sentimiento nacionalista creció tanto en las colonias nuevas como en las antiguas, alimentado por el orgullo derivado de la participación en el conflicto de muchos de aquellos súbditos, como tropas imperiales.

Durante los años veinte, el estatus de dominio se transformó notablemente. Aunque los dominios no tuvieron voz en la declaración formal de guerra en 1914, todos ellos fueron incluidos por separado entre los firmantes del tratado de paz de Versalles en 1919, que había sido negociado por una delegación del Imperio encabezada por Gran Bretaña. En 1922 los reparos por parte de los dominios para apoyar la acción militar británica contra Turquía influyeron en la decisión de buscar un compromiso.

La independencia de los dominios se formalizó en 1926 mediante la Declaración Balfour y el Estatuto de Westminster de 1931: de entonces en adelante, cada dominio era igual en estatus a la misma metrópoli, libre de interferencias legislativas provenientes de Gran Bretaña y autónomo en sus relaciones internacionales.

Canadá fue pionera, convirtiéndose en el primer dominio que concluyó de modo totalmente independiente un tratado internacional (1923). La primera representación diplomática permanente de Canadá en un país extranjero se abrió en Washington en 1927: Australia le siguió en 1940.

El Estado Libre de Irlanda, acordó el estatus de dominio en 1922 tras una amarga guerra contra Gran Bretaña, aunque anuló su relación constitucional con la corona en 1937 (cambiando su nombre por el de Éire), convirtiéndose en la República de Irlanda fuera de la Commonwealth desde 1949. Egipto, formalmente independiente desde 1922 pero vinculado a Gran Bretaña por tratado hasta 1936 y bajo ocupación militar parcial hasta 1956 (por el Tratado Anglo-Egipcio de 1936: ocupación militar del Canal de Suez, base naval de la "Mediterranean Fleet" en Alejandría, base militar en El Cairo, condominio sobre Sudán y promesa de ayuda de Egipto al Imperio en caso de guerra) mantuvo una estrecha vinculación al Imperio. Irak, que se convirtió en Protectorado Británico en 1922, alcanzó la independencia en 1932, aunque quedó bajo tutela (Tratado Anglo-Iraquí de 1930) hasta la caida de la monarquía en 1958 gracias al mantenimiento de ciertas bases militares británicas en su territorio y a los acuerdos de colaboración militar y petrolera.

Descolonización

El crecimiento de los movimientos nacionalistas anticolonialistas en los territorios súbditos durante la primera mitad del siglo XX desafió a una potencia imperial, que cada vez tenía que preocuparse más por asuntos más cercanos, en especial tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Aprovechando esta oportunidad, primero la India, y tras ella otros territorios de Asia y de África reclamaron convertirse en estados independientes. Tras algunos intentos desastrosos de evitarlo, Gran Bretaña tuvo que aceptar la nueva situación que condujo al antiguo Imperio a convertirse en lo que hoy en día es la Commonwealth.

El final del Imperio se unió a los problemas económicos que Gran Bretaña tuvo que afrontar tras el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. La crisis económica de 1947 obligó al gobierno laborista de Clement Attlee a abandonar el puesto de primera potencia mundial y a aceptar la preponderancia estratégica de los Estados Unidos. Gran Bretaña se embarcó en un tortuoso realineamiento con Europa Occidental que permanece a la espera de una solución definitiva.

La declaración de hostilidades contra Alemania en septiembre de 1939 no comprometía a más dominios que a Australia, que aún no había adoptado legalmente el Estatuto de Westminster. Los otros dominios declararon la guerra de modo independiente, excepto Eire, que había negociado la retirada de las fuerzas británicas de su territorio el año anterior y que prefirió ser neutral durante la guerra.

La segunda Guerra Mundial debilitó el ya débil liderazgo financiero y comercial de Gran Bretaña, acentuando la importancia de los dominios y de los Estados Unidos como fuente de asistencia militar. El primer ministro australiano John Curtin tomó la decisión sin precedentes en 1942 de retirar las tropas australianas que defendían Birmania demostrando que no se podía esperar que los gobiernos de los dominios actuaran en defensa de la metrópoli y no de sus propios intereses nacionales.

Tras la guerra, Australia y Nueva Zelanda se unieron a los Estados Unidos a través del tratado regional de seguridad (ANZUS), en 1951. Gran Bretaña buscaba desde 1961 lo que consiguió en 1973, unirse a la Comunidad Europea, lo que debilitó los vínculos comerciales con los dominios en lo referente a su acceso privilegiado al mercado británico.

En el Caribe, África, Asia y el Pacífico, la descolonización durante la posguerra se efectuó con prisa, dado el crecimiento de los cada vez más poderosos movimientos nacionalistas. Gran Bretaña rara vez luchó para retener algún territorio. Las limitaciones de Gran Bretaña se mostraron de modo humillante durante la Crisis de Suez de 1956 en la que los Estados Unidos se opusieron a la intervención anglo-francesa en Egipto; puesto que aquella aventura podía poner en riesgo los intereses estadounidenses en el Próximo Oriente.

La independencia de la India en 1947 acabó con la lucha mantenida por el Congreso Nacional Indio durante 40 años; primero por el autogobierno y después por la soberanía. La división territorial entre la India y Pakistán desató la violencia y supuso la pérdida de cientos de miles de vidas. La aceptación por parte de Gran Bretaña y de los otros dominios en (1950) del nuevo estatus de república de la India se considera en la actualidad como el inicio de la moderna Commonwealth.

Birmania obtuvo la independencia en (1948) fuera de la Commonwealth, Ceilán (1948) y Malaya (1957) dentro de la misma. El mandato británico en Palestina concluyó en (1948) con la retirada de las tropas y una guerra abierta entre la población árabe y la población judía del territorio. En el Mediterráneo, la guerrilla chipriota promovida por partidarios de la unión con Grecia concluyó en 1960 con un Chipre independiente.

El final del Imperio británico en África llegó con una rapidez excepcional, a menudo dejando a los nuevos estados en una mala situación para abordar los retos que planteaba la soberanía: La independencia de Ghana en (1957) tras diez años de lucha política, fue seguida por la de Nigeria (1960), Sierra Leona y Tanganyika (1961), Uganda (1962), Kenia y Zanzíbar (1963), Gambia (1965), Botsuana (antigua Bechuanalandia) y Lesotho (antigua Basutolandia) (1966), y Suazilandia (1968).

A la retirada británica del sur y del este de África la complicaba la situación de los pobladores blancos de las regiones: El levantamiento Mau Mau en Kenia ya había mostrado las posibilidades de conflicto, en un contexto en el que los blancos eran terratenientes reluctantes a las reformas democráticas. El gobierno minoritario de los blancos en Sudáfrica continuó siendo un quebradero de cabeza para la Commonwealth hasta el final del sistema de apartheid en 1994.

Aunque la Federación de Rhodesia y Nyasaland, dominada por los blancos, concluyó con la independencia de Malawi (antigua Nyasaland) y Zambia (antigua Rhodesia del Norte) en 1964, la minoría blanca de Rhodesia del Sur, (una colonia autogobernada desde 1923) declaró su independencia. El apoyo del gobierno de Sudáfrica mantuvo el régimen hasta 1979, año en el que se alcanzó un acuerdo, basado en la voluntad de la mayoría, del que surgió un independiente Zimbabue.

La mayor parte de los territorios británicos en el Caribe optó por una independencia por separado, tras el fracaso de la Federación de las Indias Occidentales (1958–1962): a Jamaica y Trinidad y Tobago (1962) las siguió Barbados (1966) y las islas más pequeñas del Caribe oriental alcanzaron la independencia en los años setenta y ochenta. Al final de la cesión por 99 años de los Nuevos Territorios, todo Hong Kong fue devuelto a China en 1997.

Extensión

En 1921, el Imperio británico constaba de los siguientes territorios: 250px|thumb|Imperio Británico en 1921.

África

• Bechuanalandia (actual Botsuana)
• Basutolandia (actual Lesotho)
• Togolandia Británica
• Camerún del Norte
• Costa de Oro (hoy Ghana)
• Egipto
• Gambia
• Kenia
• Mauricio
• Nigeria
• Rodesia del Norte (actual Zambia)
• Nyasalandia (actual Malaui)
• Sierra Leona
• Somalilandia
• Rhodesia del Sur (actual Zimbabue)
• África Suroccidental (actual Namibia)
• Suazilandia
• Seychelles
• Sudán
• Sudáfrica
• Tanganika y Zanzíbar (actual Tanzania)
• Uganda

América y el Atlántico del norte

• Isla Ascensión y Santa Helena
• Guyana Británica (actual Guyana)
• Honduras Británica (actual Belice)
• Canadá
• Islas Malvinas (reclamadas por Argentina)
• Terranova (actualmente en Canadá)
• Indias Occidentales
  • Anguila
  • Antigua y Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Barbados
  • Bermudas
  • Islas Vírgenes Británicas
  • Islas Caimán
  • Dominica
  • Granada
  • Jamaica
  • Montserrat
  • San Cristóbal y Nieves
  • Santa Lucía
  • San Vicente y las Granadinas
  • Trinidad y Tobago
  • Islas Turcas y Caicos
• Tristán da Cunha
• Islas Georgias del Sur (reclamada por Argentina)

Asia

• Adén (actualmente parte de Yemen)
• Baréin
• Bután
• Brunéi
• Birmania (actual Myanmar)
• Ceilán (actual Sri Lanka)
• Hong Kong
• India Británica (actuales India, Pakistán y Bangladesh)
• Irak
• Kuwait
• Malaya (parte de la actual Malasia)
• Maldivas
• Nepal
• Palestina (actuales Israel y Territorios Palestinos)
• Borneo Septentrional (hoy día parte de Malasia)
• Omán
• Qatar
• Sarawak (hoy día parte de Malasia)
• Singapur
• Transjordania (actual Jordania)
• Estados de la Tregua (Emiratos Árabes Unidos)
• Weihawei (actual ciudad de Weihai)

Europa

• Chipre
• Gibraltar
• Malta
• Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda

Pacífico

• Australia
• Islas Ellice (actual Tuvalu)
• Fiyi
• Islas Gilbert (actualmente parte de Kiribati)
• Nauru
• Nueva Zelanda
• Pitcairn
• Islas Salomón
• Tonga
• Papúa Nueva Guinea
• Nuevas Hébridas (actual Vanuatu)
• Samoa

Territorios perdidos por el Imperio británico antes de 1921

• Las Trece Colonias, con posterioridad Estados Unidos de América
  • Delaware
  • Maryland
  • Nueva Jersey
  • Virginia, después Virginia y West Virginia
  • Massachusetts, después Massachusetts y Maine
  • Nueva York, después Nueva York y Vermont
  • New Hampshire
  • Rhode Island
  • Georgia
  • Carolina del Norte
    • Roanoke, después parte de Carolina del Norte
  • Carolina del Sur
  • Connecticut
  • Pennsylvania
  • Territorio entre las 13 Colonias y el río Misisipi, con reivindicaciones entre las Colonias y lo que hoy día es Alabama, Misisipi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, y Míchigan, parte de Wisconsin, y parte de Luisiana.
• Territorios medievales en Francia.
• Helgoland cedido a Alemania en 1890.
• Hanóver
• Florida, a España y después a los Estados Unidos.
• Parte de Oregón (en disputa con EEUU, España y Rusia), a los Estados Unidos.
• Hawái (las Islas Sandwich) cedidas a Gran Bretaña el 25 de febrero de 1843; obtuvieron la independencia el 28 de noviembre de 1843; fueron anexionadas por los Estados Unidos el 7 de julio de 1898.
• Las Islas Jónicas tomadas por los ingleses en 1809 y cedidas a Grecia en 1864.
• Menorca tomada por Gran Bretaña en 1708 y cedida formalmente a España en 1802.
• La Costa de los Mosquitos fue un protectorado británico entre 1655 y 1850.

Territorios de Ultramar actuales

En la actualidad, solamente unos pocos territorios permanecen bajo administración británica, principalmente debido a que no serían viables como Estados soberanos. Los últimos Territorios de Ultramar son:

Territorios de Ultramar que poseen un autogobierno importante

• Anguila
• Bermudas
• Islas Vírgenes Británicas
• Islas Caimán
• Gibraltar (reclamado por España como parte de su territorio)
• Montserrat
• Islas Turcas y Caicos

Otros Territorios de Ultramar

• Territorio Antártico Británico (reclamado por Chile y Argentina)
• Territorio Británico en el Océano Índico
• Islas Malvinas (reclamadas por Argentina)
• Pitcairn
• Santa Helena (incluyendo las dependencias de Isla Ascensión y Tristán da Cunha)
• Georgia del Sur e Islas Sandwich del Sur (reclamadas por Argentina)
• Akrotiri y Dhekelia

Dependencias de la Corona en las Islas Británicas (fuera del Reino Unido y la UE)

• Guernsey
• Jersey
• Isla de Man

Véase también

• Historia del Reino Unido
• Historia de Gran Bretaña
• Orden del Imperio Británico
• Colonización británica de América

Referencias

• Abernethy, David (2000) The Dynamics of Global Dominance, European Overseas Empires 1415–1980, Yale University Press Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0300093144.
• Andrews, Kenneth (1984) Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480–1630, Cambridge University Press Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0521276985.
• Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (2004) From Plassey to partition: a history of modern India, Orient Longman ISBN: 8125025960.
• Brendon, Piers (2007) The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781–1997, Random House Retrieved on 6 October 2010. ISBN: 0224062220.
• (n.d.) Brittain and the Dominions, Cambridge University Press
• Brown, Judith (1998) The Twentieth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume IV, Oxford University Press Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0199246793.
• Buckner, Phillip (2008) Canada and the British Empire, Oxford University Press Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 019927164X.
• Burke, Kathleen (2008) Old World, New World: Great Britain and America from the Beginning, Atlantic Monthly Press Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0871139715.
• Canny, Nicholas (1998) The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume I, Oxford University Press Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0199246769.
• Clegg, Peter (2005) "The UK Caribbean Overseas Territories" in de Jong, Lammert; Kruijt, Dirk , ed. Extended Statehood in the Caribbean, Rozenberg Publishers ISBN: 90-5170-686-3.
• Combs, Jerald A. (2008) The History of American Foreign Policy: From 1895, M.E. Sharpe ISBN: 9780765620569.
• Dalziel, Nigel (2006) The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, Penguin Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0141018445.
• David, Saul (2003) The Indian Mutiny, Penguin Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0670911372.
• Ferguson, Niall (2004) Colossus: The Price of America's Empire, Penguin Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 1594200130.
• Ferguson, Niall (2004) Empire, Basic Books Retrieved on 22 July 2009. ISBN: 0465023290.
• Fieldhouse, David Kenneth (1999) The West and the Third World: trade, colonialism, dependence, and development, Blackwell Publishing ISBN: 0631194398.

Enlaces externos

• Los orígenes del capitalismo ingles
• The British Empire. An Internet Gateway
• The British Empire
• The British Empire audio resources at TheEnglishCollection.com

Categoría:Historia del Reino Unido Categoría:Estados desaparecidos Categoría:Imperio británico Británico, imperio

af:Britse Ryk an:Imperio britanico ang:Bryttisce Rīce ar:الإمبراطورية البريطانية arz:امبراطوريه بريطانيه bat-smg:Brėtu imperėjė be:Брытанская імперыя be-x-old:Брытанская імпэрыя bg:Британска империя br:Impalaeriezh Breizh-Veur bs:Britansko carstvo ca:Imperi britànic cs:Britské impérium cy:Yr Ymerodraeth Brydeinig da:Britiske Imperium de:Britisches Weltreich el:Βρετανική Αυτοκρατορία en:British Empire eo:Brita imperio eu:Britainiar Inperioa fa:امپراتوری بریتانیا fi:Brittiläinen imperiumi fiu-vro:Briti impeerium fr:Empire britannique fy:Britske Ryk ga:Impireacht na Breataine gl:Imperio Británico hak:Thai-yîn Ti-koet he:האימפריה הבריטית hi:ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य hif:British Samrajya hr:Britansko Carstvo hu:Brit Birodalom id:Imperium Britania is:Breska heimsveldið it:Impero britannico ja:イギリス帝国 ka:ბრიტანეთის იმპერია kn:ಬ್ರಿಟೀಷ್ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ ko:대영 제국 krc:Британ империя la:Imperium Britannicum lt:Britų imperija lv:Lielbritānijas impērija mk:Британска империја ml:ബ്രിട്ടീഷ് സാമ്രാജ്യം mr:ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य ms:Empayar British mt:Imperu Brittaniku mwl:Ampério británico my:ဗြိတိသျှအင်ပါယာ nl:Britse Rijk nn:Det britiske imperiet no:Det britiske imperiet oc:Empèri Britanic os:Британийы импери pl:Imperium brytyjskie pnb:سلطنت برطانیہ pt:Império Britânico ro:Imperiul Britanic ru:Британская империя rue:Брітаньска Імперія sh:Britanski Imperij simple:British Empire sk:Britské impérium sl:Britanski imperij sq:Perandoria Britanike sr:Британска империја sv:Brittiska imperiet sw:Dola la Uingereza ta:பிரித்தானியப் பேரரசு th:จักรวรรดิอังกฤษ tk:Britan imperiýasy tl:Imperyong Britaniko tr:Britanya İmparatorluğu tt:Британия империясе uk:Британська імперія ur:سلطنت برطانیہ vi:Đế quốc Anh war:Imperyo Britaniko yi:בריטישע אימפעריע yo:Ilẹ̀ Ọbalúayé Brítánì zh:大英帝国 zh-yue:大英帝國

File source is not properly indicated: File:Edith gonzalez.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Edith gonzalez.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Edith gonzalez.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

  ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Joem bascon.jpg

File:Joem bascon.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:CristianMeier.jpg

File:CristianMeier.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:JuanPabloRaba.jpg

File:JuanPabloRaba.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:ArturoCarmonaXD.jpg

File:ArturoCarmonaXD.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:WendellRamos.jpg

File:WendellRamos.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Rafaelrossell1.jpg

File:Rafaelrossell1.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jaymanalo.jpg

File:Jaymanalo.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Piquè.jpg

File:Piquè.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:FernandoColunga.jpg

File:FernandoColunga.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:ManilaPics.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:ManilaPics.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:ManilaPics.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jesusolmedo.jpg

File:Jesusolmedo.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Maxiiglesias.jpg

File:Maxiiglesias.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Gerald anderson.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Gerald anderson.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Gerald anderson.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ayuntamiento Silang.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ayuntamiento Silang.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ayuntamiento Silang.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Silang.png

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Silang.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:JakeCuenca.jpg

File:JakeCuenca.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

High Contrast (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:SNG.png

File:SNG.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

81.34.35.240 00:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)