User talk:Kameraad Pjotr/Archive3

As this is a multilingual project, you are free to post questions or comments in any possible language. However, please take this points into account when using a language:

• Questions in Dutch and English will be answered in Dutch or English.
• Questions in French may be asked, but if I don't understand it, I will make use of the infamous Google Translate Tool, thus some nuances might get lost. I will reply in English.
• Questions in any other language (be it German, Klingon or Valarin) will be channelled through the infamous Google Translate Tool, and thus I will only grasp the most obvious remarks and miserably fail to see any of the nuances in your comment. I will reply in English.
• Important: I read everything you post here, but it can take some time before you get a reply.
• Archives are here, here, here, here and here.
• I'm currently doing a student job and thus not very active. As soon as I have more time, all your queries will be answered. For questions regarding deletions, do not hesitate to open an undeletion request, you'll probably get a faster reply by other users.

Mao Badges

What a stupid and dogmatic decision - and judging from the balance of comment on the discussion page, a seriously undemocratic one. If the British Museum is happy to post Mao badges on its website (http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/c/chairman_mao_badge.aspx) without copyright attribution, I really think Wikipedia could have slept easy at night.

Concerning DR Aleshina

Hi. Do you mean this one or this one have both enough originality? Now, if you compare e.g. to File:Podbelskogo-mm.jpg which you have kept, where is actually the difference? — A.Savin 10:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The first example you give is indeed a borderline case, but in my opinion, there is enough originality in the tiling and the lettering, especially as they form the focus of this picture, which is not the case in the kept image. In the second example, the floor is, in my opinion, sufficiently original to be protected by copyright.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Archivo:Estrildid finches.jpg

Please,restore it. Pablo Gomez-Prieto has left our group.I have permission of Head of Group:Arnaiz-Villena to release it with a full free license,only needing quotation.See[Estrildid Finch],ref 4,work not subjected to copyright.Please ,Email to Prof Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (aarnaiz@med.ucm.es) for any problem. Thank you-Symbio04

Hello,

If you want the image to be undeleted, evidence that this image was released under a free licence must be e-mailed to OTRS. See that page for more information.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Raruto

Regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/Raruto, had Mike Godwin and/or other staff on the Wikimedia copyright board gotten back with you on that? I e-mailed them and asked them to comment on it.

Considering that Raruto volumes are actually printed and sold in Spain, it does seem like the Spanish consider it to be a justifiable parody, but the United States point is the deciding factor because our servers are here and we have to follow US law. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have not had a message from the Wikimedia copyright board, and I still believe that they can only be kept as fair use, which isn't permitted.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question/Clarification request

Hi Kameraad Pjotr, you wrote "assuming it was released under a GFDL-license" regarding this, but there was no license on enwiki - I had nominated the enwiki version for lacking a license and it was deleted for that reason according to the log. The Commons uploader simply added the license out of nowhere, so I don't quite get your deduction (I also couldn't find a general statement by the original enwiki uploader that he/she would release content under GFDL at the time or now), can please you clarify for me? Best regards Hekerui (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

You are correct, but I didn't find the original image at en:, and I thought the image was uploaded far earlier (pre-2006) at en:, so AGF seemed the most reasonable option. however, this seems not the case and the image has been deleted. I apologise for the confusion.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Files moved to Commons often don't have the best descriptions - checking logs etc. for better info is like playing detective sometimes lol Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DR on File:Rookwood Pottery.jpg

There's been an IP user who opened up a series of DRs on images from an Flikr account, complaining that we're using the images without permission. Given the notes on the Flikr account, I find it reasonable to believe he controls it, but they've been reviewed, so his claim they were never CC is apparently a lie. The reason I bring it directly to you is that you are the listed Flikr reviewer on File:Rookwood Pottery.jpg, which is one of the images he claims was never under a CC license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have speedy-closed that DR, and all the others he created should be closed as well, as the license was valid at the time of uploading. (CC licences are irrevocable)

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 11:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this issue raised anywhere at a high level, or does it need to be?

What has happened here looks like a very serious issue for Commons. The Flickr user has (AFAIK) licensed irrevocably under CC and we've used the images. They have then signed up with Getty images to resell their work, and stopped offering their work through Flickr under CC (they can do this, but it doesn't revoke earlier licences). Now given that Getty are infamously litigious in protecting their content, and that Getty are now offering a range of previous PD (and here, CC) images under new copyright claims, this leaves the Commons project, and even more importantly, re-users of content from Commons in a difficult position.

What's to stop Getty finding some small-scale web site in the future that is using content legitimately from Commons, originally from Flickr, and then claiming that it's a breach of their current copyright claim over that content, as currently claimed through Flickr? The only defence against this is a fairly long paper trail, and Getty's past record of chasing down web content infringements makes it seriously likely that this could happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mao badges

Your summary deletion of these images was about one of the worst-faith decisions I've ever seen. Shame on you. You ought to have exercised common sense. Evertype (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military aviary2.jpg

In closing this deletion request, you neglected to restore the English Wikipedia version. Could you please do this? —innotata 01:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the delay. Kameraad Pjotr 12:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pieter

FYI, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper&diff=prev&oldid=46756281 . Multichill (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hoi Pjotr, op Commons:Deletion_requests/Wax_figures_in_the_United_States maakte ik duidelijk dat mijn foto verschilde van de anderen in het rijtje, aangezien het een originele compositie is waarin het wassen beeld geen hoofdrol speelt. Het gaat dus niet over panoramarecht. Bij je verwijdering heb ik twee vraagtekens:

• Ik was ervan overtuigd dat de request al was afgesloten. Heb je hem nu zelf toch weer geopend en waarom wordt ik daarvan niet op de hoogte gesteld?
• Waarom wordt er niet eerst ingegaan op mijn argumenten (al een half jaar niet)? Jullie werkwijze is als creator van een afbeelding heel irriterend en frustrerend.

Vr. groet, Woudloper (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hallo,

Het request was, voor zover ik weet, niet afgesloten, aangezien het nog steeds in de categorie Deletion requests stond, en nergens officieel stond aangegeven dat het gesloten was.

Het is een groot probleem dat er een enorme achterstand is in verwijderingen, waardoor het soms meer dan een half jaar duurt vooraleer er actie ondernomen wordt. Dat is frustrerend, maar niet echt iets waar zo snel iets kan aan gedaan worden.

Hoewel het wassen beeld inderdaad geen hoofdrol speelt, is het volgens mij nog te prominent in beeld aanwezig om van de minimis te kunnen spreken, waardoor het een afgeleid werk blijft.

Mvg, Kameraad Pjotr 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Leyo 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-036-19, Weltausstellung in Paris, sowjetischer Pavillon.jpg

Hi Kameraad Pjotr, you deleted this file within this DR using the rationale no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union and thereby apparently overlooking that this photograph was not taken in the Soviet Union but in Paris. Please read my comment in the DR regarding this photograph and reconsider. Thanks and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the sculpture could be de minimis. It is clearly the main subject of the photograph. As you know, France does not have FOP either.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your rationale does not match this case. Secondly, it is not a question of COM:DM but of COM:FOP#France. To quote from there: Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). See for example photographs like File:Louvre at night centered.jpg of the copyrighted pyramid in front of the Louvre which are permitted. In this case, the main subject is the pavillon and the statue on top of it is accessory even if it does not fall under COM:DM. In summary, if current French case law is considered, we can keep this photograph like numerous other cases we had in the past. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I know, but I fail to see how the statue could be accessory, but you already knew that. I think the only way to solve this is to open a undeletion request for this image, and see how the debate evolves from there.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Whitehouse_Moscow

Hello, how do you come to the decision to delete the files? The legal situation is far from clear, now lawsuit has ever been filed in Russia to "protect" pictures of public buildings based on this paragraph, btw votes in the discussion point to a different direction. Please explain! --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

As per COM:FOP, the entire former Soviet Union does not have a freedom of panorama exception. Arguments as "they will not sue" are not a valid argument in deletion request and that they are not votes.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 15:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my request was not clear: Do you understand russian (as your Username suggests)? Have you read and understood the original text of the russian law in question? Do you have any experience with the interpretation of russian laws, i.e. legal practice or education? - Thank you for answering my open questions. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not understand Russian, nor have I any legal experience in Russia. However, I have experience with Commons' policies, and these are very clear on the subject of FOP in Russia. If you disagree with that policy, you should open a request to change it, but unless that change is accepted, the current policy stands, and the images have to be, and will remain, deleted as a result.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The commons policies are clear in that they are based on superficial translation and understanding, so my question was if your valuation is based on deeper ground - thanks for your answer. May I ask what is behind your russian username and your special interest in russian pictures? Kind regards --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

They are probably based upon a superficial translation, but as I can't even do that, I have to follow them ;) . My Russian username is based upon my nickname in high school and I do not have a special interest in Russian pictures as far as I know ;)

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:House construction options.jpg

I notice that you closed this. Aside from the fact that I think it's nonsense, USA-centric, and advertising for architects, what about the fact that there is no permission to use it? The e-mail to OTRS did not give permission and the source page has a very clear (C) notice at the bottom.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I seem to have misread the OTRS-template, so I will delete the image. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 22:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTC.sphere.jpg

and Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTC Sphere.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:TheSphere.jpg. Why you have deleted the pictures of the Sphere? Arguments by Carl Lindberg that the Sphere is {{PD-US-no notice}} because it was published before 1978 without a copyright notice, seems to be in line with our current understanding of the US copyright law. See also this old undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Battery Park Sphere.JPG. Trycatch (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

You are right, I must have overlooked that comment. I have restored the images. Sorry for the trouble.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Trycatch (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate of a deleted copyvio

Hello, Following Commons:Deletion requests/File:File-€2 Commemorative coin Vatican city 2010.jpg, which you took care of, I believe that you forgot to delete the duplicate file, File:€2 Commemorative coin Vatican city 2010.jpg. Can you delete it too? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

It has been deleted, I must have missed it. Thanks for mentioning.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Russian buildings

Hi. Based on your participation in Commons:Deletion requests/Kotelnicheskaya, I think you will be interested in Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Buildings in Russia.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rob Hille

Hi you deleted pics by this user [1], look at his gallery, he uploaded same/similar pics again. 78.52.36.95 13:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:OrdenSvyatogoKnyazyaAlexandraNevskogo.jpg

Good morning. I disagree with this closure for the following reason. The decoration in question (File:OrdenSvyatogoKnyazyaAlexandraNevskogo.jpg) was established by an NGO that was later dissolved due to violations of Russian law ("establishment of orders similar to state decorations"). The story is described here (in Russian, sorry, but probably Google Translator will help). This order looks like the Soviet File:AlexNevskyOrder.gif, which was kept as state order after 1991, but is not the same. One can see both orders on the first illustration in the article. PD-RU-exempt does not apply to various decorations established by NGO's. Therefore I ask you to reconsider the decision. Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

You are right. I was doubting whether the orders were the same, but as I couldn't find the NGO, I assumed that they were the same. I see they aren't, and the image has been deleted. Sorry for the trouble.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 13:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Blacklake (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:UK traffic sign 521.svg as {{OGL}}

Do you have any proof that this file was released under the Open Government Licence? Cheers. --Svgalbertian (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

No I haven't, but based upon the arguments in this deletion request, it seemed reasonable to assume that they are released under the {{OGL}}.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the offical repository for UK traffic sign images, an indeed they allow reproduction under {{OGL}}. However part of the terms of the OGL is to "acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution statement". Looking at the terms and conditions of the Department for Transpot, Traffic signs image database I guess we should include the following "Traffic signs are Crown copyright. You may reproduce traffic signs free of charge and without having to seek permission, but you must reproduce them accurately and not in a misleading context (e.g. not on roadside billboards where they could mislead drivers). (ref [2])". I have updated the license for both File:UK traffic sign 521.svg and File:UK road traffic warning sign dual carriageway end.png. Thanks for your help. --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really do much (you did most of the work), but you're welcome nevertheless ;). Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal & Select Masters Emblem.svg

You deleted the image, with the statement "derivative of copyrighted work." However, there is no indication of to whom the copyright belongs. The organization itself dates from at least 1817, and there is no overseeing group that regulates anything above the state level in the US. There's also no other way to get a representative logo. So how can we solve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The only solution is trying to find out who the author is, and establish his death date. As an alternative, if it was first published in the US before 1923, or without a notice, or without renewal, that would make it in the public domain.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent DR closure on Dubai photos

Hello,

Thank you for closing some deletion requests regarding my uploads, it is good to see them finally closed. However, there is a slight problem - you closed File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg as keep under de minimis. However, a very similar image I uploaded at File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 3.jpg was deleted a while back by Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) who didn't accept that de minimis applied for the buildings on the right. I have hence since then always been expecting that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg would also be closed as delete. While I don't completely disagree with your decision, and as you can see I originally argued to keep both, it does leave me in a tough position with two conflicting DR results. Any thoughts? CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Looking at the picture, I would be inclined to keep it, as the buildings aren't really the focus of the image, and thus de minimis. I think your best option is to ask James what he thinks about the not deleted picture, and file an undeletion request if necessary. It is my opinion that in both images the buildings qualify as de minimis.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have let him know about this discussion. CT Cooper · talk 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

He says he doesn't want to comment, so I'm taking it to undeletion requests as you have suggested. CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Popup_revert.png

File:Popup_revert.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!

Teofilo (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hee Kameraad Pjotr, deze stond op mij talk maar is ook relevant voor jou. Teofilo is een gebruiker die in het verleden wel meer rare fratsen heeft uitgehaald dus het is de moeite om er even naar te kijken. Multichill (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:P_history.png

Hi! If I see it correctly you have ordered Delinker to replace. Please see and comment at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:P_history.png. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As the DR is not closed with keep (and the new version is very similar to the old version) could you please revert your global replacement with the totallay different file now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The global replacement has been reverted.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:100pesos1981.PNG

File:100pesos1981.PNG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

This also applies to

• File:100pesosSanMartinAniversario.PNG
• File:10cAustral.PNG
• File:10ct1983.PNG
• File:10pesos1985.PNG
• File:1ct1983.PNG
• File:1peso1984.PNG
• File:50ct1983.PNG
• File:5cAustral.PNG
• File:50pesosSanMartinAniversario.PNG
• File:50pesos1985.PNG
• File:50pesos1979.PNG

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:5ct1983.PNG

File:5ct1983.PNG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

This also applies to:

• File:5pesos1985.PNG
• File:ConquistaDesierto100pesos.PNG
• File:ConquistaDesierto50pesos.PNG
• File:Pesos-10-conmemorativo.PNG
• File:Pesos-25-Conmemorativo.PNG

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Could you please delete http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/8d/20110317110131!Darja_Kap%C5%A1.jpg

It is wrong picture, correct one is: File:Darja_Kapš.jpg. Tnx --Andrejj (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm afraid that I can't simply delete this image. I advise you to open a deletion request.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please rename: File:Rookwood Pottery.jpg

Hi, the original author on Flickr has made it quite clear that it is not a Rockwood, but rather a Van Briggle vase. Please change the name to File:Van Briggle vase.jpg. Thanks Clariosophic (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for saying. Kameraad Pjotr 20:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about User:Pstoianov

Hi, there is discussion about User:Pstoianov at Administrators' noticeboard, although it might not be in your interest, however your name is mentioned few times in the discussion, so I thought to let you know about it.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  16:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion please

You concluded the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krasin (1916 icebreaker).jpg. When I uploaded File:The Soviet icebreaker Leonid Krassin, in 1941, being studied by US maritime authorities.jpg there was a warning that an identical image had previously been deleted.

In that deletion discussion I saw that the nominator asserted the source was 404.

I found the image on a page full of historic photos from the USCG's photo archive. Many of these photos are listed as photographer unknown. It is my interpretation that this means the archivist believes the image(s) were taken by a USCG photographer, but, what with a war on, the photographer's name was not appended to the photo(s).

If you reached a "delete" conclusion because you thought no source URL could be found, would you agree no deletion review is necessary here? Geo Swan (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I seriously doubt that this image is a work from a U.S. Federal employee, but if you have any evidence to the contrary, there are no problems with this image. It could be {{PD-US-no notice}}, but you'll need some evidence to back that up.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no further evidence, just the official USCG site I took the image from. If I understand you, you looked at the USCG site, and continue to doubt the image is an USCG image.

So, I will file an undeletion request.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii.gif

File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii.gif 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!

Svgalbertian 18:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

ALSEP picture deletions

You deleted a whole series of pictures from the ALSEP. See w:Talk:Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. These pictures were taken by astronauts on the moon and certainly came from NASA. Pelase restore them.--agr (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

See Commons:Village_pump#Need_to_get_files_back, they had no source, so no evidence that they indeed came from NASA, but I understand this has now been fixed.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Restore

Howdy Kameraad. Just to let you know that I have restored (maybe temporarily, depends) some of your deletions per this discussion. Regards. Rehman 03:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Kameraad Pjotr 18:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of AN-FSQ-7.jpg

You deleted a photo of the AN-FSQ-7 computer from wikicommons. The photo is available for use and permission is given by the owner of the photo to post to wikicommons. I must have not entered the correct data when I uploaded to commons. How do I get this back up? I tried re-loading the photo but was denied. This has happened to three photos I uploaded to the commons for the Lincoln Laboratory site. All three photos were posted with permission of the Laboratory, the owner.

llabexpert

Hello,

If you have received permission from the copyright owner (usually the photographer), you'll have to send to OTRS. More instructions can be found on that page. If the permission is sufficient and valid, the image will be restored.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kameradaad Pjotr:

I'dont speak English very well. The I write in Spanish. Me habnían advertido que las imágenes que he subido a Commons para Alfonso García Ramos no tenían los requisitos de fuente (source) y prpietario bien definidos. Traté de cumplimentarlos pero no sé si lo hice mal pue no obtuve ninguna respuesta más y hoy he visto que has borrado las imágenes que había subido.

Has quitado algunas fotos que considero de mi propiedad pues Alfonso García-Ramos es mi padre (fallecido hace treinta años) y son fotos privadas, de la cámara de mi madre. No sé que más hay que hacer con fotos de esta procedencia. Me gustaríoa que me indicaras qué tengo que hacer.ç

Por otra parte había escaneado las portadas de casi todos sus libros y ya había añadido el ISBN y la dscripción bibliográfica para cada uno de ellos. Había leído en alguna parte de la wikipedia que esto era lo que había que hacer (citar la fuente)... ¿Es esto insuficiente? ¿Qué habría que hacer?

UN saludo --Chantecler (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

(I'm sorry to reply in English, but I don't understand Spanish.) Every image that you have not personally taken must have the permission from the original author (or his/her legal heirs) for the image(s) to be used under a Free licence mailed to OTRS. Both pages have an explanation in Spanish.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

W Stanley Moss photos

I do not understand why you have deleted these photos and related photos. I put a full explanation of the ownership rights yesterday on the Commons discussion page in each case precisely as I was asked to do by the previous message. it is distressing to the family to have these photos deleted when we own them as I made quite clear yesterday. the previous editor invited a discussion which I did. Why have you overruled this? It would be a lot more helpful - given the clear facts that we have given to explain constructively how to deal with the fair and proper use rather than just deleting. I have made endlessly efforts to get this right in a open and positive way. Perhaps you could respond in a positive way - other editors have helped me deal with the issue elsewhereHuguº (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 21:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

in fact please could you reinstitute these photos - thank youHuguº (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

If you want the image to be kept, you should email all relevant information (name of the author(s), date and country of publication and permission from the author(s) to use the image under a free license) to OTRS. You can find more information at that page.

Kind regards,

Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested undeletion

Just a note to inform you about Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:070401_Panmunjeom3.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I must warn you to never delete an article i post. Since i always try to be fair Do not underestimate me, i do not want you to get a virus... It could happen, you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacobrigo (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lacobrigo (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has been warned to stop threatening others. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

[3] the one Girl_overlooks_the_Suir.jpg it should not have been affected by this deletion review. As I recall, the reason that file was created with that title was to correct the confusion over wether the picture was of Madeliene McCann or not. Please undelete it! Either that or a pain in my backside trying to find it among thousands of other photographs...

Irish Law (as you decided to quote it in closing, as though it were not perfectly legal to reproduce pictures I have taken from the main street of the oldest city in my country!!):-

§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

213.94.183.34 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sign for above comments ~ R.T.G 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

This case had been argued over and over again. 2D works of art are _not_ covered by freedom of panorama in Ireland. If you disagree, open an undeletion request.

Kameraad Pjotr 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Exiting your front door is not covered by Irish law either you idiot :) ~ R.T.G 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Spoils system.jpg

You deleted this PD-old caricature for "no source", but I had identified it, and tagged it as a duplicate. It was in use, yet you deleted. I have now replaced the file in kk:Spoil system by hand, so the problem is solved, but please do not do this kind of deletions without replacing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)