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


Archive Note

Page was archived on July 2, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Many of the images uploaded are my property, they were posted by others on the internet because I participe in internet forums such as Skyscrapercity and Skycraperlife were I posted originally (my images are everywhere); which are not of my authorship were allowed to be uploaded by their own authors.

Spanish: Muchas de la imágenes borradas son de mi propiedad que fueron colgadas por otras personas en la internet y las que no lo son fueron autorizadas de ser subidas.

--Cmonzonc (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Refer to individual files and provide evidence that you published them first. I myself controlled for such possibilities too. I for example see the possibility with File:Arequipa, vista panoramica.jpg=[1], although your posting on skyscrapercity must not mean that you are the author because for example the first church image you posted on that skyscrapercityposting is again a copy of someone else work and also the last image of the monastery in that posting is someone else work and demonstrably not yours. Looks like you ignor copyrights not only here but also on other websites, be careful what you mean with "I posted originally". --Martin H. (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


This is so sad and revolting. He not only forgave the copytefth, but even offered to give more images, and all the other crook has done was to revert him. I wrote the guy now asking if he's still interested in releasing the images, though after 4 years, he may not even be using the same email anymore. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 03:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure if he this photos. He is not carying about authorship and copyrights, so unlikely he ever contested (or will be able to do so) in photography on a professional level. At some level you will take care of your own rights and of other photographers rights. --Martin H. (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm... He has a website dedicated to professional photography running ever since that skyscraper post you found (the image was credited to him there), and has a well concurred Flickr stream... I see no reason to doubt his good faith, really. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 10:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You've understood that I'm not talking about Raveonpragha, but about Bernardo García, right?--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. I not looked who posted it, I thought it was a posting by Raveonpragha, but now I see it is an IP complainting utilizaaste una imagen mia. Yes, maybe you should ask him if he wants to donate some Guadalajara photos, we need good photos of that city. --Martin H. (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I wrote him, and he was very keen to donate some images, yes, but from his last message that I've not answered yet it is clear that he doesn't want commercial use of his photos, so I've not much hope on that one. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk & Paul Weyers

Hallo Martin, da du Deutsch als Muttersprache angibst, hoffe ich, es ist ok, wenn ich auf Deutsch schreibe, denn ich bin gerade völlig überfordert. Ich verstehe weder die Funktionalität dieses talk-back, noch das, was ich mit dem Foto machen soll? talk-back: ja, ich habe verstanden, dass ich eigentlich auf meiner talk Seite anworten sollte aber ich habe nicht kapiert, wie ich dir kenntlich mache, dass dort eine Antwort ist und wo ich welchen Source-Code einfügen soll?! - Also sorry, ich hoffe, das klappt auch so. Ich arbeite nicht mit Commons und habe mich hier nie damit beschäftigt, was wo wie gemacht werden soll. Foto: Was muss ich da machen? Und WIE? Ich habe doch angegeben, dass es sich um ein offizielles Pressefoto handelt. Das ist über 40 Jahre alt, wie soll ich herausfinden, wer das wann wo gemacht hat? Ich hatte das Originalfoto, auf der Rückseite war nichts angegeben außer eben "Pressefoto" Was für Kategorien? Das sind doch eine Menge angegeben (was ich gar nicht gemacht habe)? Was muss denn da noch zu? Wie gesagt, sorry, ich verstehe nicht viel davon. Ich habe damals, als ich den Artikel verfasst habe, einige Zeit darauf verwendet, wie das mit den Fotos funkioniert und alles nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen gemacht. Aber auch mein Mentor konnte mir damals nicht weiterhelfen.... --Worthüterin (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Die Kategorien-Geschichte habe ich nicht auf deine Seite geschrieben, soll jetzt auch nicht weiter Interessieren. Das Urheberrecht erlischt 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers. Das Bild auf Commons muss frei sein, dass heißt der Urheber muss Jedem - nicht nur Wikipedia - ein unbeschränktes Nutzungsrecht einräumen welches die Verwendung des Bildes zu jedem Zweck erlaubt - nicht nur die Verwendung zur aktuellen Berichterstattung wie für "Pressebilder" üblich. Um zu bestätigen, dass der Urheber einer freien Verwendung zugestimmt hat sollst du eine schriftliche Freigabe des Urhebers an COM:OTRS/de weiterleiten. Wenn der Urheber dir unbekannt ist, ist das Schade, ändert aber nichts an den Erfordernissen. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Fremde_Aufnahmen. --Martin H. (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Achso, wenn dir das Englische zu anstrengend ist, mir ja auch, ändere deine Spracheinstellungen in Special:Preferences. Die meißten Benutzerhinweise werden dann automatisch übersetzt. --Martin H. (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Supi, danke! Dann wird es gelöscht, das kann ich dann leider auch nicht ändern.... Sprache ist geändert, danke auch dafür --Worthüterin (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Ich habe ein Bild hochgeldane, guck oballes ok ist. --Synthieprojektakame (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't understand how me uploading a low-res album cover is any different from any other uploaded cover on Wikipedia. How is a Britney Spears album cover any different from the one I uploaded? I genuinely curious.

User_talk:Hellboy42#Please don't upload Fair use content. --Martin H. (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


File:Image1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Humilis (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Can you do me a favour and run a checkuser against the account User:CyrusLovatoSwift versus User:NicoLovato2010. It's just very suspicious that both of them would upload practically the same image called File:TaylorSwift2011.jpg. Tabercil (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a sockpuppet. es:Taylor Swift and other edits for observation. --Martin H. (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thought so - thanks for checking. Tabercil (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Oil-lamp clocks

Hallo Martin H.! Bitte die Category:Oil-lamp clocks löschen. Danke --Karel K. (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gerne, da du die Kategorie gerade erstellt hattest kannst du gerne auch {{versehentlich erstellt/falsch erstellt}} verwenden. --Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, what if this is true? apparently this is authors website, don't you think that we needed some kind of verification like OTRS from the first place? although user's contributors confirms that they are from Poland.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this was correct. --Martin H. (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Merengue 1999.jpg - File:Merengue sanmatin tucuman.jpg - File:Merengue tenis cancha 1.jpg

The properties of this files were changed. Please take off the deleting tags.

--Robertoe (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The question however is if it realy is a photography you created yourself or if "Sitio Web Oficial del Club Chañarense" was the correct (but incomplete and not freely licensed) source. I will check this. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

a person of unusual talents

Hello, I have noticed that you are a person of unusual talents here.

Perhaps you could take a look at Flowers by color. The subcategories there are a terrible mess with images appearing in both the subcategory and in the species which are subcategorized there.

Please, don't bother with any "talk" or "talk back" messages or templates or what have you as this actually doesn't appear to be one of your special talents here.

Regardless of your yay or nay to the challenge I presented here, thanks for the very thorough work you have accomplished here. -- Queeg (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Very colourful, but still too boring. --Martin H. (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, you have blocked this user indef, though enwiki arbcom has stated he is not LouisPhilippeCharles. please see his enwiki talk page. thanks matanya talk 08:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for watching that, I reverted the block. --Martin H. (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, move files

Please, move File:Location of Sudan.svg to File:LocationSudan.svg, regards Shooke    (Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, note that there is a thumbnail bug, for a short time the server will (possibly) show the thumbnail of the old files, Sudan pre-2011/07. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i see, thanks Shooke    (Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Aussenansicht der neuen Unternehmenszentrale "Platform" von Ernst & Young Schweiz in Zürich.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation

Hallo Martin. Besten Dank für die rasche Antwort. Ich arbeite für Ernst & Youn Schweiz, weswegen ich dieses Bild mit unserem Wikipedia-Eintrag verlinken will. Die Veröffentlichung unter Wikimedia ist mit unserer PR Verantwortlichen abgesprochen. Die Quellenangaben habe ich so verstanden, dass ich dieses Bild im Namen von Ernst & Young Schweiz freigebe, da ich hier nicht als Privatperson handle, sondern im Namen der Unternehmung. Kannst Du mir bitte kurz erläutern, wie ich vorgehen muss, damit das Bild nun entsprechend freigeschaltet wird? Beste Grüsse Stefan Iff --stefaniff (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Du hast den Special:UploadWizard verwendet und dort ganz offensichtlich im Schritt "Release rights" die falsche Option gewählt. This file is not my own work ist die Richtige. Im weiteren Verlauf des Uploads must du dann den Urheber bzw. Rechteinhaber und die Quelle (Veröffentlichung oder veröffentlichende Stelle) angeben und eine Lizenz auswählen. Dieser Lizenz muss der Urheber/Rechteinhaber zugestimmt haben. Bezugnehmend auf de:Datei:Platform Aussenansicht 2.jpg: Stell sicher, dass der Rechteinhaber einverstanden ist, dass das Bild von Jedem, nicht nur Wikipedia, genutzt werden darf zu jedem Zweck einschließlich kommerzieller Zwecke. Diese Zustimmung dann bitte schriftlich an Wikimedia, den Anweisungen in Commons:OTRS/de folgend. Eine Textvorlage findest du unter Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverst.C3.A4ndniserkl.C3.A4rung_.28Rechte-Inhaber.29 (deutsch) oder Commons:Email templates (englisch). --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Martin. Vielen herzlichen Dank für Deine Hilfe. Ich habe nun das Bild de:Datei:Platform Aussenansicht 2.jpg entsprechend bearbeitet und eine Genehmigung per Email verschickt. Beste Grüsse und nochmals vielen Dank, Stefan Iff --stefaniff (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Explain to me please...

Explain to me please which pictures I can upload? Only photos that I made ​​myself? As I understood pictures/photo from the Internet not allowed to download here, even if indicated by author of the photo? Thanks Leticja (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The file must be published under a free license voluntarily by the copyright holder. A free license allows anyone to reuse the file for any purpose including commercial purposes. This means: You can upload photos that you created yourself and attach a free license to them or you can upload files that others published under free licenses. Commons:Лицензирование gives some information with a picture tutorial. Also Commons:Рамки_проекта#Должен быть опубликован под свободной лицензией, или не защищен авторским правом gives some info, of the Commons:Первые шаги the section Как правильно выбрать лицензию файла is the most important part on this topic. --Martin H. (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan SVG

Hello Martin H, only after moving this file again I noticed this. But the file can't be kept as it was, as there is no prediction for when that bug will be solved, and meanwhile it will become unusable in every article it is used. There are images from mid June in that situation, waiting for the server to update them. "Being patient" for weeks really is not practical in the least. Regards, --- Darwin Ahoy! 12:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

its still a temporary problem and not a reason to rename the file. --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It ceases to be temporary when it lasts for weeks, and we are talking here about high traffic articles due to the recent changing of the borders of those countries. The people on bugzilla currently have no clue bout why that is happening and when it will stop happening. I believe our priority should be to best serve the projects that use our images, and not to follow the rules strictly when following those rules only causes damage, as in this case. It may be moved back to the old name when the bug is resolved, anyways.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thats a bad timing of course, but still a temporary problem. Wikipedia is not written in one day and such bad technical problems cant be a reason to rename lots of files. In the long run this renames will only make things worser. Therefore: Dont forget to move it back. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and I've done it only twice, both cases relating with South Sudan. It should only be done if there is a compelling reason for the current version to be shown. Unfortunately this is the case of every image that is overwritten with a copyvio, for instance, as well as a number of other similar situations. I've raised the damage this is causing at Commons at Bugzilla, and they finally raised the bug priority to critical. But as far as I know they still don't have the least clue about what is causing it, so we will have to deal with it in the meanwhile. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 12:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


i got a mail martin The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Primelink22 has been changed on8 July 2011 by Martin H., see for the currentrevision.

i really dont understand the procidure here its damn too hard to understand for biggners !! please help me out

I notified you that you uploaded a picture with the option "its entirely my own work" that in fact is not your own work. You uploaded an unfree picture. Pay attention to copyrights please. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Piotr Żuchowski.jpg

Thank you for your attention. I will be considered. Quantité négligeable (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour LaLaLa

I demand to be unblocked. The reason some of the picture I have uploaded have bizarre sources is because the new upload wizard only gives one option for a source, as opposed to an individual one for each piece of media. This is stupid. I joined a month ago =\ what on earth is this about. As I said, I demand to be unblocked on the pure fact that the contributions I have made have been most helpful as well as in pure good faith. (copied and pasted from my own page. Signed Bonjour LaLaLa 23:21 PM

Clear no. You are a closely connected to LittleFrog who is connected to the your main account. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour !

I have 3 questions.

  1. Why do you remove the license "public domaine" for the "File:Georgescu01.jpg" in roumanian commons ?
  2. Why english wikipedia (like roumanian) can have this photo [2] and not danish, french and georgian wikipedias ?
  3. Do you must remove this photo from english and roumanian wikipedia ? Otherwise why ?

Lebiblio (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Some wikis allow fair use, see meta:Non-free content. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content. --Martin H. (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Permissions


Some of my photos were recently marked as violations of copyrights. I have contacted the company and they should have sent the permissions by now. Could you please check this and take the appropriate actions to un-mark the photos. Thanks a lot! Czx78 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunsets by year

Thank you for your advertisement about the sunsets by year. I have edited a comment on Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. --Bestiasonica (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Persistent bug

Check that after you move the image File:LocationSudan.svg, the server not refresh it! check here the image that should be shown. I think that before making the move should be deleted the redirection or the destination name. See that other file that is the same File:LocationSudanN.svg Regards Shooke    (Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this picture "own work" or not?

I have just seen you had deleted and delinked this file File:PrinceDiamondandPearlTour.jpg.

Same question for File:1999.png, as it claims to be "derived from a poster used to promote Prince's 1999 Tour" ("tiré d'une affiche faisant la promotion de la tournée 1999 de Prince").

In my view, this is either Own Work/Original Research and thus irrelevant in the corresponding articles, or derived work, and not copyright-free.

Best regards. --Azurfrog (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant for the articles means it is Commons:Fan art without beeing close enough to the original, then it is out of scope of Commons. If it is to derivative then it is copyright violation. A deletion request must clearify this. --Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Done... hopefully, as I can't find back my request in the list of the July requests (matter of fact, I never expected these requests to be well north of 1,000, just for July!). Maybe I have forgotten about putting a "timestamp" on it (whatever that may be), or I don't know what? --Azurfrog (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Its on the day log, see Special:WhatLinksHere/File:1999.png. The month logs are useless because the template inclusion limit is reached between 11 and 13 of each month. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, no problem, I got it back. It's just that this was my first deletion request here. Thanks! --Azurfrog (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock me?

Hi, Martin! I'm the user Lucas Brígido, I am here to ask for my unlocking, cause you blocked me on 24 July 2009, because I did many things wrong here in Commons. Today I recognize my mistakes and I am aware of copyright rules! Please Martin, please! unlock me in the Commons?? Lucas Brígido (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I will think about it the next days. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much for thinking in my situation. Lucas Brígido (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, if dou you want, you can ask to me about the Lucas' behavior, because, he developed so much in his knowledge about the copyrights and free license. You can believe him, just as I moved. Thanks. --Vitor Mazuco Msg 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not in 2011. To many bad things happened. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


hey friend, even though the image is not perfect can be of any use. I will try to improve it, to resemble more. --Killingme (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) File:The hymn of a broken man.jpg

Nothing said on this project against that file. For de.wikipedia it however is not acceptable, its not an educational illustration. --Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not refresh image

Check this the image not refresh to North Sudan. You can resolve the problem? Shooke    (Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 18:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


hi Why you deleted my foto "atomium" that is my own work,I,dont undestend

Hi Wojtekskalski, please sign your comments. The Atomium is still under copyright and Belgium has no FOP exemption; see Commons:FOP#Belgium and [3]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I wrote a good deletion summary. File:Atomium.jpg. See Category:Atomium. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I copied the above cited sources from your edit/deletion summary. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File is public

File:267899 228965683792156 216661211689270 775182 8028047 n.jpg is passed into public domain by author in his facebook page: I pass this image of my authorship into a public domain. Lkitrossky (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

.. I searched for mention of FAL or Free Art License in the comments because you said it is licensed under the Free Art License. But ok, fixed now. --Martin H. (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin, I've found another suspected sockpopuppet of CriciumaSC. User Rickiy has uploaded File:Cricciuma.jpg in copyright violation, and a similar name with a already detected sock Rickij. Could you check this, please? Ednei amaral (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible. I blocked him. --Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Another possible one, with a image of low resolution: File:Criciumar.jpg. He always insists in uploading a image here and then immediatelly using it in pt.wikipedia. Can you check this user User:Pseudo (by the way, a suspect name by itself...)? Ednei amaral (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
More information: the same ip who has inserted copyright images from CriciumaSC and his sockpuppets has just insisted in using this image uploaded by User:Pseudo. See [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8], among others. Ednei amaral (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

from User:Whydoes

Dear Martin H.

I am writing about the photo Jurga_receives_MTV_EMA_music_award.jpg. I'd like to ask you to restore the image. This image is photographied by myself as I was the manager and chief of the record label of singer Jurga (which is in the image) and accompanied her in MTV European Music Awards in Munich 2007. We have used the picture for promotional purposes.

So, I hereby assert that <text removed>

PS: Regarding the rest images that you deleted: • O Meile CD.jpg • Beribiam Danguje CD.jpg • Aukso pieva specialus leidimas CD.jpg • Aukso pieva CD.jpg I have sent already the permissions and licences to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <>. Hope all this helps to restore mentioned images as soon as possible.

I shortened your text. Forward it to COM:OTRS (you said you did already) and refer to the filename. Once the permission is received OTRS will undelete the file. --Martin H. (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Whydoes


Can you please indefinitely block MindyHall (talk · contribs)? This user is a sockpuppet of Cachubis (talk · contribs), and was recently indefinitely blocked in the English Wikipedia for continuous sockpuppeting. Look at this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi/Archive. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 15:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, confirm this. I was however surprise to find TheAnimalKing124 (talk · contribs) who also is a sockpuppet. --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Ich seh da eine Lizenz. -- Cecil (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Die Angabe die gemacht wurde - der Urheber ist seit 70 Jahren tot - ist auf den ersten Blick als Unsinn zu erkennen. Ich habe sie aber nochmal durchgestrichen. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Commons from Flickr

Hi Martin Can I upload files from ? which licence? Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Flickr_files#The_Commons_on_Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Jeez, can you be a bit slower in killing the chap? <G> By the time I ran down precisely where he stole the image of Randy Orton from, you had already deleted it and shoved his Flickr account on the QFI list. BTW, nice quick work there. Tabercil (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You can write the original source on file description and delete it again, I didnt made that effort this time because it was too obvious. But its good for documentation. --Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Or yes, on the usertalk, also a good place. --Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, placing it on the talk page makes it easier for the later account killing, which I suspect will be the eventual end stage given Wweforlife123‎'s first set of actions ... Tabercil (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AjaxMassDelete - Neue Features

Bedienungsanleitung, Wünsche und Probleme

Danke für das entgegengebrachte Vertrauen.

Ich würde empfehlen, es nun nur noch "on demand" laden zu lassen, denn es ist inzwischen ziemlich umfangreich. Das ist kein Muss, sondern lediglich ein Vorschlag um die Performance zu verbessern. Das führt dazu, dass das Skript nicht bei jedem Seitenaufruf, sondern nur noch beim Anklicken geladen wird.

So wird's gemacht: In User:Martin H./monobook.js bitte



addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:{importScript(\'User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js\'); void(0);}', "Perform batch task", 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand', null);


Das war's. Danke. -- RE rillke questions? 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Schon erledigt, das Tool ist wirklich sehr hilfreich. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sieht nach ein ziemlich gleichmäßig langweiligen Aufgabe aus.but maybe have a look at User talk:Category-bot, there a few tool listed. -- RE rillke questions? 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Inzwischen kann das Script auch (wenn es noch nicht da steht) Dateien in Kategorien "(be-)handeln". Dazu einfach eine Kategorie besuchen und dann "perform batch task" (Bei LAs werden allerdings die Uploader noch nicht benachrichtigt aber das folgt noch, ebenso ein automatisches clean-up; dazu habe ich schon User:Magog the Ogre seines Know-hows wegen angepingt)
Damit ist es möglich, wenn man z.B. eine Kategorie entfernen möchte, "custom replace" oben als Aufgabe auszuwählen und anschließend lässt man [[Category:xyz]] durch ein Leerzeichen ersetzen.
Noch einen Guten Abend wünscht der Rillke. -- RE rillke questions? 21:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin,

so ganz verstehe ich Deinen Kreuzzug gegen die von mir gewählte Lizenzvariante nicht. Unter Category:Creative Commons licenses steht:

"This category is a copyright status category for media files on Commons published under Creative Commons licenses."

Da steht nicht von "free" oder "unfree", nur von CC! Und "CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-DE" ist eine Creative Commons license! a×pdeHello! 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bitte schau dir den Kategorienbaum dort an, die Kategorie ist unter den Freien Lizenzen einsortiert, Category:Free licenses. Ich führe keinen "Kreuzzug" gegen irgendeine Variante, nur gegen die
  • unnötige - die Kategorien sind Wartungskategorien für Lizenzen die dem Commons-Projektrahmen entsprechen, alle zusätzliche ist Privatkram den ich dir nicht nehmen möchte, der aber mit dem Projektrahmen nichts zu tun hat
  • und falsche/irreführende - es handelt sich im Sinne des Projektrahmens von Commons nicht um eine freie Lizenzen, folglich ist eine Sortierung in Lizenzkategorien die als frei eingeordnet sind unrichtig
Kategorisierung diese Variante. --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Dann ist aber die ganze Kategorie Category:Creative Commons licenses falsch unter Category:Free licenses einsortiert, da es schließlich auch (nach wmf-Lesart) "unfree" CC licenses gibt. Ich verstehe Dein Anliegen, aber hier wird an der falschen Stelle korrigiert. a×pdeHello! 08:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: Warum zwingt uns die wmf eigentlich, nur "freie" Lizenzen zu akzeptieren, während ihr eigenes Logo streng reglementiert ist?!? a×pdeHello! 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Die können schreiben, was sie wollen. Das Logo ist {{PD-shape}} und nicht mehr. Im COM:VP hat sich mal einer die Mühe gemacht die ganzen Logos und ihre Ursprünge zu erforschen und heraus kam, dass die wenigsten den angegebenen Urheberrechtsschutz genießen, da sie entweder zu einfach sind oder derivatives von CC-By-SA - Bildern sind. -- RE rillke questions? 09:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hast Du noch den genauen (Archiv-)link? Sollte man beizeiten dann auch mal ändern ... a×pdeHello! 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/04#Relicense_of_Wikimedia_logos -- RE rillke questions? 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Danke für den link! a×pdeHello! 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, File:600px-Wikimedia-ale.svg.png und etliche andere sind dezeit im Kategoriebaum unter Category:Unfree copyright statuses einsortiert, da gehören die dann aber auch nicht hin, da sie ja zumeist {{PD-shape}} sind! a×pdeHello! 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ich kann deiner Argumentation nicht folgen, was hat die womöglich falsche Lizenzierung anderer Bilder mit der (unnötigen) Kategorisierung von unfreien Lizenzen zu tun? Lass den Baustein auf deinen Bildern so das Nachnutzer das Bild unter der NC-Lizenz nutzen können. Aber entferne die Kategorie, da NC nichts ist was im Interesse von Commons:Kategorien#Kategoriestruktur liegt: die NC-Lizenz ist keine unter Lizenzbaustein aufgeführte geeignete Lizenz. --Martin H. (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan

Hello Martin, you moved it back to the original filename, but it's not working. See here, for instance. All the projects using that file without resizing it are now displaying a wrong map. --- Darwin Ahoy! 03:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (Actually, at least here, they do not display any map at all)

I think the problem was fixed at the time I moved it, it was told me at least and it shows up correctly in file uses when I checked it after the moving. Its also shown correctly at pl.wp, per your link, today. --Martin H. (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Black - My Moment.png

Hi Martin. Can you take a look at the above file? It lacks a license, and as it a screeshot from a music video, it will be non-free. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and "Screenshot of the most significant part of the music video only" is a fair use rational for en:Template:Non-free video screenshot maybe, but such content is not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. Novice7 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


= Dandridge. Eine typische URV nach deutschem Recht (aus Filmen ohne Genehmigung entnommene Bilder) und ein Urlaubsbild. Beleg dafür: Sein Edit das Urlaubsbild in der deutschen Wikipedia einzufügen mit seiner Heim-IP. Gruß, --Martin1978 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Ps.: In dieser Liste ist die Range ganz klar zuzuordnen

Ist   Confirmed. Bleibt festzuhalten: er entwickelt sich, weg von trash hin zu Kultur. Kulturschaffende haben allerdings auch ein Urheberrecht. --Martin H. (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Cloud from aircraft.JPG

A picture I made, just not my English is not very good, so I spent a mistake in the data. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with that photo. --Martin H. (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Dandridge

Da haben wir mal wieder einen: Special:Contributions/Harry_Powell. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

und noch einen: [[9]]. --Seewolf (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gesperrt. --Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Noch einer: [10]. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jetzt auch mit schlechten Katzenbildern. --Seewolf (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

und Legospielzeug. Schon bitter. -Martin H. (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Der nächste. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mal wieder ein neuer. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Der ist noch offen, hier ist noch einer, wieder mit falsch bezeichnetem Logo. --Seewolf (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Und ein neuer, wieder mit eindeutigen URVs: [11]. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Das stimmt, uploads wie File:Final Destination 3 Logo.png gehen eindeutig über das erlaubte Maß hinaus. --Martin H. (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Gesperrt, 7 auf einen Streich. --Martin H. (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Schon wieder einer: Special:Contributions/NPH. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Walther Dobbertin

--Teofilo (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

About unlocking

Hello Martin, I was wondering if you'll be able to unlock me. On July 24, 2011 I completed two years locked, now I'm aware of copyright rules, please could you give me another chance? please Martin. Lucas Brígido (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (

Two years isnt correct, I calculate 2 years(and 1 month) in above posting #Unblock me? for this. 2012. --Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks anyway, maybe one day. Lucas Brígido (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Flickr upload

Hi Martin, I've just uploaded a few photos using the flickr upload bot and one of them refuses to show: File:Ruth Dyson.jpg

Is that related to the thumbnail generation problem, or are there other problems with this file. Shall I upload it again using a different file name? Schwede66 02:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Must be some other, unknown reason. Download the largest size from flickr and klick on "upload it" at the file description. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  Done -- RE rillke questions? 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Schwede66 02:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There are currently serious problems with the API (502 and 504 errors), uploading (slow and if you use a tool you have to use the API --> 502 errors) and Toolserver (crashed and recovery takes some time). -- RE rillke questions? 16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had the problem again. This time, I simply tried it a second time, but that also failed. I then uploaded the photo manually. Can somebody thus please delete the two dud attempts? This one and that one, please. Schwede66 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

photo permission

I'm working on the page for Kevin Lau and uploaded his photo to the commons and have photo permission I am supposed to send. I don't know how to send this photo permission according to a wiki mail message sent to me which contains this:

Editor's summary: Please send a permission for File:About-kevin.jpg to OTRS but I am not wiki'd enough to understand who/how to do this, so need help!

Kevin Lau posted a CC copyright for this photo:

Kevin Lau sent me an email with this message I could forward to someone: "the photo is Attribution-ShareAlike the photographer gave me full rights to the photos taken once shot".

Can you please help me get this photo permission to the right person if it is not you? : ) Thank you. Suzwriter (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The photo on flickr is licensed under a non-commercial license, thats unfree. Also the flickr user, the depicted person, unlikely can grant any license for the photo, the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject of the photo. Regarding your question on how to provide written permission from the copyright holder see your talkpage and first read the instructions linked there. --Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Read this, thank you. Suzwriter (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you please check the photo permission again on the link to see if it is okay for use by Wikipedia now? Thank you very much. Suzwriter (talk)


Would be nice if someone can assign the right. -- RE rillke questions? 12:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. RE rillke questions? 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion request

Can you consider restoring those image--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


Kannst du bitte:

--Antemister (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Najibullah.jpg and File:Najib.jpg

English (by Google Translate):

Hi. I can not write the exact name of the source to be in Pashto and I have no keyboard Pashto and do not know how to write in that language.

In Afghanistan, no one can claim copyright for work done by people of that country in that country because there is no copyright law.

As said above I'd appreciate it you take away the ads you placed. Thanks again.


Hola. Yo no puedo escribir el nombre exacto de la fuente por estar en pashto y yo no tengo teclado en pashto y no sé cómo escribir en ese idioma.

En Afganistán nadie puede reclamar copyright por un trabajo hecho por personas de ese país en ese mismo país debido a que no hay ley de copyright.

Por lo antes dicho yo te agradecería que tú quitases los avisos que pusiste. Gracias de nuevo.

--Falerístico (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of files by w:User:Dragon Lost In Mexico

File:Sierra gorda.jpg seems to be another image of this user transferred to Commons and should be deleted as well. Some others are candidates as well. --Denniss (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you not read?

Up to what it costs me to write this language takes you do not even bother to respond to my message.

Looks like your "merit" as admin is put templates.

EVERYTHING IS MADE IN AFGHANISTAN ISN'T COPYRIGHT (and less if it was done under the communist regime).

--Falerístico (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Made" is not the point. "First published" is the requirement. You not provide any evidence for that. You have a picture of an afghan person and claim, that the picture was first published in Afghanistan. Thats utter nonsense. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Aditionally its not taken from some magazine by you. You only grabbed the image from the internet. In fact you not care about where it was first published you just make some random claims. If its on the internet its very likely not from Afghanistan but from the international press. Most likely your guess is wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ya sabía que contribuir en este sitio era un pérdida de tiempo. Siempre aparecen mediocres como tú para fastidiar el trabajo de otros (y si quieres entender qué dije, usa el Translate, imbécil).--Falerístico (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please speak german to me. --Martin H. (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
[12]--Falerístico (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Por favor, no seas incivil. Martín solamente está tratando de verificar la licencia, no para parar el trabajo de otros. Si puedes proporcionar la fuente de la photo y podemos verificar que si es libre entonces todo sería bien. Killiondude (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete now

Pues si no lo viste, le puse la plantilla {{speedy}} a las dos imágenes que te molestaban, así que puedes borrarlas. De hecho, te invito a borrar todo lo que yo hice y hasta que me bloquees para siempre, porque no tengo intención de volver a colaborar aquí y perder tiempo con un tiranuelo prepotente como tú. Y usa un traductor automático si no entiendes, no voy a perder tiempo con alguien tan miserable que no puede ni poner una talkback en mi página de discusión.--Falerístico (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Du hast da was gründlich missverstanden: Niemand ist hier Dein Servicepersonal. Du bist nicht in der Position, irgendwelche Forderungen zu stellen. Deshalb muss sich auch niemand Mühe geben, eine Sprache zu verstehen, die Du für angemessen hältst. --Schwäbin (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS check

Martin I sent one mail today to OTRS with the subject line "Madonna Virgin Tour Band". Can you please check if OTRS has received it and if possible, validate it? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 15:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

neue Dandridge Socke

User:Eat. Gruß, --Martin1978 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin,
Would it be possible for you to have a look at my request concerning the problematic contributions of this user? He has been blocked three times (including two by you) for importing files under copyright or without a realistic license. He still continues to load those images despite given explanations, which leads to very time-consuming tracking of his interventions to mark these images as copyvios. Regards Moumou82 (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Que te pasa flaco?

Macho que te pasa? Quien sos vos para venir a marcar mi trabajo? te desginaron específicamente para que me persigas? Tenés algín problema con mi trabajo? porque todo mi trabajo está siendo eliminado por capricho tuyo y encima te querés venir a burlar. Sabés que? Sos un desubicado. Y no sé que bicho te pica para querer hacer lo que hacés. Estás muy enfermo loco.

--Diego HC (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Martin, für das obige habe ich ihn ermahnt. In der Vergangenheit hatte es ähnliche Fälle gegeben, wo die Bilder dann offenbar doch o.k. waren, teils via OTRS. Allerdings hatte ich ihm damals schon gesagt, er solle Vorpublikationen auf der Bild-Seite eintragen, um Irrtümer zu vermeiden. Zu den aktuellen Bildenr kann ich natürlich nichts sagen. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Unwahrscheinlich. Zu viele Quellen, zu viele Bilder sind mit 100%iger Wahrscheinlichkeit von Facebook kopiert (720px an der längeren Seite), Benutzer schreibt über kürzlich verstorbene Person und benötigt Bild, plötzlich findet er eins in seinem persönlichen Bestand... also Ich glaub ihm kein Wort. --Martin H. (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello, sorry for the copyright. I imported the image when I saw that File:NeumannErich.jpg, File:LeibbrandtGeorg.jpg, File:KritzingerFriedrich.jpg, and en:File:Joseph-meisinger.jpg use the same source and the same license. Bloody-libu (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like users overthere on en.wp and fr.wp got it wrong. The Neumann photo is by Heinrich Hoffman, not public domain untill at least 2028. The Leibrandt photo is from 1942 and therefore not public domain for any reason. The Meisinger photo can stay on en.wp and only there with that rational that it is PD in the U.S. - although an evidence that it was within the group of sized photographs is completely missing. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

COM:UNDEL#File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 01.jpg and File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 04.jpg

Could you respond to that person? I think there are still some blue links in that list that should also probably be deleted, but I don't want to upset him. Killiondude (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, but i do not undertand the reason of "copiright violation". Where is violation? I whait for an answer. Thanks.--Pelusu (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Per your talkpage blanking I assume that you already know the answer. Taking someone else work and cropping it does not make it your work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unterstützung erbeten

Lieber Kollege, ich bin mit den hiesigen Regularien nicht vertraut und meine Englischkenntnisse sind nicht mehr ausreichend. Daher erbitte ich deine Hilfe bei der Löschdiskussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg‎. Es geht um das Foto eines Autowracks, das 1945 kurzzeitig für die Überreste eines der drei Gaswagen des Vernichtungslagers Chelmno gehalten wurde. Dieser Irrtum wurde noch 1945 aufgeklärt: Tatsächlich war es ein Möbelwagen einer Spedition aus Zeulenroda - schon die Marke Magirus zeigt Fachleuten, dass es nicht zu den von der Fa. Glaubschat umgerüsteten Gas-Fahrzeugen gehört. Ich habe in der Disku noch einen Hinweis auf einen Weblink gegeben, der den Sachverhalt erläutert.

In der deutschen Wikipedia gibt es kein Lemma mehr mit diesem Foto. Von Zeit zu Zeit setzt ein unbedarfter Laie es nochmals ein, aber das Hauptproblem sehe ich darin, dass es in fremdsprachigen Wikis auftaucht und entsprechende Hinweise (teils aus sprachlichen Schwierigkeiten) wenig beachtet werden. Eine Löschung wäre schon deshalb angesagt, weil Holocaustleugner mit diesem unbestreitbar "falschen Foto" Zweifel säen können an der Seriosität des Lemmatextes.

In derr Löschdiskussion bin ich auf einen Benutzer getroffen, der allein die Lizenz und die Verwendung in anderen Wikis als Grund ansieht, eine Löschung abzulehnen. Ich finde diese Argumentation abenteuerlich: Wenn kein Historiker das Foto als Gaswagen anerkennt, darf es hier nicht so weiter unter diesem Begriff gehandelt werden.

Zu meiner Person habe ich auf meiner Benutzerseite das Notwendige gesagt. Für deine Unterstützung wäre ich dir recht dankbar. MfG --Holgerjan (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Chace Watson

Hello Martin

Could you please have a look at my talk with this user. Thank you very much--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


this file is a derivative work of the deleted File:Fredrik Reinfeldt.jpg --Akkakk (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, must have clicked the wrong button on the wrong file when going through User:Pelusu]'s copyvios. --Martin H. (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Flickr batch uploading

Hi Martin, Commons:Flickr batch uploading seems to have a bit of a backlog. I've got a job from early June that hasn't been done yet, and I see your name there, too. Any ideas what to do? Schwede66 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Einfach warten, alle sind freiwillig hier. --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Flickr licensing query

Hi Martin, Different question; still flickr. I've been in contact with a flickr user regarding this photo, and he has changed the licence by stating in the body underneath the photo that he is happy with CC-BY-SA, including pasting the associated graphic into his reply. He didn't change the licence settings for this photo, though. Now I've explained to him how to do this properly in another comment, and then a few days later by flickr mail, but I haven't had any further response. Could you please have a look at the page and let me know whether you would be happy for me to upload this photo to Commons the way things are at the moment? Schwede66 05:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Meine Zufriedenheit damit sollte zweitrangig sein. Aber wenn du nach einer zweiten Meinung fragst: Ja, ich würde es als Freie Lizenz ansehen, würde es aber unbedingt auf der Dateiseite (und mit Erläuterung auf der Dateidisk.) mit Flickrreview bestätigen lassen. --Martin H. (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorted - thanks. Schwede66 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin, mich würde gern interessieren, worin die URV bei dieser Datei besteht. Auf Flickr steht CC BY 2.0, wäre also mit Commons kompatibel. Ist die Flickr-Kopie schon eine URV und das Original steht auf Die ganze Sache ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar, vielleicht kannst Du es ja ein bisschen erläutern. Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Habe nicht darauf geachtet, ob das Bild von dem wahren Urheber freigegeben ist. Die URV besteht in der falschen Urheberangabe des Uploaders und in der falschen Behauptung, er habe das Bild selber erstellt. --Martin H. (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Kannst Du es nicht wiederherstellen und dann die Beschreibung korrigieren? (Das könnte dann auch ich tun) Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Einfach neu hochladen. Gleich unter besserem Dateinahmen mit richtigen Angaben. Ohne diese finstere Vergangenheit in der Versionsgeschichte die letzlich nur auf ein Erlöschen der Lizenz für diese Version unter §7 der Lizenz hinweist. --Martin H. (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Ja gut, kam mir auch in den Sinn, wollte mir nur das erneute Beschneiden ersparen, manche Dinge tut man halt zweimal :-) So long --Ras67 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Martin. You recently deleted the file File:Hamidreza Haji Babaei.jpg specifying only "flickrvio". If I remember correctly, the source image was and it does not seem like an obvious copyright violation to me. Can you tell me why did you think that the picture is copyrighted by someone else than the Flickr uploader? Thanks, Razvan Socol (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Parmida76 is an flickrwashing account of Amir.Hossein.7055. And if you enter the picture to google it is an obvious copyvio from --Martin H. (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will be more careful when I find a picture related to Iran on Flickr. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Women named Barbara

Tag Martin, ich hatte deinen Löschantrag bisher soweit ausgeführt (bis auf eine Kat mit 120 Unterkats, kommt noch). Wie sieht's mit den anderen Unterkategorien von Category:Women by given name aus? Hast du die aus einem bestimmten Grund nicht mitnominiert, denn ansonsten scheint mir bei denen dasselbe Problem vorzuliegen. Bis auf Category:Women named Maria (das sollte ein Bot erledigen), würde ich die Kats sonst auch noch löschen. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ich habe die Kategorien gelistet, die zum Zeitpunkt bestanden. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maria Llerena

Any particular reason why you removed [[Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives]] from her category and forgot (or what?) to mention that, too, in the edit summary? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

the category is wrong there. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Just your opinion, or do you have a reason you'd like to disclose? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont know why it is there, maybe someone created the category with copy&pasting categories from the file description to the person category and accidentially also copied a file source category. The category is still on the files where it is correct, it not applies to the person, obviously. --Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
All 3 photos were contributed to Commons by the Southerly Clubs. I usually remove that donor category when someone else uploads a photo of their own to a Southerly Clubs category. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I didnt know about that categorization approach of you when removing the imo straying category on the fly. However, the category is wrong for that person. Sort the related images, not unrelated people. Also not temporarily, commons issues (who uploaded what) are not relevant for topic categories, they are just coincidences of time and of people contributing here. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another Fark maybe...

Hello, Martin. Excuse me for not going the long official way, but I believe it's almost obvious case. I was asked on my usertalk to handle a Bulgarian user editing under IP, but as far as I can judge this is Fark again. In BG WP we're trying from time to time to explain him how things are in Commons, but in vain, he's beyond all hopes... Spiritia 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

handled this. --Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for images of user:mcapdevila

Hi, I don'tknow if you can help me, but I am pretty sure I did enter an existing category in my 4 last images. I had a problem during one upload & maybe this introduced an error in the database that detects.. Any solution?.. Thanks in advance ;-)--Mcapdevila (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not my area of expertise. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


I am more active on Wikipedia, so I might need your help. I am trying to upload this file from Flickr but realized it was previously deleted due to copyright violation. Would I be able to upload this, or would it by copyvio? —Wikipedian Penguin (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because that flickr user is not the copyright holder. Its a bad flickr user. --Martin H. (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
So is Getty Images non-free then? Wikipedian Penguin (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, everything is unfree except the copyright holder agreed to free reuse or the copyright expired (Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain). Especially Getty Images is known for chasing copyright violations, but thats not an important criterion to not include their content. --Martin H. (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC) and

Hi. Thanks for these two files. I missed them while scything other ones. We verified permission and it happened that none was valid really. So, if anything from these two sources is around - delete it. Thanks. Masur (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

New Amir sock?

You might want to have a look at Shabakh (talk · contribs). Best, – Fut.Perf. 14:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Clear   Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Now Dorogh (talk · contribs) (re-uploading the same iamges Shabakh had on en-wiki). Fut.Perf. 11:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Und jetzt RicIrn (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. 09:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


If you don't mind, I allowed myself to unblock him. I spoke with him at pl-wiki, realized him what the block was about and will keep an eye on him. Masur (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, but I dont know if I catched all his sockpuppets in the past, so if there any old sins left he should say it now. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
(I not catched all socks). --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Danke ...

... für deine Aufmerksamkeit (mecklenburger Indianer in Gadebusch), habe ich nicht aufmerksam gelesen. Der Kreis Lulu ist nicht insgesamt in M-V gelandet, einige Orte im Süden haben sich anders entschieden - und das Amt Neuhaus nicht zu vergessen. Gruß. --Schiwago (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatte ich auch gerade nachgelesen, Lanz war mir nicht bekannt. --Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sletning af billeder.

Til stor frustration har jeg konstateret at du har slettet billeder til "Sofie Carsten Nielsen"'s wikiside. Jeg er en del af Sofie's kampagnestab og har derfor fået komplet grønt lys til at bruge billeder af hende, dette er en intern aftale i partiet. Derfor vil jeg gerne have billederne tilbage på sitet med det samme, det kan simpelthen ikke være rigtigt at Wikipedia Danmark forsinker eller forhindrer os i at opdatere siden her.

1) you are not the author, This file is my own work --> This file is not my own work. Thats the right option, dont provide false information. 2) you need the permission from the copyright holder (by default the photographer) not only that you can use the file, you need the permission that anyone, worldwide, can reuse the file for any purpose including commercial purposes. See Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated

Hello dear user, all the media content (photos, audio, video) of the companies that preceded the ABr, are today the very ABr, so the ABr is the owner of the copyrights on the published works of these companies. By a failure of understanding the template that only reads the site content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brazil / 2.5 Brazil, but all the media file ABr is also published under these licenses.

The original author of the "file:BR-230 - Abertura.JPG" is the National Agency (Previous ABr), and all the work published by this news agency, now belongs to ABr. I therefore ask that you remove the mark "source is not properly indicated". I thank and good contributions! Hallel (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The license only applies to their websites, not other publications from ABr. Only the website, not all media. --Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was reported that the media produced by ABr are licensed in 3.0 Brazil / 2.5 Brazil, and may be used provided that credit was awarded the ABr by the images. Even the indication of the template that says: "This file is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brazil. This photograph was produced by the Agency Brazil, the public agency news from Brazil". What about the site's content, it should be understood as: newspaper articles, photos, videos and audio. So the entire contents of the site can be published provided they are properly licensed. I must remind you that the ABr is the rights holder of the image in question, and I can publish it by making proper attribution. Anyway I send you a link that tells the origin of the image: . Thanks in advance. HallelTalk 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All content is copyrighted in the first place, the copyright holder must give permission in form of a license. The license applies only to the content mentioned in the license. The license at the bottom of mentions content published on that distinct website. If the image is not published on that website then it is not published under that license. {{ABr}} not refers to any other permission than those permission at the bottom of You can not use it for any media file that is not taken from that website. --Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained to you dear user, the rights to this image belong to ABr / EBC and is allowed to share and remix the images published by ABr / EBC since it assigns the job properly. You should know that there are several images of ABr / EBC published in the Commons and these are fully capable of being used, and posível check them here: . I tried to find the link ABr / EBC containing the image but it seems that this has already been deleted or is no longer available, but the link that you pointed out, is the picture and its origin. I'm still looking for some other link that provides this information more thoroughly. Thanks in advance. HallelTalk 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ABr restructured its website sometimes in 2010, therefore many files previously copied from their website are not longer on their website, but they were published there under a free license. For your files you must provide a link to their servers showing that this files were published on their server at the time of your upload here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I could not find the link where the photo was available. What I could find was an article very similar to that found the photo, but this did not provide a likely picture. I'll keep looking, but very difficult to find the original photograph. Thanks in advance. HallelTalk 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fragwürdige Umkategorisierungen durch eine IP

Hallo Martin, unter wechselnden IP-Nummern nimmt ein User seit einiger Zeit Umkategorisierungen vor, zum Beispiel hier, hier und hier. Die Änderungen wurden mehrfach von Turelio und mir reverted, zuletzt heute, woraufhin die IP eben erneut revertete. Mein Eidruck ist, dass er diverse Könige und Kurfürsten (möglicherweise in durchaus guter Absicht) in ein polnisches?/tschechisches? Kat.-System pressen will, das allerdings nicht zum bishergen commons-, de- und en-System passt. Seine vorstehend verlinkten Umbennennungen von Otto V of Bavaria in Otto VII of Bavaria sind nur ein Beispiel ... ich habe insgesamt große Zweifel, ob seine Edits (oder diese, die mit ziemlicher Sicherheit vom selben User stammen) ok sind. Leider mangelt es mir an genügend Kenntnis der Kat-Syteme und auch an der Zeit, mich in all diese Edits einzuarbeiten bzw. sie durchzuprüfen. Ich hatte die Problematik schon einmal im Forum angesprochen, allerrdings ist außer drei punktuellen Reverts durch Turelio nichts weiter passiert. Da so möglicherweise div. Kat.-Systeme (und Zuordnungen - die Kats. stimmen nicht mehr mit den Bildtexten und den interwikilinks in den Bildtexten überein) mehr oder weniger unbemerkt durcheinander geraten, mache ich in dieser Form noch einmal auf die Sache aufmerksam. Gruß --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Ein Problem scheint darin zu liegen, dass in der Category:Otto V of Bavaria momentan sowohl Otto III wie auch Otto V eingeordnet sind. Seltsamerweise sind die anderen Dateien, die sehr wahrscheinlich derselbe User dort eingeordnet hat, in de als Otto III. (Bayern) und en Otto III, Duke of Bavaria zugeordnet ... warum er diese unter Otto V einordnet (wahrscheinlich hat er diese Kat auch selbst angelegt) ist mir irgendwie ein Rätsel. Vielleicht versucht er ja, um das alles "passend" zu machen, die "eigentlichen" OttoV-Dateien ständig unter OttoVII unterzubringen. --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
PSPS Sämtliche (?) Zuordnungen, die hier unter "Otto" (1 bis 7) vorgenommen wurden, scheinen nicht zu stimmen - in allen Stichproben. die ich gemacht habe, stimmen die Dateinamen (und auch die Einbindung der Dateien in diversen WPs, nicht mit den Cat.-Bezeichnungen überein). --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hab die IP mal angesprochen, erwarte aber keine Antwort. Kommt übrigens, wie auch die vorher benutzte IP, aus Portugal. --Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Ich weiß ehrlich gesagt nicht, wie ich anders helfen könnte als Turelio es getan hat. Die Zeit mich mit den Edits zu befassen hab ich diese Tage leider auch nicht. Wenn Klärungsbedarf besteht bitte ans Forum wenden. --Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
p.s.: wenn du das Gadget Allow /16,/24-/32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions aktivierst kannst du unter Special:Contributions/ schauen, was er tut. --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kelly (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Martin H. please would you block indefinitely my account? thanks a lot :) --gian_d (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hutovo Blato clear cold water.jpg

Falls du meinst, das das eine URV ist, müsste das auch auf EN gelöscht werden. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:David Komnenos 1204-1214.JPG

This file is good or not.--Кардам (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Its bad. The design of the coins is very, very old, thats not the proble. But this photo is a photographic work and the coypright on the photographic work not expired. Photo can not be uploaded to Wikimedia projects. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nutzungsrechte Fotos

Hallo Martin H., danke für die Löschung der vier Fotos. Ich muss gestehen, es war ein Fehler die Fotos (nur weil ich sie leicht bearbeitet habe) als "my own work" zu markieren. Ich hätte sie sicherlich als "unknown author" kennzeichnen müssen. Nun trotzdem die Frage an dich: wenn es in Ordnung ist, Bild hochzuladen, bei denen "the author granted permission for anyone to use", warum löschst du dann diese Fotos. Sie sind aus meiner Sicht frei für die Nutzung auf Wikipedia. Oder habe ich etwas übersehen und etwas spricht dagegen? Danke für deine Mühe, Tomello (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jedes urheberrechtlich geschützte Bild ist erstmal frei für garnichts, auch nicht für Wikipedia. Der Rechteinhaber muss das Bild unter einer Lizenz lizenzieren die Jedem (nicht nur Wikipedia) die Verwendung zu jedem Zweck, auch kommerzielle Zwecke, gestattet. Commons:Lizenzen. --Martin H. (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

deleting wrong

I specified wikimapia as a source of information for images. I have not got the graphics there. Better ask me before you delete? Please restore the image as we did in 3dem, Inscape and information we got from wikimapia.Asybaris01 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your image obviously included a screenshot from googlemaps service = wikimapia. Provide a verifiable source for the satelite picture. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean, if I license for Global Mapper that automatically extracts texture World Imagery can not use it? It is a mistake somewhere. Asybaris01 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a license this will still not allow you to grant others the permission to reuse the file commercially. Thats like buying the newest CD and making pirate copies and selling them worldwide. Everyone who exploits the content will need a license. Screenshots of a software that you made under a license are not allowed to upload here under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Scuza-ma, dar eu cred ca tu gresesti. Cum adica? Eu dau bani pe un soft si nu pot sa ma folosesc de ce eu obtin cu el? Eu decid daca vreau sa vand sau sa dau gratuit. Global Mapper sau altcineva nu are nicio treaba aici.Asybaris01 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Sfera_de_interes#Trebuie să fie sub licenţă liberă sau în domeniul public. No screenshots of software that not fulfills this conditions.
The license contract/terms of service of that software not says that you can worldwide distrubute screenshots (that you created under a nontransferable, nonsublicensable, limited license) to others and allow them to reuse this screenshots for commercial purposes. Uploading this unfree content with the claim here, that it is public domain is indeed copyright infringement. --Martin H. (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Then delete all images.Asybaris01 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think its your job to identify those files where Commons:Sfera_de_interes#Trebuie să fie sub licenţă liberă sau în domeniul public is not fulfilled or where the terms of service have been violated. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Why did you remove my image ? Pourquoi avez-vous enlevé mes images ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SebFerry69 (talk • contribs)
"my image"... thats a joke now, right? Stop stealing other peoples photos. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Priscilla Cooper Tyler.jpg

If that file is deleted, it should not be deleted for lacking a source, because it's extremely obvious that it's from a mid-19th-century engraving; it should be for other reasons, such as that's low quality and no one can tell what it's useful for (it appears to be being used on Thai Wikipedia as a picture of Tyler's wife, but it seems to be a picture of some other relative of his)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

With a source both (copyright and facts) can be resolved. I not share the opinion that something that looks old is necessarily old and public domain and I not share the opion that false "own work" information can simply stay if something looks old. --Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Images need an additional category

Hi Martin H. Can you please advise who I can approach to add an additional category to the list of images HERE? Much appreciated. Ineuw talk page on 16:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A possible sollution is Commons:Cat-a-lot, go to the source categories that they already have and add the new category to the selected files. --Martin H. (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. Someone has done it and I didn't notice it. :-)Ineuw talk page on 15:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Licence BCN

About files like File:Salvador Allende Gossens-.jpg, and other, I don’t understand what exact is a OTRS, but I thing is not necessary, since the license required is on the down left corner of the page of the National Library of Chile, the government institution who makes the photos (excuse my bad english). --ADGE (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats a wiki, the license may apply to content that the wikiusers created themself, but not to all the photos in that wiki that people simply copied from google imagesearches. All that files are not licensed under a CC license by their copyright holders but collected there by people who not have the right to publish it under any license (and who not even mention the source or copyright holder). --Martin H. (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That page is not an open wiki, only uses his technology, there is not user, only workers of the National Library of Chile, a public institution (you can see the link in the official page,, in the section “Reseñas parlamentarias”). The photos are the official photographs of the members of the congress. The BCN has cooperates before with Wikipedia, like in this example, when they assert that they are the owners of the patrimonial rights of that works. (excuse again my english). --ADGE (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That pdf mentions a very limited number of works. From the link above ("All that files") half is logos of organizations that I, by all respect, not believe that they hold the exclusive copyright. Its a good idea for an institution to publish under free licenses, but its a bad idea to do this without any source or any information on the creator or copyright holder. Aks them, who created that photo. Ask them, why they own the exclusive copyright. Ask them, if the photo is covered under the website cc-by license. Then we can upload it here. In this form the image is quite obviously simply taken from google without any evidence on who created it or who the copyright holder is. --Martin H. (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mina4.jpg 407px.jpg

Hi Martin, sorry about the problems with the File:Mina4.jpg 407px.jpg. I've modified the original - File:Mina4.JPG used on en.wikipedia - article Mina. Can I have your help? Thank you! --H.crrr23 (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Union Investment Real Estate

Guten Morgen Martin H.,

Sie haben mir eine Mail bezgl. der Bildrecht auf den Wikiseiten vom Prime Property Award und Emporio Hochhaus zugeschickt. Ich habe mir vorher ausdrücklick das OK bei Union Investment Real Estate in Hamburg geholt [...entfernt...]. Sie können gerne selbst mit ihm Kontakt aufnehmen! Ich möchte Sie bitten, die Bilder keinesfalls zu löschen!! Bitte sagen Sie mir ggfls. was ich ändern bzw. eintragen muss, damit die Bilder bestehen bleiben!

Besten Dank.

Dagmar Hotze greenIMMO

Die Freigabe bitte an OTRS weiterleiten. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sock or not?

Hi Martin,

I came across some curious edits by a user that I've been dealing with, Gabrielassu, that might indicate a connection to other accounts. Gabrielassu created the user page for Cearense, which was later edited by Gustavo neto. A Brazilian Portuguese-speaking user with multiple accounts ending with "neto"... sounds familiar. They seem to be interested in different cities, though, so maybe it's just a coincidence. I'm not sure a checkuser request is justified based on this information alone, but since you're able to view deleted edits and you have some experience with the possibly related accounts, I figured I'd ask you to take a look if you have the time. Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 12:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

inconclusive if they are (technically) sockpuppets. Of course the history of that userpage looks very obvious. I see no relation to neto, that was a sockpuppeteer for pt:Eirunepé (thanks for reminding, quite obviously the lead image was again uploaded by a sock in July 2011) and other amazonas region cities and villages. This users are related to some sports club in Rio Grande do Norte, thats much distance, I not see a relation. --Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Thought it might have been a bit of a long shot. LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Walmart Soundcheck

Hey Martin. I see that you deleted the files. But, the user] states that he used to take these photographs but no longer does. Is it a copyright violation? Novice7 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That user is not a representative of Walmart Soundcheck and she is [saying, that she NOT toke this photo. Walmart Soundcheck is publishing under under CC-by and on their website under no license. There here is no braxton photo officially published on their flickr under cc-by. That user copied an unfree image from their website and copied their caption. --07:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining Martin. I really thought that the person was affiliated with Walmart. Novice7 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome, thanks however for finding that bad Britney Spears uploader recently. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that the user had uploaded some HQ professional quality images, which really surprised me. Further look revealed that they were copyvios. Thank you for deleting them. You are a great administrator! Novice7 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bilder aus dem österreichischen Nationalbibliothek

Bitte, seien Sie ruhig ! Ich habe vor ein paar Woche dem österreichische Nationalbibliothek gefragt, ob ich Bilder, die in dem Bildarchiv statt finden, zu Wikipedia hochladen darf. Weil ich eben einen Ja-Antwort bekommen habe, habe ich diese Bilder hochgeladen. Ich muss erst die Quelle zitieren. Sie können selbst den Herrn Mayer den Leiter der Sammlung für Plansprachen und Esperantomuseum der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek fragen. --Arno Lagrange 18:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

[email removed ]
Bitte die Freigabe an OTRS weiterleiten. Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass die Frage nach einer Freigabe zum Hochladen in Wikipedia zwangsläufig in einer unzureichenden Freigabe resultieren wird. Die Freigabe muss für Jeden (nicht nur Wikipedia) zu jedem Zweck, einschließlich kommerzieller Zwecke, unter einer freien Lizenz erfolgen. Ich kann die Sprache der Freigabe nicht verstehen, aber ich sehe, dass die auf den Bildbeschreibungen angegebene Lizenz nicht in der Freigabe erwähnt wurde. Hier bitte nachbessern.
Please forward the permission to OTRS. I like to remind you that asking for permission to upload in Wikipedia will necessarily result in an insufficient permission. Permission must be given for anyone (not only Wikipedia) to reuse the file for any purpose including commercial purposes under the terms of a free license. I cant read the permissions language but from what I see I can say that the license described on the files description pages is not mentioned in the permission text. Please obtain a more sufficient permission.
--Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ArnoLagrange's book cover uploads

Hi, you may want to note the discussion on this matter that took place on my talk page. I'm not sure what good contacting the author's widow will do, unless there is proof that the artists of the book covers transferred the copyright in the cover art to her. Anyway, perhaps you can keep an eye on these uploads and arrange for them to be deleted after a suitable time has passed and nothing has happened. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Different topic, I refer to copyrighted photographs copied from the Austrian National Library with (as per above) presumably insufficient permission, copyright holder (if they inherited the copyright from the photographers, im unsure) was asked only for uploading in Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam auf High-Traffic Seiten

Hallo Marin, in letzter Zeit fielen mir vermehrt Spam-Botschaften auf High-Traffic Seiten auf, die u.a. geschickt über Templates eingebunden waren. Da Du ja erweiterte Möglichkeiten hast, möchtest Du Dir evtl. mal User:Cartagenacity, User:, User:Indreshiiitg, User:TERRA SUR vornehmen, um evtl. eine Gemeinsamkeiten oder "Socken" zu entdecken, auch wenn das eher unwahrscheinlich ist. Werbung nach Typ User:Cartagenacity habe ich auch schon auf hochgeladenen Dateien gesehen. Da wurden Hotels beworben. Wenn Du möchtest, kann ich versuchen meine DRs nochmals danach abzusuchen. Wenn ich weiteren Spam sehe, werde ich es hier oder an einem von Dir vorgeschlagenen Platz schreiben. Ich weiß nicht wann eine CU gerechtfertigt ist; das liegt in Deiner Hand. -- RE rillke questions? 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ich würde da keinen Zusammenhang sehen. Frage wie die jeweils auf COM:VPP gekommen sind, vielleicht über die Watchlist oder vielleicht ist VPP noch irgendwo beworben und die Spammer haben das "Proposal" falsch verstanden. Wenn man erstmal auf COM:VPP ist, ist die Template-Bearbeitung einfach zu erklären, dass also nun also im Template vandaliert wurde würde ich eher als Versehen interpretieren. Einen Zusammenhang sehe ich zwischen den Spammern aber nicht, gibt es häufiger. --Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Danke. Ist mir nur gerade so aufgefallen: MEIST EINE GROSSE ÜBERSCHRIFT und drunter irgendwas in Spanisch oder Englisch, großer Hersteller, beste Qualität, "Biografie" etc. Ganz zum Schluss irgendeine Firma oder Person und E-Mail-Adresse. Auf dem Help-Desk habe ich so etwas auch schon gesehen: User:Zhemduo1, User:; eventuell war ich dort in letzter Zeit auch nur öfters unterwegs.
Allerdings frage ich mich, ob es da keine Lösung gibt, ähnlich wie ein "lernender Junkfilter", der gleich in MediaWiki mit eingebaut wird. (Wobei es bei meinen Mails doch immer noch ein paar Mails schaffen, der Tarif werde teurer, ich solle bitte die Krankenkasse wechseln. -<absurd/>. Oder neulich der große Gewinn in der Google-Lotterie: Ich solle meine Daten übermitteln -<schüttel grund="vor Lachen"/>) Schönen Abend. -- RE rillke questions? 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Deleted file Wilimowski_Deutche.JPG does not infringe copyright. Photo came from newspapers published during the World War II.Bornholm (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The requirement for something beeing out of copyright is not "published during world war ii". The requirement is that the author is dead for 70 years. --Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I did not read instructions.But now I readed all of them. And I am so sorry. I will not do copyrighte.May I upload my own photo for cause I have blue chow-chow.And make photo with him. How I may upload???Thank you.--Kyrmyzy gul (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Counting files

Hello Martin, if I wanted to know how many files are held in a category and its subcategories, what tool would I use to find out? This category, amongst others, is what I'm interested in. Schwede66 03:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Found the answer myself: Catscan. Schwede66 03:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Some of your uploads have been nominated for deletion

Hello Martin

you have marked some of my uploads for deletion you said it's broken copyright or been published for 'consultant' spam

I don't agree as there is no copyright violation here as these documents have been produced by myself Moreover, these uploads are available as blog post and this is NOT a consultant spam

Thank you

Provide evidence that you have permission to publish those screenshots of unfree software under a free content license allowing anyone to reuse the screenshots for any purpose including money making purposes. The software license agreement of Microsoft products explicitely forbids this. Commons is not the place for screenshots of unfree software.
If we remove all screenshots this are simple text articles or instructions. Commons is not a place for text, see the project scope. :Provide evidence that you have the full copyright over the photo used in File:TN013 - Benoit HAMET (AVANADE) - Pourquoi et comment déployer Windows XP et Office 2003.pdf, its a photo used by microsoft who have licensed it from a stock photography service, you have no sublicense and you cant sublicense it under a free content license allowing anyone, worldwide, to reuse it for any purpose. Commons is not a place for photographs that you not created yourself uploaded with the false information that you created it entirely by yourself.
Furtheremore, sure, this is spam. Commons is not a file host for your blog posts in pdf format, for that your blog is the perfect place. Uploading to Commons for the only purpose to use a highly visible project to increase the visibility of your name is consistent with the description of spam. --Martin H. (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fat buu.jpg

I am sridharbabu58 on And it is a free game screenshot. I resized and uploaded for the purpose of mobiles.

If you want a real source then it is

Then it is a screenshot of unfree software. --Martin H. (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Images by VYGOcommons


I saw that you responded to his undeletion request. I am the one that requested the deletion in the first place. I recently went through this user's contribution and found several other problems that you might want to review:

Cheers. Badzil (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete this photo

This photo was taken from the computer. (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand

what's wrong with the file: File:13842-Connarus lambertii-Washadi.jpg It's my own picture from Washadi, Rio Nicharé, Venezuela. Vojtěch Zavadil (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The description has no source and no author entry. --Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Please add that information, I already added some extra date last time to give you the chance to do that. --Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi, please look into this image. I think this is a derivative work but not sure :( . Can you check with this image? --Kiran Gopi (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The deleted file was from the same set, different position. This one is an extracted version from for example or some similar source. --Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I put a {{Speedydelete}} --Kiran Gopi (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Images in Hero Kids [es]

In order to assert the authenticity of images in, an e-mail has been sent to regarding ticket #2011091310017617

This will still not make them your own work. Select the true options at the upload wizard, not simply the firstbest. --Martin H. (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand

How do I recover a file that was deleted due to a copyright violation? And how do I source a image from Flickr? Devinnnwashere (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the licensing help at Commons:first steps. The copyright holder must voluntarily publish the file under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


&File:P sree ramakrishnan.jpg This picture was published in the website under CC BY-SA 3.0. Currently this website is not working. How can we protect this? --Sivahari (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

merged two sections. A free licensing of that site isnt verifiable via stored versions of that site in google cache or I dont know. Any other possibility to contact the presumed copyright holder? --Martin H. (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI.. currently the site is down. There are some images available in commons from that site and reviewed by admin/reviewers. Any chance of keeping the file until the site is up? --Kiran Gopi (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if the site is back we can review it. If the site is back please replace the link to the image with a link to the page that contains both, the license and the picture. --Martin H. (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The site is live now. Please see the following links.


Shall i upload those photos again? --Sivahari (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


You made arguments in related deleted discussions that I found, ultimately, convincing, so you may be interested in weighing in at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#ISAF_photos.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

About NASA pictures

I have find out every resource. Thank foy reminding me. --B2322858 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roman theatre panorama .jpg

Hi Martin,

I see that you closed this deletion request as deleted, but the file is still there. You also mentioned that the file was taken from the web, which was not the reason I brought it up for discussion, and I can't seem to find other copies of it on the web. Would you care to shed some light on the situation? Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, see the uploaders userpage on en.wp, looks like he not realy got it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Taged pic Marcel Gaudart

Hallo Martin,

bitte erklaer mir warum genau das Photo getagt wurde. Das ganze ist ziemlich neu fuer mich und ich hab mir das jetzt zwar durchgelesen aber ich zerd trotzdem nicht schlauer. Ist es nicht ausreichen, dass ich das copyright der werke meines grossvaters habe? Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass das eine auftragsarbeit fuer ihn war.

mfg nadine

Der Nachweis über die Übertragung des Urheberrechts wäre zu führen, eine vollständige Quellenangabe wäre ein guter Start. Wer ist denn der Urheber? --Martin H. (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Hallo, der Gitarrist bin ich selbst, die Gitarre ist meine und das Bild hat mir der Hobbyfotograf geschenkt. Er ist Computerverweigerer und kann daher keine Mails beantworten. Gruß! --Marschmensch (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bilder kann man verschenken, nicht aber die Rechte daran. Hat den der Fotograf der Lizenzierung zugestimmt? --Martin H. (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi, wie würdest Du dich diesem vielleicht harmlosen, vielleicht höchst delikaten Fall nähern?:
Siehe auch die Disk. Gruss Mutter Erde 13:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Ich kenne die Vorgeschichte nicht, aber nur nach dem Bild urteilend würde ich erstmal nichts böses vermuten. Anlass zum Zweifel gibt mir höchstens die Bildgröße, welche mit 720px an der längeren Seite genau jener Bildgröße entspricht, die man von facebook runterlädt. Ich würde Ihn auch bitten, ein Originalbild zumindest temporär hochzuladen um die Zweifel auszuräumen. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Danke für die Auskunft. Der Uploader selbst hat übrigens die Weiterverbreitung vom Eichhörnchen und den Igeln angekündigt. Da es sich um gute Fotos handelt, kommen sie vielleicht auf Umwegen auch zu Euch rüber. Sag bitte Bescheid, das möchte ich sehen, auch wenn sie friedlich ruhen dürfen. Danke und einen Gruss 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kleine Retourkutsche vom Übeltäter :-). Gruss Mutter Erde 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Sims 3 Adverts 2.png

How exactly was File:Sims 3 Adverts 2.png a copyright violation? It was a picture of a couple of buildings that happened to have billboards. You said that they were unfree advertisements, but if that was the case wouldn't images like File:New_york_times_square-terabass.jpg be deleted as well? Zach.vega1 (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The advertisements are unfree and not Commons:De minimis, and the image is from here, so the photographs are not even own work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my photos?

These are my photos!

Nice joke. Just give me the filename of one photo that you uploaded that you realy photographed yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Amish Tripathi.jpg

Martin, this link present in the file explicitly states that the work of art is devoid of any rights. Click on the Author Photos tab and you can view it. If you need further clarifications, please respond on my talk page. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 18:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the required information in the permission field. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo deleted

Good afternoon mister Matrin H.! I send you this mail in order to have more information about the change in the photos I uploaded. The PlayStation Card 20€ photo was taken by myself, so I don't understand what is wrong with it. You have already deleted before I answer... Can you explain why is it impossible to put this photo in an article of Wikipédia? I say that because I usually can see plenty of smartphones photos taken by contrutors, and that seems to be correct. Then, for the logo ENSIP what I have to do in order to keep the logo on the database? Thank you for your answer and have a good day!
Nezdek (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The cover is protected by copyright. Making a photo of the cover is a derivative work, your photo is not free of third part copyrights and you can not upload it here unless the copyright holder of the cover agreed to the license. See Commons:First steps/License selection. --Martin H. (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. So every photo of a smartphone is agreed by the manufacturer? I think it's impossible because there are so many of them... And for the ENSIP logo? I have not understood what I have to do because English is not my mother language
Nezdek (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I dont know what you talk about, can you please refer to filenames? File:Playstation card 20€.JPG was a photo of a cover, the cover is copyrighted, do not make photos of copyrighted covers. Commons:Œuvre dérivée. For the log: Provide written permission from the copyright holder that confirms that they published the logo under the Licence Art Libre. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The name of the photo that we talk about is on my talk page. So the logo of Google, Apple and Sony, for instance, are all agreed by the CEO of these firms to be License Art Libre? That would be impressive if it was real, because no one don't accept to let there logo in Commons.
Nezdek (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You have to make some differences between logos. If a logo is too simple for copyright in its country of first publication, according to the copyright law and/or the case-law of this country, then it is ok to be on Commons without permission. The CEOs of Google, Apple and Sony not agreed to a free license or the Free Art License (which is a very special, rarely used, free license) and we will not ask them. The logos of their companies not pass the threshold of originality in the U.S. respectively Japan for Sony. --Martin H. (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin, what is the problem?, i have permision from to use there pictures. Ticket#2011060510008755 greets Adonaline (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then add it to the file description........ The problem is: "This image is missing permission information". --Martin H. (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oke, must i do that every time?Adonaline (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, provided that the file is included in the permission. --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Oke, i changed it, did i do it right know? wil you check it for me please?Adonaline (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
you now also added the ticket number to photos that not come from this source, photographs that you uploaded with wrong author and source information. Thats not correct. --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
your right the photo of Storky i made it by myself. what must i do whit that? Adonaline (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Provide written permission from I not trust you saying "i made it myself". --Martin H. (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't trust me?, hahaha what a joke, oke delete it, i take a other one Adonaline (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You lied about the authorship on other uploads. One source allowed you to publish a few of their pictures under a free license, this not means that you are allowed to take whatever you want from the web and upload with false claims of own work. Regards. --Martin H. (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't lie!!! maybey i make a mistake, and i don't have permision for a few phot's. i can use how many photo's i want from if you don't believe that. check it by your self. delete storky.jpg, i upload already another photo off storky Adonaline (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
i can not believe what your saying to me, about take photo's from the web, have thousands of photo's from ADO Den Haag, i don't need the web to get a photo from ADO Adonaline (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a different view, and with the recent upload of the lipom photo you disqualified yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
you think so?, i don't go into a discusion whit somebody who called me a liar!!!! a new upload take me 1 minute, a discusion whit you takes more time, photo's enough, have a nice day Adonaline (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

copyright File:Jodie m.jpg

I uploaded the wrong image in error - but am unsure how to delete it - please send instructions

You have to ask for deletion. Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

your request

Hi, I finally sent a mail to with filled-in permission. Hope it will do.


Tagged your upload accordingly. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin, I am wondering if can transfer this image for here, Nick Steele? else, these images [13] and [14] have a copyright of ABC network? I am in doubt if is copyright violations. Truu (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The photos of the television are not ok, thats derivative works and not de minimis. The Nick Steele images... I have doubts too. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

the image of Nick Steele, I found the image here, I can not transfer the image. Thanks for the reply, I will indicate the two images of television for the elimination. Truu (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

MSP Images.

I apologise, I must have misunderstood the liscencing. Could you tell me what liscencing is required, or anything else I can do to avoid deletion? The images are absolutely vital to the upkeep of the article I am working on, so I would strongly appreciate any help you could give me. Mwhite148 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to ask the copyright holder for permission. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms (in short: must be free to reuse by anyone, anytime for every purpose - educational as well as commercial purposes). --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

permission to mimosfinn's files

THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER - Mikho Mosulishvili send for his permission.

Thank you very much for attention to this files.

Best, --Mimosfinn (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Zaliko Sulakauri - Mikho Mosulishvili with pipe - 2010, 12 april. .jpg

I told author to this artwork Zaliko Sulakauri send for his permission.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely--Lakbe (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing my image Question from Wendy Ferguson

Martin I uploaded an image of my dog to my WIkipedia user page (Wndyfrg) and (according to an email I received from WikiMedia Commons) I need to source it. How do I get back to the source page? Wndyfrg (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See your talkpage, edit the file description and provide the source. Here the problem is that the painting is signed with "Miller", that information should be explained in the source field, at the moment it is written there, that this is entirely your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove images

Why did you remove the images from my user page? When I edited these images, I chose 'this is my own picture',why there is possible violation of copyright since they were taken by myself? Liuyue0916 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One picture contained a watermark, other pictures have been taken from other wesites such as this. You have to make your own photographs, not take other photographers work. --Martin H. (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


How about replacing images instead of fucking up all the wiki's???

How about asking the uploader to revert his inclusion in various wikis? --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If a suitable replacement image is available, you must PLEASE replace it, don't just delete the old images.

How do i delete the image?

Changing Source Info

{{Talkback|Wndyfrg}} Hi Martin, I replied to the "File source is not properly indicated: File:Sugar2.jpg" I was wondering what field should be edited to source this image properly, as I am unfamiliar with editing sources in wikitext to aid my student, User:Wndyfrg, Thanks! Kels.bran (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

On photo of Melis Eshimkanov (Kyrgyzstan)

Dear Martin H, I published the photo of Melis Eshimkanov (September 2011) in accordance with the verbal consent of the photographer who works for Radio Azattyk (RFE/RL Kyrgyz Service). This is a non-commercial radio and multimedia outlet funded by the U.S. Congress. It distributes its materials free of charge only. There is a logo of RFE/RL on the photo, and it is enough to use the photo.


User: Tynchtyk Chorotegin.

Did the agree to the Free Art License, as said on the file description, including all all freedoms granted by this license (free reuse by anyone, everywhere, anytime for every purpose)? --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

MV Agusta photos

Ok sorry for the violation of the rules

I'm new and i understand better now but i have some questions.

I want to put a photo of Giovanni Agusta but the man died in 1971, so the only way to put a picture of him is to pray that someone has taken a picture of him or there is an order solution ?

Second question : Is there any possibility to use pictures given to the world press by the constructor ?

The only way is that the copyright holder agreed to a free license. Free in terms of Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete File:Sugar2.jpg

After further conversation and understanding, I removed File:Sugar2.jpg from my UserPage and do not plan to track down the original artist from whom I commissioned the work (she was contracted to paint a portrait of my dog many years ago in Atlanta, GA). You may notice that I replaced the file with a home photo instead. I hope this alleviates any concern you may have. Wndyfrg (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I will not speed up the deletion, if you have a chance to obtain the information you can still correct it. If not, the file will be deleted anyway. --Martin H. (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Thelian456 and his sockpuppets

Just a question - did you checkuser this one to find all his sockpuppets? This sockpuppeteer with obviously central american background seems to be active here as User:Kirbyn44, User:Zeylinss and the most recent User:Karlacastillo23. I assume that's just the tip of the iceberg. --Denniss (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, socks identified with the checkuser tool. Category:Sockpuppets of Kirbyn Joel Berrios. --Martin H. (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


Martin H., I was blocked last year for vandalizing in various occasions. I would like to be unblocked. You did not block me. It was another user but he is not, as of September 2011, in Commons. I have made the El Salvador national football team article a GA! I only need some pictures here and there to make it a little bit more better. So, please consider my request. I surely have learned from my mistakes. Thank you. 23:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talkpage is the way to go. --Martin H. (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Monumento al Boyero (11).JPG

Is this image OK or not OK under Costa Rica's FOP laws for Commons? The Costa Rican FOP wording is confusing or unclear. "It shall be lawful"...what does that mean? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. The information for this artwork is not given (who created it, who comissioned it). The information at COM:FOP is unclear to me, what government levels or institutions can be considered "authority", what does 'acquired' mean - is it simple physical ownership or is a transfer of copyright required? (imo transfer is required because of CR copyright, Title III Chapter I #4) COM:FOP#CR is clear on works not 'acquired by the authority'. A possible sollution is to get a statement from the 'authority' to OTRS that they 'acquired' it and that any reproduction falls under Article 71 of the law. Then it is no longer our problem and we can savely keep the image. Getting such a statement from the authorities can be difficult and it will take some time, but its not impossible and imo the best sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reply. There were 10-14 images like this in flickr needing human review. Now its 1 or 2. I only marked 2 photos. So, maybe someone else marked them. I agree, the words on Costa Rica's FOP is confusing. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

email me direct.

who is this? I do not understand why you have contacted me?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzugu (talk • contribs)
I not contacted you, not on your talkpage User talk:Muzugu, not per email (you not have email activated). Since this is your first edit here I have no reason to contact you. --Martin H. (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin!

Ich hatte glaube ich gestern eine Datei (AFAIK HRH.Princess.jpg), die von diesem Nutzer hochgeladen wurde, als Speedy-Copyvio gekennzeichnet und habe heute mal aus Interesse nachgeschaut, ob er irgendeine Reaktion auf die Talkpage-Benachrichtigung zeigte, dabei hab ich deine Flut an gleichen Nachrichten gesehen. Wäre dieser Nutzer nicht eher Kandidat für eine Sperre? Seine Talkpage besteht nur aus den Copyvio-Benachrichtigungen, alle Uploads, die ich angeschaut habe, tragen die FAL als Lizenz, was sehr nach Uploadwizard-Fehlbedienung aussieht und er hat nach dem Erhalt von mehreren Warnhinweisen noch weitere Uploads vorgenommen. was meinst Du? Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Da er noch mehr Bilder hochgeladen hat sperr ich ihn mal. Auf Commons wird nicht so viel gesperrt, Commons-Accounts sind eigentlich immer nur sekundäraccounts und wenn wir hier schnell sperren, setzen die Benutzer ihr Werk auf anderen Wikis fort wo die Fähigkeiten URVs zu erkennen nicht so vorhanden sind oder es keine Benutzer gibt die sich darum kümmern. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello message from Turco85

Just because we have had the same IP it does not make us the same person. We are part of a group in London trying to improve articles mainly related to Turkish Cypriots. Thus, there is more than one of us using the same WiFi. We have asked a number of users on flickr to allow us to use their images. I have noticed that you have actually deleted a range of images that really are legitimately placed under the creative licenses. If you can find the following anywhere else, or show in anyway shape or form that they do not belong to this user, I would find your block justifiable. So Martin H. tell me where do the following images “really” come from then?:
I look foward to your reply. Turco85.
You are blocked from this project. Your contributions show a shameful number of blatant copyright violations, with sockpuppets or meatpuppets that not makes any difference. In the overall view your main stake in this project is contributing stolen files. With your above posting you wasted a chance to excuse for all that copyright violations. Do you really try to argue that a block is unjustified because maybe your sockpuppet accounts also contributed a small number of really self-created files? You vandalized this project with an abnormal number of false "own work" photos. Explain this, every single copyright violation. Than we maybe can talk again. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have messaged you in a respectful manner and kindly request that you show me the same courtesy. I have contributed a lot of time on Wikimedia Commons in the past to help improve the project, and I’m actually not as active here as I used to be. As I said before, sure there could be a possibility of me and WPC2011 having the same IP but are not the same person.
You are saying that I have contributed an "abnormal number" of images...which ones are they and how many? 100? 1,000? 10,000? The reason why I have asked you to look at the images I have listed to you in my prior post is because I know they are genuine and I know you will not be able to find those images anywhere else. I myself have looked to see if they have been taken from somewhere else such as google. And I am assuming that you have also tried to desperately find them somewhere else to “catch me out”. Why don't you contact the uploader yourself on flickr? Regards, Turo85.
Just to add to my last post, I guess what frustrates me most is your accusations. Block me if you wish, just don't accuse me of something I am not guilty of. Having the same IP does not validate your argument. Regards, Turco85
Having the same IP the same time from the same computer and adding files to the same articles validates it of course. What frustrates the most is that I wasnt aware that you plan creating a sockpuppet zoo and that I suspect that there still is some sockpuppet accounts of you on this projects with a small number of uploads that I not catched so far. Thats the real problem. And apparently you are not interested in cleaning out all this old sins but only in whitewashing yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Martin H, I do not need to use two different accounts at exactly the same time, I have nothing to gain from it. All you are doing is avoiding what I have asked you. You have deleted the images above; have you found any evidence whatsoever that suggests that they are not legitimately placed under those licenses? Yes or no?
The problem is that you’re too busy ‘suspecting’ me that it does not matter what I say or do. You are clearly not being objective. Unless you can justify the deletion of those files, your argument is inconsistent. Regards, Turco85.
Yes. The account on flickr is a mixture of possibly self-created files and obviouly not self-created files. This uploaded September 5 2011 to flickr, pushed to Commons by your sockpuppet to File:Turkish Cypriot folk dancing (4).jpg on September 6, originally comes from Given that you abuse this account for flickr washing it is not trustworthy, no matter it is possible or not that a file is self-created. This applies to your above listed files. You are banned from this project. You will not have a chance to upload here. No matter you upload directly or first to your flickr account. The reason for you beeing banned is not this abuse of for flickrwashing but something different. You created a number of single purpose sockpuppets like User talk:CansuW, User talk:Rose Atkan and some others - some not yet found and some not yet blocked - uploading one or two files grabbed from the internet and included this image in the article, either with single purpose account or with your own account. I first became aware of copyright violations with File:Effiel tower red and white.jpg I think to remember. You never changed this behaviour, you never learned to contribute to this project with only good contributions. For Commons it is not acceptable to have a sockpuppeteer here who makes a few good contributions and a large number of such extremly bad actions. Commons will not offset bad actions with good contributions, contributing in a good way is the norm on this project. --Martin H. (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin H, I'm affraid you still have not proven anything. Can you just show me where the images I have listed here come from?. That is all I am asking from you; yet you are still trying to turn my question around to prove your argument. If you were aware of me being a so-called sockpuppet you should have confronted me a long time ago. As I said before, I do not contribute much to Commons anymore; in fact the block does not bother me much, it is the stigma which you are trying to place upon me which I have a problem with. Unless you can find prove that those images come from somewhere else, you have deleted a range of images which were under a genuine license. Clearly your accusations against me shall only continue which is a shame, especially since you're meant to be a respected user. Regards, Turco85.

"you should have confronted me a long time ago" - have a look at your block log... You are banned. I dont know where the files listed above from and I will not examine any contributions of you unless you examine your own contributions and care for the removal of copyright violations. You are generally not trustworthy, not here and not on flickr, and you will not be allowed to upload anything here. This fully applies to the files that you listed above. The flickr account is blacklisted for flickrwashing, the reason why the flickr user is not trustworthy is said above and it also applies to all files from that flickr user. --Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This is my last message to you. If I was so obsessed about creating new accounts I would not be defending my name right now. I would simply create a new account. You obviously have a lot of control over Wikimedia and I just can't be bothered to argue. I know that I'm innocent, that's enough for me. Good day to you. Turco85.

Check this, please

Martin H, please check if this File:Violin Folclórico.jpg fulfills the Commons licensing policies. Thanks, --Jdvillalobos (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Its ok, flickrreviewr will review it an upload the best quality version. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Droysens scan uploads

Thank you for your corrections on the Droysens map scan images, I shall try to copy them next time I do an upload. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is any more author information in the book please add it too. Often the editors are written below the map, left or right side. --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I find that I uploaded two images with the "Permission" set to self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL, and you changed it, without consulting me, to PD-Scan|PD-old. Ok, maybe you judged that the time I spent on cleaning, straightening, etc. those scans is worthless; and maybe a court of law would agree with you. But I prefer to be the judge of that myself. I don't think it can be right than when one editor uploads images with restrictions on their use, another editor can have the power to remove those restrictions. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Jean Jacques Marie 02.jpg

Dear Martin H.

I don't understand your problem with files. It's a free licence picture from FlickR, worked over again by JPS68. where is the problem of right of author? Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Flickr source? --Martin H. (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop pestering contributors

User talk:Veronika Pešková, newbie's talk page. It is a disgrace. What kind of satisfaction do you get out of it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you want? For those files that are public domain someone with the required knowledge added the required information. Those files that are blatant copyright violations will be deleted, those files with missing information will be deleted and someone with knowledge can later upload them from their original source. --Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You could try to be nicer to the uploader. If you do not have feelings, try to imagine that Veronika might have some. You are thrashing this new contributor like a tank. Putting up all her contributions for deletion, although most of them are obviously free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Something is obviously free if the file description explains why it is obviously free. If we allow any new contributor to make 1-3 uploads with random trash filled in either the source, author or license field we can close this project. I dont think its a "newby" thing to write nonsense into the fileds or to provide false information like "this file has been published under the terms of the free art license". This never happened to me, it not happened to you, it only happens to those who not care about this project. --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Stop lambasting people with accusations of "not caring", "false information". This is obviously a good-faith contributor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your strange comment possibly ignores some million potential uploaders who not uploaded because they read the instructions, because they toke examples before uploading, because they care for this project. It has nothing to do with good or bad fait, its simply a mistake. I allow people to make mistake, but I also allow me to give people a note about their mistakes and ask people to correct it. Its a shame that you insult me for this. --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This kind of licensing is the result of upload-wizard. "First learn, then upload."—Seems not to work.
I would also request source info on maps. E.g. File:Indianske uzemi.jpg - FAL and author unknown. No/ wrong creation date. Not acceptable. It is not our job to correct tons of wronly licensed files. -- RE rillke questions? 19:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I am just concerned that we are going to become a copyvio-hoster. We have a goal of an educational, free image collection. Any copyvio we host can cost re-users a lot of money if we do not care. You may try to find a Czech-speaker to get into communication with the uploader. Is it too hard to read before uploading and indicating sources properly. -- RE rillke questions? 19:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't be silly. It is absurd to delete images like File:New amsterdam.jpg for fear of copyright infringement. Harassing a new good-faith contributor with a dozen deletion templates is insane. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
For us as an educational project it is better to not have a file instead of having it with false information. Its not more worth keeping a file in this situation, better let the file on its original source and wait untill someone comes and uploads it correctly. Apparently you are this someone. Thanks for that and thank you very much for proofing the concept. I use templates instead of my native thoung. If you not like templates not bother me, change the templates. --Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
What false information? What good does it do to delete the file? There is clearly no copyright problem. It was in use. Commons has lots of photos that lack information about when and what, but that is no reason to delete them. And you prefer to just blast a contributer away with a barrage of red tags, instead of asking nicely. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
False claim of licensing under a license not supported by the source. Other possible copyright status was not mentioned, so nothing to select or correct. The template is intended to ask the uploader..... or what do you think is the notificiation template for? If you not like the template dont complaint in my direction. And hey, must I talk with someone whos first comment in my direction today was "ass"?? I think not. Why not aks me nicely? My answer would have been: great, you found it, please correct the information and the copyright status and remove the tag. --Martin H. (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to reason with you before. You just don't get it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The only thing you tried today is calling me "ass". --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty asinine to produce something like User talk:Veronika Pešková. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Pieter, Im not responsible for the number of bad or incorrect uploads. And im not responsible that I was the first one who cared about this uploads. The uploader has a right to get informed about every single upload, he or she can respond to every upload, he or she got a firendly instruction what to do. So: whats your problem. --Martin H. (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

While discussing, please remember we all are voluntary here and spend our sparetime. You both did a great job for the project. Thank you. It's a good idea to be nice to each other and solve problems on a constructive, non-personal manner. -- RE rillke questions? 23:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this two lying vandals:

here and here. Thanks. --Starscream (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no opionon if this is aiming or not, if that is the dispute. A consensus can be to remove the categories because it is not clear and only an interpretation - an interpretation that can lead to a very wrong statement and conclusion in File:05 10 05 soldiers in old city 1.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. NatanFlayer (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Clearly aiming. Therefore, removing the category of "aiming" is pure vandalism. "POV" is pure calumny. Only see. --Starscream (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not. No aiming. NatanFlayer (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Various copyright issues over images I made!!! And some others issues...

Images I made: I created the "File:Propuesta de Bandera para la Unión Latinoamericana.png" image originally for and I released it from any copyright issues, so... why it got erased? What else was needed?

Images without any copyright issues: I have NO idea how to grant a permission to "File:Escudo de Armas del Municipio Naguanagua.jpg" besides including the original website URL and writing the original authors. It's a municiplality shield!! It doesn't have any copyright issues! I don't know any e-mail, so it's gonna get erased for no reason at all

The same goes to "File:Construcción Linea 2 - Metro VLN.png", "File:Maqueta - Metro VLN.jpg" and "File:Logo Original del Metro de Valencia.png": The authors don't ave any issues in sharing it, as long some credit is given (which I included) and/or the souerce website doesn't exist anymore, so how am I going to get an e-mail from that or any kind of permission? It was a logo from a PUBLIC subway system, so the author OBVIOUSLY won't have any problems with it here on wikipedia.

Wikipedia uploading and permission-granting systems is counter intuitive, confusing, complicated and very new-user unfriendly. I'm gonna give up on contributing with new pics just for that.

the copyright holder must give permission that anyone can reuse the file anywhere, anytime for any purpose, for educational as well as commercial purposes. You are probably not aware that Wikipedia is not like writing your own book where just reusing someone else work and giving a courtesy note might be enough. Wikipedia is free content, free to reuse worldwide, free to reuse for money making purposes, this is not about "sharing" and assumptions like "don't ave any issues in sharing it" have no place here, see COM:PRP. And for the municipality shield: The copyright law of that country not confirms that it is excluded from copyright protection, it is protected and you need to ask the copyright holder for written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)



Hi Martin, I'm sorry for my pour english. I'm not the user Beatrix and so I'm not the autor of the File:Bahías de Huatulco, México.jpg. Beatrix was my previous user name before the usurpation, but now my user name is Beatrice (I work usually in italian wikipedia and wikisource). Please, conctact the user Beatrix about the image permission. --Beatrice (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fort John reconstruction image

Fort Laramie continued

I stand corrected

Deleted pictures for "Copyright violation"

You recently deleted File:Como-animales-guasones.jpg but I don't understand why. It's necessary to create full pages. PLEASE,there must be some solution. Thanks

For Wikimedia Commons there is no simple sollution. This project is a free content project, unfree content is not allowed here. Read the first steps, read the very simple checklist at Commons:Licensing#Checklist, read the Commons:Image casebook#Album covers. This file is unfree content and you can not upload it here unless the copyright holder gave a written permission to a free licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
is ridiculous, but that's okay. Thanks anyway

File:PTDS FOB Hutnik 2011.jpg

Hello, I forwarded the message to the journalist who had E-Mail Transferred allowed to that image. I await his response. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alvaro Recoba 2005.jpg

Why have you put this message to this picture? Have you been at [15]? License - Some rights reserved Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), and I put this license to picture. What I've done wrong?--Soul Train (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why do you put cc-by-2.0 on the file description if the true license is cc-by-nc-sa-2.0?? {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}?? --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that I am great specialist in licensing? It was just my misstake. I'm geographist, historian, not lawer. Instead of delete this image, you can just correct misstake of unexperienced user. I'm author of more than 800 articles, but pictures and licensing are not my strong suit. I do all my uploads only if I really know this way of upload. And this also applies to images - I read precise formulation about permission of using GI pictures from galleries and i've upload needful picture with that permision.--Soul Train (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This 'mistake' can not be corrected. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic is forbidden on Wikimedia projects, it is non-commercial, not free for commercial purposes, not free content. The free in "free encyclopedia" means free content. --Martin H. (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know that. I read discription exactly on creativecommons site and didn't find violations. I mean, I'm not using this file for commercial purposes and even not transform this file, also I put the link to author. It's very bad, because we haven't got Recoba's pictures in Wikipedia. But with and Getty Images you are wrong, trust me. Just read talk page of Anastasia Lvova.--Soul Train (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.jpg displaying weirdly...

Hi there Martin, I was wondering if you could lend me some help with File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.jpg. I don't know why, but the image keeps displaying these weird horizontal lines across the entire image when it's not viewed in its full resolution, and I can't make heads or tails of this. Since you have a better grasp of how Commons works than I do, I was wondering if you could look into it. — ξxplicit 00:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Featured pictures of Spain

Excuse me, but I'm doing the same thing you can see here and there, and both are listed here. I really don't understand your undid, woud you mind to explain it better to me? Thanks, Kordas (sínome!) 13:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I see why. Please forget what I said, my mistake ^^' Kordas (sínome!) 13:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

About Pictures

I am try to upload picturs from Anorthosis Famagusta Players and you said me Copyright violations!!

Why??? all players of Real madrid, Manchester united, Barcelona, et.c got pictures on there wiki page why anorthosis cant have?

You not created this photos yourself. Go to the stadium and make your own photos, not upload other peoples work, it is unfree and not allowed to upload. --Martin H. (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:City of Asmara.jpg

This is my own image.

This is your own collage, correct. The collage is however nothing but a collection of other peoples copyrighted photos. --Martin H. (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0

Hello. I contancted a Flickr user for a few images I'd like to use and they changed the license on the images themselves to Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic, but when I try to upload them there is no option for this license. Is it not accepted anymore? Thank you. --SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a specific option for flickr files in the upload wizard. --Martin H. (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, i was just wonddering why my logo for The Whovians was removed? It says because of the copyright but this logo was created by me there for i own the copyright for it, there for a can use it? If you can shed some light on this then that would be grateful.

From Flopro

I think you reuploded it again already. I think you need to reconsider if Wikipedia is the right place for your purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal advertising partner. --Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Site available now

source website of files File:RAJESH.R.jpg & File:P sree ramakrishnan.jpg which you have deleted is available now.


How can i upload the photo again. --Sivahari (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If the photos have been published there under a valid license you can upload them with that license here. --Martin H. (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


hey, Martin! at oct.8th u 'deleted' one image that i've posted. (

but this pic is really ours. i work with Jay and this pic is one of the new album material.. taken by a photographer that we negotiated. how can we have the available picture again? thx

See the instructions on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I'm PrinceMarciano. You have blocked Me. I want to discuss. You have blocked because of photos that I chose poorly. Now I looked and I do not think I would more mistakes. But sometimes it happens that we do not know if some pictures are good or not and if this happened it would be foolish to relock. Are you going to remove the lock?

I think you not mentioned the true problems. The problem is not to know or not know if something is free. The problem is that you said that something is entirely your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I just want to ask you why are you deleted the pictures from Dimitar Vitanov`s article? :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)
Dont know what files you mean, but I guess that you tried to copy files from unfree external websites (note: Commons is a free content only project) and/or you uploaded such unfree files with claims that you created them although you only copied from elsewhere (note: the upload button "its my own work" is applicable only for files that you created yourself, not for files taken from elsewhere). --Martin H. (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wieder mal ne Dandridgesocke

User talk:NPH. Gruß, --Martin1978 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hello Martin, your opinion in a copyvio case would be most appreciated. Could you please have a look at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Cazare Bacau? Thank you! Fransvannes (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

About licenses

Hello Martin, I need to ask you a question about licensing: If I uploaded a picture of my full authorship to Commons and I have published as PD-Self, can I add a CC-BY-SA license without removing the old one?

Thank you very much for your time. Regards, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 18:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

without removing the pd-self you can add a cc-by-sa license. --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to do so, though, because once a file has been released into the public domain, the Share-Alike requirement of {{Cc-by-sa}} cannot be enforced. Creative Commons licenses depend on the work being protected by copyright, which, by definition, they aren't if they're in the public domain. I'd advice against this combination mainly because it's confusing for reusers. LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats also correct, it doesnt make any sense. --Martin H. (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Pazardzik.jpg (deleted on 2 July 2011)

The reason for this deletion is "Copyright violation:", but the page there says (in bulgarian) that this particular picture is taken from Wikipedia! It is a valuable picture, please return it if it is possible and there are no other violations. Thank you. --Ivanko (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

picture on Commons was 500x667, can be found in 600x800 also on the web. So maybe I was wrong with that source, but I dont think Im wrong with saying the uploader toke it from the web and not photographed it himself. And yes, there are many problems with that person. See for example File:Saint George's Church Plovdiv.jpg, it also appears at, was posted there some 6 years earlier with some more pixels at the bottom - including a watermark that our uploader simply cutted away. All of this guys uploads are copyvios, im sure. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Why did you delete my images

I'm Tcherno from Recycler and I' ve just found out you deleted pictures which are not yours on our Wikipedia page! Whatever your reasons are please stop doing that. You are wasting my time because I have to upload them again. Wtcherno (d) 29 octobre 2011 à 16:00 (CEST)

Please do not re-upload these images. If you do so, it is a violation of our policies. Instead, discuss before: They can be restored from and for the "recycler" ;-)
The images have been deleted because there was no permission letter in the OTRS-queue. -- RE rillke questions? 14:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You got some information on your talkpage, User talk:Wtcherno. --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gave source.

I gave my source. It was from a free-use graphics site. You can remove the template, if you want. Be careful of chickens.--TheLastTurret (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but the source for File:Vault-Boy.png you added says nothing of a free license such as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic. More. It only says copyright all rights reserved, thats not free at all. If I try to download it from my german IP I got the information "We're sorry, that offer is not available in your area." This file is not free to reuse by anyone, not free to reuse for any purpose especially not commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios Löscungen gestern

Hi Martin du hast gestern etliche Files gelöscht nur leider hast du nicht bei allen einen Link oder ähnliches hinterlassen und würde dich bitten zu erklähren woher folgende Files geschützt sind:

Ich hoffe ich habe jetzt keine vergessen.--Sanandros (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Vielleicht solltest du dich in der Frage zuerst an den Uploader wenden und dich bei Ihm erkundigen, welcher Upload keine URV ist. Offensichtlich war der Typ völlig schmerzfrei unterwegs und hat schamlos das Web ausgeräumt, selbst vor der Entfernung von Wasserzeichen (hier, auf show klicken, welches eins der oben aufgeführten ist) hat er nicht zurückgeschreckt. --Martin H. (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Ich weiss das ist nicht einfach mit ihm, aber anderseits haben wir auch auf Commons gewisse Regeln.--Sanandros (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Die eingehalten sind. Die Regel sagt nicht, dass man machen kann was man will solange es niemand merkt. >75% der Uploads dieses Benutzers sind URVs, eindeutig nachgewiesen, dass ist schon ein enormer Aufwand den ich dort betrieben habe. Wenn du im Einzelfall berechtigte Zweifel hast kannst du diese äußern, eine Pauschalrechtfertigung auf Vorrat werde ich nicht liefern. --Martin H. (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
So weit ich das einschätzen konnte waren alle Fotos die mit der Sony DCR-TRV730E aufgenommen sind wohl von seinem Handy. Auch als ich die Category:PASKAL Open Day Exhibition neu angelegt habe sahen die Fotos für mich aus wie seine eigenen und konnte auf Google nur Commons Files finden.--Sanandros (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Childrens in PASKAL Open Day Exhibition.jpg, recht schlechtes Foto mit ein paar Waffen und zwei Mädchen. Dann such mal nach PASKAL open day imagesize:600x800 und du wirst diese finden welches im Oktober 2010 dort veröffentlicht wurde. --Martin H. (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Neben den 7 Bildern "open days" könntest du File:PASKAL's B&T MP5A5 with M203.jpg gemeint haben, da du das bearbeitet hattest. Das Bild beinhaltet in den EXIF eine sauber deutschsprachigen Kommentar "PASKAL. H&K MP5A5 (3-round-burst) w/ M203. Beachte: Offenes Korn. Evtl. nicht von H&K?", damit scheidet der Uploader als Urheber bereits aus. Ich weiß nicht von welcher Seite er es gestohlen hat, es sind einfach zuviele. --Martin H. (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OK das sind bessere Argumente.--Sanandros (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joaozinhobala17 - kleiner Hinweis

Hi Martin,
leider ist o.g. User direkt nach dem Ablauf deiner Sperre wieder in sein altes Verhaltensmuster zurückgefallen. Ich hab ihn jetzt einfach mal abgeklemmt mit dem Hinweis, dass er entsperrt wird, wenn er COM:L ließt und akzeptiert. Grüße, abf «Cabale!» 18:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


amigo, las imagenes llamadas 50px y 50px yo el User:EEIM la hice por computador. después la copie y pegue en otro archivo ,ese archivo era una foto que tome con una cámara fotografica ,por esa razón el archivo Júpiter nasa saturno nasa tiene Metadatos.

la licencia ,dice: foto de la nasa y es por que simplemente ví unas imagenes de la nasa y las mejoré, en gran parte esas imágenes son mejoradas . por eso escribí Jupiter from nasa y Saturno from nasa.

Luego escribí archivo propio ,para indicar que yo USER EEIM hice las fotos.

Espero aclarar tus dudas ,

saludos de --EEIM (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I not speak Spanish. Simple question: Who created this graphics. NASA? Where are they published then. --Martin H. (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

CU light

Hallo Martin, könntest du mal kurz die 3 accounts Saphire569 (talk · contribs), Natasha569 (talk · contribs) und Boyer569 (talk · contribs) auf Identität prüfen. Sie sie konsekutiv eingerichtet worden und haben immer dasselbe Zimbio-Foto hochgeladen, zunächst unter Flickr-washing[Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images], zuletzt sogar unter Picasa-washing[16], und nach copyvio-Markierung auch einen identischen Rache-Vandalismus gezeigt. --Túrelio (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Picasa washing von dem fernanda detmer account. Damit (Fernanda Detmer (talk · contribs)) ist der Fall eigentlich klar, der account is auf Commons talk:Picasa Web Albums files gerade kürzlich von mir eingetragen worden. Ich checke mal wo da der Zusammenhang besteht, vielleicht stehen da noch älter Socken im Hintergrund. --Martin H. (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Danke. Hab ich ja doch den richtigen gefragt. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Stralsund, Nikolaikirche, Russlandfahrergestühl

Martin, you are delete categories from file:2006-07-xx Stralsund, Nikolaikirche, Russlandfahrergestühl, Tafel D.jpg. I think on the panel illustrate Peterhof - old german yard in Novgorod. Peterhof was controlled by Riga traders, whats why it is in Rigafahrergestühl. I think categories are write to use in this file. Best wishes--Kontiger (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of it is COM:OVERCAT, the other seems to be not correct, the literature speaks of Riga. Commons is not build to decide ambiguities in history, the file can be used to illustrate the Gestühl, it can not be used to unambiguously illustrate the one or the other place. So just let out such categories. --Martin H. (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)



We have 2 versions of Washakie's photo (one of them you uploaded):

so if we could get the high resolution of the better quality one, it would be great. Any idea? Yann (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to do anything. We have a fair quality jpg with correct author and easy to understand description at File:Washakie.jpg. And we got a high res but poor quality tiff as a reference with a terrible mess of information that no normal reader will understand at File:Washakie (Shoots-the-Buffalo-Running), a Shoshoni chief, half-length, seated, holding pipe - NARA - 530875.tif. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Contacting another member

I'm sorry to bother you with this, but despite reading help information, I don't seem to be able to find a way to contact another member. For some reason, his talk page just doesn't have that option to contact him (szilas). What am I doing wrong?

All users have talkpages that you can edit. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought I would delete older material when I used the edit button, but I just started at the wrong end of the page.


Hi, I thank you for your message, and apologize for the inconvieniences. I responded on my talk page for Geshe Wangyal. As for the team with Hitler, the photo is from 1938, and was taken in Poland, I therefore thought the {{ PD-Poland } } was alright for this photo, as I found other such photos. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A photo of Hitler receiving a german citizen, Harrer, to an official event taken and first published in 1938 in Poland... thats a joke, right? --Martin H. (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but Harrer was an Austrian citizen, and the photo was taken in w:Wrocław. I did add the category:History of Wrocław. You can see here that I am not the only one to use this Poland tag for this period, even for this photo during the war File:FestungBreslau6V1945.jpg. (I am not found of Hitler, but I decided to upload this photo which is widely used on the web with inappropriated legend, so as to possibly have a more encyclopedic neutral approach of this difficult subject.)--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The requirement for Template:PD-Poland is: first published in Poland, under Polish copyright law, or taken by Polish photographer. This photo was taken on German teritory (at that time) by a known German photographer. Non of the requirements was fullfilled. I will not say something regarding the above linked 1945 photo, the PD-Polandtag is widely abused for bad uploads. For this pre-1939 photo the case is however clear. And yes, Harrer is Austrian, my pardon. Although one can argue differently for this August 1 1938 photo. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. If you know the name of the German photographer, or can indicate how to look for it, it may be useful. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I did in the deletion summary. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked but did not found. I guess it is in the deleted file, and I have no access to it. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hoffmann. --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Gehse Wangyal

Dear Martin H, Thanks again for the infos. As for Geshe Wangyal, I understood the photo status was uncertain, it is even labeled as AP. There is another one from 1956 here : It say : "Rights Advisory: No information on creator or on reproduction rights found with the image, 1995." and : "Notes: New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection."

Do you think it would be acceptable as Template:PD-NYWT&S Tkanks for your help--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only say that it is not acceptable as Template:PD-NYWT&S. The case is mentioned in the template as not covered (second passage, last sentence). --Martin H. (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons talk:Picasa Web Albums files (nicht wirklich praktisch für Bots und Scripts)

Hello Martin. Sorry for disturbing.

Weißt Du zufällig, ob es eine Bot-accessible-list of "bad authors" wie User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors für Picasa-Autoren gibt? Ich habe nämlich das License-review-script verbessert, so dass es jetzt auf "faule Äpfel" prüft und ggf. warnt. Danke -- RE rillke questions? 16:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Gibt es nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Flickr user PIAZZA del POPOLO

Could you please have a look at Commons:Help desk#Milena Apostolaki.jpg and comment there? Thanks! LX (talk, contribs) 10:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Martin H./Archive 24".