Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Odder

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

SVG requestEdit

Hi Odder. I was told you are good with converting files to SVG. I wonder if when you've got time you could make File:Can-Crown.png into SVG? I've tested with Inkscape myself without much success sadly. Thanks for your help in advance and sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 08:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Does that work for you? If it does, then I'll upload it later today as I'm on my way out at the moment. odder (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Odder, it looks great to me. I envy all of you who know how to do that :) Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: This now lives at File:St Edward's Crown with maple leaves.svg. odder (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Witaj. Jestem z Nonsensopedii. Od kilku lat Nonsensopedia współdzieli graficzne zasoby z commons. Mamy mały problem z jedną z grafik, tak wygląda na Nonsensopedii. Wywołuje u nas buga, zaśmiecając kategorię Nieużywanych plików, co normalnie nie powinno mieć miejsca. Czy można prosić o interwencję w tej sprawie, np. skasowanie tej grafiki lub przeniesienie jej pod inną nazwę (bez pozostawienia przekierowania pod obecną nazwą)? Pozdr. 08:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Zrobione, przeniosłem grafikę pod inną nazwę, zobaczymy, czy zadziała; na razie musimy jeszcze zaczekać na odświeżenie pamięci podręcznej dla tej strony specjalnej. odder (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: De-adminshipEdit

Hej! Dzięki za powiadomienie. Mocno liczyłem się z utratą uprawnień, ale mój czas przeznaczony na Wikimedia jest ograniczony, a ostatnio bardzo pochłania mnie praca w Zarządzie Stowarzyszenia Wikimedia Polska, w tym organizacja konferencji CEE Meeting 2017. Poza tym, na Commons ukształtowała się specyficzna społeczność i zasadniczo w polskojęzycznej Wikipedii zawsze czułem się lepiej niż tutaj. Pozdrawiam! Powerek38 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the ping, thanks! --Elitre (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just took a look at my logs and I wonder if I'm fine now or there's anything else I need to do? Tnx. --Elitre (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Elitre: Looks OK to me! odder (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Content model change requestEdit

Hi Odder. Please change the content model of this to JSON. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Sure thing! It's now done. odder (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks — JJMC89(T·C) 01:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

IP AdresaEdit

Please unlock this ip address.-- 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact you were able to edit this talk page, Anonymous, shows that the IP address you were using is indeed unlocked—doesn't it? odder (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


[1] > [2]. - Bwag (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bwag: Are you planning to leave ironic messages on the other four oversighters' talk pages, too? odder (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Passt schon - weiter so! "So the first real reaction was a indefinite block". - Bwag (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Go away. odder (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


For what it is worth, I would like to direct your eyes at User talk:MichaelMaggs#Attack page. Last time I asked all the 'crats for help, one of them blocked me. So this time I'm asking just two who have on occasion demonstrated some 'crat-like competencies. Hope you can help. --Colin (talk)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I would like to thank you and Michael for making a brave and righteous action at Fæ's AN thread. This shows that we shall not tolerate these kinds of users to prevent Commons from being used for fraudulent purposes. You and Michael deserve this barnstar. Poké95 01:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: While I appreciate the barnstar, I am quite confident you meant to write something completely different, so I'll just say thank you and will let it go ;-) odder (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)



Can you please help with making a logo for the Dinka Wikipedia, which is about to be created? You are much better at it than I am.

The name "Wikipedia" is written the same way, and "The Free Encyclopedia" is "Athörëtɛ̈triɛ̈ɛ̈cëbɛ̈n lau".

The language code is "din".

Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Amir, apologies for the late response; I will create the logo tonight. I can't find any Phabricator tasks for the creation of the Dinka Wikipedia—is there one that I can link to while submitting the logo through Gerrit? I will add you as a reviewer when I upload the logo so that you can keep an eye on it. Thanks, odder (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I waited with the task creation until the logo :)
Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Amir — the logo is now available in SVG and PNG as well as in change #358883 in Gerrit. Hope you like it, odder (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Love it!!! Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amir: You might have noticed that the Gerrit patch from above has now been deployed on the live cluster. The logo is available in regular size as well as 1.5x size and 2x size for HiDPI displays. odder (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned it in the task. Thank you again! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Hey Odder, can you please deal with User_talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Lobby_of_the_Ynaggakdo_Hotel_Pyongyang.2C_DPRK_.2811957528203.29.jpg. Thanks 15:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, this has now been dealt with. odder (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Farchering (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OS request, new attemptEdit

Hi there. Given the circumstances we have now, including mass administrative vandalism, it should be at the latest now clear that the comment by me which lead to my block in October was fully justified, so I am once again seeking to have the block comment oversighted and not just rervdel'ed. They should be actually an apology by Revent, but I don't think they're mellow enough to do it, and they seem not to be currently active anyway. So I just want to have my block log clear again. Thanks very much. --A.Savin 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Though "deleted Category:Donald Trump (Nonsense)" is an action most of the civilised world wish they could do :-) -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi @A.Savin: I'm really sorry to say that I do not think we can use suppression in this situation, as it would not be an acceptable use of the function under the current oversight policy which, as you know, we are bound by. I totally understand that you disagree with the block and wish it wouldn't be visible in your block log at all, but I don't think that oversight is the tool to use here. I will, however, pass on your request to the other oversighters to see what they think, and will get back to you as soon as I can, which might take a while, as I'm about to go on holiday in a few days' time. Have a great weekend, odder (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Unfortunately, I have been in the midst of much drama these last couple of months, that has left me largely offline (I am actually typing this on my phone). I would say, that still think that you (unfortunatly) still misunderstand why I blocked you... it was not a matter of if you were 'right', or not, in your comments (I would not personally argue that you were wrong) but that you persisted in following INC from one page to another to continue to push the issue, after being repeatedly asked to stop. You had already 'won' the point you were trying to make, but kept on about it to the degree that INC clearly (and I think somewhat legitimately) felt harassed, and it was my opinion (and that of other admins) that if you kept pushing it there was an imminent danger of exacerbating the the state of distress he was clearly in at that moment, and reason to believe that doing so might put him at risk of physical harm. I don't think that the evidence of his other misbehavior has anything to do with that. I don't have any problem with the block being hidden, was not intended to stop you from editing in general, but instead simply to make you leave him alone at that particular moment. - Reventtalk 08:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I would add, though, that it is IMO clearly not covered by the oversight policy. I have no objection to it being simply deleted from the logs, though... I just deleted as much as is possible without actually using oversight. - Reventtalk 08:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to see Revent is ashamed of his block enough to delete it from the logs. But he is unable to admit his mistake and bad attitude at the time and so above we see so much self-rationalising bullshit. The events occurred (see here) when INC repeatedly insulted A.Savin and this caused A.Savin to go to ANU. Several admins criticised INC but nobody did anything about it so A.Savin wasn't happy that was sufficient and felt a block was in order. It is A.Savin who felt harassed (remember it was INC who instigated the issue by repeated insulting A.Savin) yet Revent paints the opposite above. A.Savin's comments at 21:03, 30 September 2016 proved to be exactly predictory of what we saw the other day.
I have often said Commons is dreadful at dealing with the "angry customer" situation. In this case A.Savin is the "angry customer" and his fellow admins at AN/U should have been playing the role of helpful customer service. So we're in a position where A.Savin feels INC should have been blocked for his attack (and it was an attack) on A.Savin's reputation. Then INC resigns his tools. The pouring petrol on the fire moment was not A.Savin's comment (for which he got blocked) but Christian Ferrer's comment (see here) where INC is told to take a break and "No matter what some may say, you are able to correct your mistakes, you have already shown. I trust you, you need just time you want, please remove this request and wait.". This is the statement that quite understandably is too much for A.Savin. Is this really consider that this is something A.Savin has no right to comment on? That someone who has just attacked him repeatedly at an RFA is then told "I trust you" and given yet another and another chance to retain their bit? Pleading with them to stay on as an admin after just being involved in making repeated personal attacks against other? So A.Savin's comment to that is quite mild. Certainly not blockworthy. And certainly nothing to do with mental health issues -- merely a statement of fact that INC behaviour on commons is highly changeable and this is a problem. Yet Revent claims "You used a mental issue as a 'weapon' against him". This is false and a frequent game for Revent despite permitting his friends to use mental health insults and using mental health as a joke himsef. The comments at A.Savin's talk page demonstrate clearly how Revent can work himself up into a view of a situation where no rational argument can change his mind. He just digs deeper and deeper into his own version of events. The line "You then followed him to BN, to respond in a thread where you were not mentioned, to comment on him." is so grossly unfair and distortion of reasonable description of events that Revent should be ashamed he made it. If anyone had a right to reply to Christian's foolish "please say, we trust you" comments, it was A.Savin.
I believe the block was grossly unfair. In the situation where INC was resigning, if Christian felt he should pass on an encouraging message to INC, he should have done so privately. But he did so publicly and this petrol on the fire was justifiably too much for A.Savin. That he got blocked by Revent under cooked-up nonsense about A.Savin & mental health, and false claims of "following" or "taunting", demonstrates further Revent's unsuitabliliy for adminship. If he truly felt INC was "at risk of physical harm" then Revent needs to take a training course. He could, for example, have expressed his concerns to A.Savin privately, asking him to stop for 12 hours and promising to deal with it after a cool down. Or he could have left a neutral comment at the BN requesting all parties desist now and go cool off for a period. But he didn't and himself poured petrol on the fire by blocking the "angry customer" and continuing the argument on A.Savin's talk page -- escalating rather than cooling the situation. When that happens, "customer service" shows it is incompetent. I hope Revent's wikibreak continues for a long time. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course the OS policy allow it to hide private information, and claims of harassment ARE private information i.e. nobody's business, especially when they are untrue. And even if you dear oversighters would hide a log entry that is for some reason not considered within OS policy, I wonder if this is actually such a big deal that you have to fear any sanctions for it. So, sorry, all that claims about missing OS policy are bullshit to say the least.
I'd like to add that even in that comment that led to the block, I didn't attack INC personally but only said that INC with sysop tools is problematic. As you might guess, before recent events, I had even so much AGF for INC that I had some hope he would return recovered some day and really no more request sysop tools, just work productively as a normal user, like many thousands of other long-term active commoners, wikipedians etc. who do hundreds of thousands of edits and never in their life apply for higher positions. Unfortunately, there was this mass vandalism action by "Daphne Lantier" and I noticed that my userpage was one of just two userpages which were vandalized - the other one was Josve's page which is maybe somewhat logical because Josve initiated the CU investigation and INC may have wished to revenge on him this way. But why particularly my userpage??, given that I didn't actually have any conflicts with "Daphne Lantier", nor even with INC after his latest resignation. So, this is actually concerning the question "who is harassing who". --A.Savin 15:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I understand that you are disappointed and upset about having your account blocked by @Revent, however I also think that your description of my hesitance to use suppression to hide your block log as "bullshit" and your sarcastic use of the phrase "dear oversighters" are unnecessary, unhelpful, and unfair. The oversight policy can only be used in very limited circumstances, in practice only to hide non-public private information, potentially libellous content and blatant attack names and I'm afraid your situation meets none of these criteria. While I understand that you might consider the reason used in Revent's block of your account as "untrue", and that other contributors might also reasonably find that block mistaken and misplaced, that reason (ie. the block description) is in no way private information, and certainly not under the definition used by the Commons oversight team, and as such I'm afraid we would be unable to act in this case. If you still disagree with our/my assessment, then the appellate body which can review it is the Ombudsman commission; while I understand that they would normally deal with alleged violations of the oversight policy, I'm sure they would also happily look into a refusal to act as well. odder (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Only really back online with an actual computer today (break, vacation, move, hurricane and flood in the middle of the move, having to replace my computer) but had seen the ping about this a while back, and was pondering if I should even reply, as re-litigating an issue from a year ago is rather pointless. I am not, as Colin claims, 'ashamed' of my actions... I deleted the block as a courtesy (as the admin who placed it) because it is, truly, not oversightable, yet I can understand him being upset about it in his history. As it is deleted, though, the complaints about it are rather moot unless someone wants to try to have me sanctioned for placing it in the first place... since it was a year ago, however, that seems unlikely. The simple facts, however, are that the above statements do not link the actual comments that caused me to impose the block, I had stated on IRC (in the presence of several other admins) that if A.Savin continued the behavior that was ongoing that I would block him for a short time, and as far as I know there have been no objections to the block by any administrator other than A.Savin himself. Colin, simply fails to understand the issue... his comments about me needing to 'take a training course' or something are pure speculation, as he has no idea of what experience I personally have with such matters. (His claim that I used mental health as a joke is spurious... I explained at the time that while the term I used is 'slang' for a mental health condition, that the literal meaning of the term is what I meant, and even explained 'why' I would be using it in the literal sense). I tried at the time, and am still attempting, to avoid discussing publicly exactly what I saw in the behavior of INC at the time that made me feel it was important to stop A.Savin from interacting with him at that moment, as while it was based on statements that INC had made about himself there is a significant privacy concern (and I am referring not to WMF policies, but to a specific US law) that prevents me from explaining the exact issue (and makes trying to allude to it rather cumbersome). I am, simply, unwilling to explain the matter in a way that would, while making it precisely clear, result in me violating INC's right to privacy. I also realize the certain people are unlikely to accept my statements here... my response is 'meh'. If the community as a whole has a problem with my actions I am willing to step down, but the vehement opposition of a small minority is, frankly, something that should be expected. - Reventtalk 06:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it no surprise to me that (supposedly) information available only to those who engage at IRC is now claimed to be pertient. Yet this was not mentioned before, not in the block, and if such information is not published for all to see, then as far as I am concerned, it is not relevant. There is a reason why this wiki keeps a record of interactions, and is reluctant to delete records. Yet on IRC, all sorts of misdeeds can occur, and evidence claimed for and refused to be presented. Revent I know what you have said about be on IRC. I know how you have laughed when others have attacked me, making mental health jibes, that you enjoy and so refuse to block others for it. I know this. You are two faced. What you claim above, I trust not one bit. I don't believe you are a truthful person. I have explained why your block is wrong -- A.Savin was totally entitled to respond to Christian's foolish words. Regardless of what may or may not have been warned on IRC, that is irrelevant. Admins should stick to using IRC for technical requests. Discussions, positive and negative, of users behaviour, particularly leading up to a block, absolutely belongs in-the-community on-Commons. Stay away Revent. Please. You are crap with people. -- Colin (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Two further points for Revent and other admins. Blocks for "intimidation/harassment" are legally extremely unwise unless you are jolly sure that is what is occurring. Revent knows what harassment looks like, because he's had to write to me in his role at Oversite when myself and several others were harassed last December. Merely persistently defending oneself online, as A.Savin did, and persistently requesting an admin lose their bit for once again behaving outrageously, is not "intimidation/harassment". In my view, Revent has libelled himself, and this is something more admins should be aware of their risk when choosing their block rationales. Secondly, the responsibility for concern over a user in any crisis rests with WMF. See Support and Safety team. There are emergency mail lists to contact if there is an urgent concern, and admins are advised to make use of that. We see above the mess that occurs when an amateur blunders about blocking random users. The user who should have been blocked in that situation, is INC, to protect not only himself, but others. The only minority here, Revent, is the minority-of-one who claim you did anything right that day. I have not seen anyone come to your defence, nor do I expect to since they would be in danger of the same legal risk. The block didn't and doesn't have any community support. Let's have an end to bulling admins using "harassment" as a block rationale when they find themselves in a disagreement. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Prośba o zablokowanie anonimowego nazisty z NiemiecEdit

Ten/ta IP wprowadza podwójne standardy dotyczące miast na Warmii i Mazurach tworząc nowe kategorie dla tych miast pod nazwami niemieckimi omijając przekierowania. Proszę zobaczyć do jakiego stopnia rozwinął Prusy Wschodnie ... a miały być przecież tylko flagi i herby a teraz są tam nawet nieruchomości współcześnie istniejące. Wewnątrz "wschodniopruskich kategorii" zostały wstawione kategorie obejmujące nawet wyłącznie współczesne polskie pliki !. Inni niemieccy (ups chyba nie niemieccy, bo Niemcy to przecież ludzie kultury i sztuki, wybitnie utalentowani w zakresie orkiestr i kuchni polowych / sorry taka mała dygresja) zaczęli wstawiać do kategorii polskich miast kompletne niemieckie kreisy urodzone na wesołej "twórczości usera "Thoma". Czy słyszał pan kiedyś o czymś takim jak "Białoruski gotyk w Polsce" ? - ja nie ... a na commons taki fake egzystuje od 2015. Kodeń znajdował się w woj. podlaskim włączonym po Unii Lubelskiej do Korony a Supraśl znajdował się w woj. trockim ... to jest gotyk tyle że późny tzw. "mazowiecki" ... czyli była to Litwa lecz nigdy Białoruś. Kategorię utworzył oczywiście mądrala .... z Niemiec user "Ulamm". Dotyczy to także "Białoruski gotyk w Litwie". Kamieniem węgielnym tego architektonicznego dynamitu są strasznie kontrowersyjne "artykuły" na de/be/en wiki [3] podkreślam że nigdy nie był to obszar Białorusi. Na koniec proszę żeby wziął Pan do swoich obserwowanych moje zrevertowane edycje dotyczące byłych i niestniejących Prus Wschodnich. Dziękuje z góry i pozdrawiam. 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Bardzo mi przykro, ale niestety jak widać z historii dyskusji użytkownika Tohma, pomimo wielokrotnego zwracania uwagi na tę kwestię na przestrzeni ostatnich pięciu (!) lat, @Tohm w dalszym ciągu sukcesywnie kontynuuje swoją rewizjonistyczną politykę, kategoryzując budynki znajdujące się w dzisiejszych granicach Polski w ramach drzewa kategorii dla budynków niemieckich. Skoro nie udało mi/nam przekonać go w tamtej sprawie, niestety nie widzę możliwości przekonania go również w tej kwestii, gdyż najwidoczniej fakty mają tutaj bardzo małe znaczenie (por. alternative facts). Tohma wykazuje się ogromnym zapałem w tej sprawie, a z racji braku czasu ja niestety nie jestem w stanie nadążać za jego edycjami i odkręcać wszystkie z nich na bieżąco.
Czasami w świecie Wikimedia "zwyciężają" nie fakty historyczne, tylko osoby, które mogą w danej kwestii poświęcić więcej czasu i dokonać więcej edycji, co niestety, jak się wydaje, ma również miejsce w tej sytuacji, szczególnie że jest ona mało popularna. Dodatkowo, niestety w tej chwili nie mam wystarczająco czasu (a zwłaszcza ochoty), aby wdawać się w wojny edycyjne i pyskówki z anonimami w internecie, więc z mojej strony całą tą sprawę w tym momencie odpuszczę. odder (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Royal Banner of Scotland.svgEdit

Apparently you were the original uploader of the JPG source file of this Royal Banner of Scotland, with a GFDL license, in 2006. Do you happen to remember to remember whether you created it, or what the original source was? Thank you. Tom-L (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tom-L, thank you for your message. I had to do some research on that file, and it looks like I moved the original JPG from the German Wikipedia, where it was originally uploaded by Crabbit (whom I quoted as the author when moving the file to Commons). It appears that it was first added to the article on Scotland in this edit on 27 October 2004, which would explain why there is no upload log for it. Unfortunately Crabbit has been inactive since September 2007, and not being an admin on the German Wikipedia I cannot see the deleted page revisions for that file, so you might want to do some more digging to confirm all of this. Still, I hope this information will be useful to you. Thank you, odder (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2017Edit

Please help remove the admin rights of those who haven't signed on this section, thanks. --B dash (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll do that tonight, thank you for the reminder, @B dash. odder (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome  . --B dash (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


Mail Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be more articulate next time, @Artix Kreiger. odder (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogvEdit

Hi. I understand from my Vimeo app that the license for this file has changed to a CC-BY-ND one and that we can keep it, but how do you see the exact license on their website?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff: I don't see any indication of licencing on that web page whatsoever, so it's not immediately clear to me that the licence has changed, but even if it has, as you say, the file was released under CC BY 3.0 at the time of upload, and as Creative Commons licences are irrevocable, we're fine keeping it. odder (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Św. Kinga (nie Matejki)Edit

Witaj, Odder! W audycji Radia Kraków Wielka Sztuka Małopolski pani redaktor, historyk sztuki, opowiada o obrazie Jana Matejki i o tym, że w internecie krąży błędnie przypisywana Matejce późniejsza i słabsza kopia obrazu (jest o tym i na stronie audycji, i w samej audycji, czas 09:15-10:03). Niestety, jest ta kopia i tutaj. Czy dałoby się coś z tym zrobić? Pozdrawiam, --Volodymyr D-k (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Volodymyr D-k: Dzięki za wiadomość. Moim zdaniem możemy bez problemu zmienić nazwę tego pliku i opis podany na stronie pliku. Najważniejsze pytanie brzmi, czy wiemy, kto namalował tę kopię? Jeżeli ta kopia została namalowana w XX wieku, to jest duża szansa, że w dalszym ciągu jest przedmiotem prawa autorskiego, a zatem musiałaby zostać usunięta z Commons. odder (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Porozmawiałem z kilkoma znajomymi historykami sztuki. Powiedzieli, że ustalenie autorstwa kopii raczej nie będzie zbyt łatwe. Osobiście nie sądzę, żeby ten obraz wciąż był przedmiotem prawa autorskiego, ale pewności nie mam. Pozdrawiam, Volodymyr D-k (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC).
@Volodymyr D-k: W takim wypadku wydaje mi się, że mamy tylko dwa wyjścia: usunięcie tego pliku jako pochodzącego z nieznanego źródła i utworzonego przez nieznanego autora lub zmianę nazwy i opisu na jasno mówiące o tym, że jest to kopia oryginalnego obrazu Matejki. Z tego, co widzę, to ten plik nie jest używany w żadnym projekcie Wikimedia, więc moim zdaniem usunięcie go nie byłoby zbyt dużym problemem. odder (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Odder".