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.

Contents

Mastro Brumado

A imagem estava licenciada em 3.0, mas como aqui nem todos leem todo o conteúdo da fonte, então, não irei me estressar com isso. boas edições!!! Alessandro Sil (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alessandro Sil: Exactly what are you talking about? Provide a link to an image here or on the internet if you need me to try to fix something.
Exatamente do que você está falando? Forneça um link para uma imagem aqui ou na internet se precisar de mim para tentar corrigir alguma coisa. Por favor, desculpe a tradução do google porque eu não falo português.

Classification of stamps issued between a couple of years?

 
1862-1867

I would like to classify a number of revenue stamps by year, any suggestions as to how to deal with stamps issued between a couple of years (eg. 1862-1867)? Thanks! Arno-nl (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

By first year of issue of that denomination would be what I would do and how I have added year stamp categories for other stamps. This onw was frist issued in 1862, so 1862 is the year to use. Your 1000+ stamp uploads since November is very impressive indeed. I get a daily update of all the stamp related uploads I am interested in at User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads. BTW, do you know about the "Perform batch task" script which you can use to batch changes selected text in a file to something else, like changing a category; plus it does lots of other things. Great work, though I don't know how we can utilise them all! Ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am currently setting up a small library by means of gallery pages of the revenue stamps of Switzerland. Useful tool.Arno-nl (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Arno-nl: I've just checked out moving some stamps using "Cat-a-Lot" which you will find in the bottom right hand corner of your category pages but it needs to be turned on in your preferences (near the bottom). I have set up a year holding category and moved several images to appropriate years though I am not sure exactly how you want to deal with all the Basel and Bern revenue stamps - just put them in a revenue year category or in a city specific category. I would go with the former unless there will be too many. Let me know if you have any problem with what I started. Ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A year category for the entire federation is a fantastic idea, there is no crosslink at this moment in any literature or website. Much is still unknown, like issue years, identity of engravers or printers as well as exact purpose (see e.g. the special issues) etc. For the cantons / cities that issued lets say > 100 stamps (next to Basel and Bern eg. Geneva or Ticino still to come) we could create both categories. I hope we can create a transparent knowledge base for revenues, what I consider as the 'mother of philately'. Arno-nl (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well Arno-nl you cleared out Category:Revenue stamps of Switzerland. Well done. Ww2censor (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ireland stamps

Hello, I've just solved that tiny problem over there. If you have any more request, please, let me know.

--Macesito (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Post box vs. Letter box

Hi. As regards this your edit, the Czech categories of "Post boxes" and "Letter boxes" are distiguished by the purpose of the box, not by its owner. "Post boxes" is used for boxes for outgoing mails, "Letter boxes" for incoming mails. Some "outgoing" boxes are operated by private (non-postal) subjects, some "incoming" boxes are not private but are operated by the post company (typically blue boxes in Czechia). The box at the wall near the ticket counter of Koněprusy Caves is for outgoing mails, as explained on the flap. --ŠJů (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok., my Czech is very very limited, it looked like a letter box. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ariana Grande (pictures permission)

Hello! I uploaded an image of Ariana Grande performing, the author gave me permission to published non the flickr and use on the Wikipedia. Don't send that for deletion. LikeGaga (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@LikeGaga: Unfortunately the Flickr user has no evidence of permission to use the image and licence it the way they did, so if you want to keep the image the original copyright holder must verify their permission by following the permission procedure found at COM:OTRS. BTW, the image must be freely licenced and not just allowed to be used only on Wikipedia. Any further comments should be made on the deletion nomination page. It is now up to an admin to decide on the evidence provided there. Ww2censor (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded other picture, check in the link below, please: File:Ariana_Grande_performing_"Thinking_'Bout_You".jpeg
I have evidences which show the author explicitly saying that the picture could be uploaded on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/146532111@N04/33192937175/in/dateposted-public/ The author (which rather be credited as nickname) gave permission, I don't knew how show this so I uploaded in the Flickr.Like Gaga 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That image is even worse of a problem. The image shows the background light show that were not designed by the photographer but by some of Gaga's team and this is a derivative image, so we would need the permission of the copyright holder, whoever that specifically is, as well as from the photographer. The link to a so-called permission image does not refer to any specific image of from any specific person so is of no use. No one needs a Flickr account to send us images, in the first instance just have them email their permission per the procedure I stated clearly above. The OTRS will take it from there. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I really uploaded all the pictures of the show with permission from the author during conversations on Twitter, I really can't make nothing to revert these situation. I'm with my mind clear, tried uploaded photos on Wikipedia to give more complete definitions in Ariana's articles! - LikeGaga 1 March, 2017 (UTC) LikeGaga (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@LikeGaga: Please stop posting here - post at the deletion discussion pages per the instructions and links on your talk page. I have provided more than enough details of how to deal with your image problems but if you don't want to try that it is your choice. Pleading does not work, I'm sorry but you, or the copyright holder, must provide verifiable proof the images are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

FoP

Freedom of Panrama for architecture in the US is absolute. DO NOT RESTORE THAT TEMPLATE AGAIN Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed Beyond My Ken, you are correct about FoP for buildings in the US, but this is just the sort of highly designed building for which this template {{FoP-US}} is totally appropriate. In fact the template states exactly that it is intended for buildings. So, based on your view, you better remove the template for all the images in Category:FoP-United States. There is no harm in this template being on File:Cooper Union New Academic Building from north.jpg and I intend to restore it unless you can show me the policy that says this is forbidden. For 3 weeks you did not even have the courtesy to respond to my question on your talk page as to why you removed it in the first place. Also, there is no need to shout; just be polite and remember you don't own the page the image is on, even if you own the copyright. Ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The protectiuon is absolute. There is no exception for "really fancy buildings that some people think are very very artistic". It's black and white, cut and dried, and the template is NOT for buildings, period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cropped

Oh. thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind for the next one. Danny toons (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wondering...

... why you've verified a wrong license in File:Anefo 910-8167 Vertrek van.jpg. As far as I can see, and that was the reason to specify it, the picture is under a CC-BY-4.0 license. Although I guess that the National Archive possibly changed the license, you, as verifier, has to verify what you're reviewing. Not other thing. Am I missing anything? --Discasto talk 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discasto: Quite some time ago, I don't remember exactly when but maybe it was a year ago or so, there was a discussion that this template license, which is the default for the Nationaal Archif would be updated to the current 4.0 version but it seems no one has bothered to do that. I did not look at the actual license details but assumed it had been done but it seems to have fallen through the cracks. If no one will update the old one then a new a 4.0 version should be made for newer uploads but I assume all the old images now show the cc-by-4.0-nl on their site which previously were cc-by-sa-3.0-nl, certainly for any images I perviously looked at so maybe a new template is actually needed. That template is locked to me so I can't do the update, maybe you can. Ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see the problem and the fix is obviously to change the template. I'm not an admin, so I can't update it. I do think you've done it right taking the issue to the Village Pump. Best regards and sorry for the inconvenience --Discasto talk 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Discasto so you noticed I took action on the topic, so we shall see. Maybe you want to weigh in on the post there. Ww2censor (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Ww2censor, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Héctor Robles Peiro.jpg

 
File:Héctor Robles Peiro.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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Queryzo (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

TB

CropTool

thanks, i couldn't find an easy way to crop despite looking for instructions. i'll use that tool in future. we may want to publicise the tool better through guidance tpbradbury (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Shivanshu Srivastava.jpg

You reviewed File:Shivanshu Srivastava.jpg as "all rights reserved" on Flickr. That seems to have changed; Flickr now says it's CC BY-SA 2.0. Can you please take another look? Huon (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: Looks a bit suspicious, as it definitely was ARR when I reviewed it earlier today. I do assume good faith but this Flick user has just this one image on their newly opened Flickr account. I would prefer to see an OTRS verification for this image. Don't you agree? Ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I talked to someone in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel who I believe was User:Abhilashaz. The impression I got was that he contacted whoever uploaded the image and asked them to change the license. Still the authorship description seems problematic to me: "Cameraman and School staff took this photo on Aug. 15, 2016 at Nirmala Convent Inter College, Lucknow." - The copyright would likely belong to the "cameraman and School staff", not to Shivanshu Srivastava. So yes, at a closer look I'm not happy with the image's copyright information. When I left the above message I had only seen that the Flickr license had been changed; if that were the only issue, it would now be resolved. If we could get OTRS confirmation, that may indeed help, but I'm not quite sure we wouldn't just end up again where we're now: Someone sends us an email and says it's OK, but is that person the copyright holder? Huon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Huon: User:Abhilashaz is the uploader and cannot confirm the copyright as they are not the copyright holder and it appears the Flickr user is not that person either. In fact User:Abhilashaz has uploaded several images that may well all be the same image but under different names (look at their talk page). They have been warned for uploading copyright violations. Maybe @Yann: or @Hedwig in Washington:, the deleting admins, can review the deleted images and confirm whether this is the same image but posted to Flickr and then given a free licence, which unfortunately Flickr users can do. While the image has an email, we don't go chasing them, they, as the uploader, are responsible for supplying or arranging the verifying permission and that's what OTRS is for. Ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
File:Shivanshu K. Srivastava receiving an award at his alma mater.jpg (deletion rationale: Media missing permission as of 4 July 2017) File:Shivanshu Srivastava.jpg. Both similar, same angle but the first upload has several flaws. Out of focus areas, reflections, etc. There's this comment:

"From his official facebook profile. I have permission from Shivanshu and I ensure that no copyright has been made and will not be made in future."

This file definetly needs OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

+1. Yann (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@abhilashaz: Hello to al admins, I am the uploader of the files on Flickr and I verify that it is my Flickr account. Please don't look at me with suspicion as I have honestly uploaded the pics (Shivanshu's, my brother's marriage etc. and going to upload more soon). Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilashaz (talk • contribs)
18:08, 17 July 2017
@Abhilashaz: The deletion nomination page, linked on your talk page is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shivanshu Srivastava.jpg and where you should make any comments to be taken into consideration by the admin who will close the nomination. My talk page is not the place for those comments especially if you read my note at the top of the page that tells you what to do and also tells you exactly how to sign your posts. Ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for rotating the Ancient Egyptian gold pectoral. By the way, this mess over here is one reason why some people may be skittish of being an Admin at Commons. A person pretending to be a woman becomes an Admin and prior to being banned deletes thousand of image files. It just ruins Common's reputation. As for me, I don't have time to be an Admin so I remain a trusted reviewer. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks and comments. I too was surprised with the INC/Lantier mess. I had some interaction with Daphne and previously with INC who always seemed well behaved to me. I saw some of her interactions with me and others which did not seem entirely right to me, but I'm not an admin so could not really comment further. Personally I don't have time for adminship though I have been asked a few time. Cheers @Leoboudv:. Ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem at all. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Frank Darabont

Why is this template available as part of the upload wizard if we're not allowed to use images which fall under that template? This makes no sense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:: I personally never use the Upload Wizard but in testing it now and putting in the flickr link, it rejects the image, so I don't know what you did. BTW, it would have been better to keep this discussion in one place as I ask at the top of the editing page or at the deletion nomination, where other editors can answer, because they are unlikely to see your question here. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi, Ww2censor could you take a look at this file and it's categories? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done Ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New image

Hi Ww2censor, I created an image myself using a software named GIMP. The component of the image

  • National emblem of sri lanka that is in public domain.
  • Name of a Commission in Sri Lanka.

Url of the image ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BondComm.png Please review the image when you're free. Thank you. Dinuraeditions (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

talkback about Fred Sirieix image

Undelete Request: File:Eclipse Solar Anular. 26.02.2017 - Argentina.png

Hi, again Ww2censorǃ... Well, I uploaded the new re-designed file with the following sentence line and to whom belongs (public domain). source = {own} based on [User: NordNordWest|NordNordWest] File: [:File:Argentina_adm_location_map.svg|Argentina adm location map]. Fernando T. de Gorocica 10:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Can no longer use this photo

This photo is no longer a part of creative Commons license. It is a all rights reserved now and private photo. Please take all and every upload of it down file:Dapper Day Fall 2015 all women.jpg

In fact both of these photos has been used without permission!! Please take them down.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dapper_Day

216.14.49.242 23:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot revoke the license once given. Ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob Collymore image

Keep and rename

How would I proceed to re name the image without my name on it? Also thank you for directing me to the government website so I can go through the proper channels. V/r

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradylogan98 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Gradylogan98: You should respond to this deletion nomination on that page Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 110902-N-BT887-049 Airman Logan Grady secures the tail of an MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter aboard USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74).jpg, where discussing this takes place, because the closing admin is most unlikely to look at my talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:1905 Franklin rear entrance tonneau (6894889015).jpg

I unwittingly uploaded from Flickr some files marked Public Domain with this result: example

The photographer has at my request amended the licence in Flickr to CC0. I have accordingly amended this one. Have I done it correctly? If so I will do the same to the others. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I updated the license for you and now the Flickrreview bot has passed it. You could have added the license {{Cc-zero}} and the tag {{Flickrreview}} to do the same. Good luck and thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Stamps

Dear Ww2censor,
There're any things to reconsider relating to stamps at Wikimedia Commons:

1) my last uploads at Liechtenstein 1951 (the both stamps with paintings) can get deleted. The creator/engraver was Anton Frommelt (1895 – 1975) (no artist-category created although celebrated father - both celebrated artists for Austria/Liechtenstein)

2) Stamps of Bohemia and Moravia (“Böhmen und Mähren”). That was an “protectorate”, and as such a legal state as part of Nazi-Germany and has nothing to do with Czechoslovakia, although on the today Czech territory located. The Czech agreement after the “Treaty of Munich” 1938 (equally if forced or not) was legal valid. So, there are only the copyrights of Germany valid, not from Czechoslovakia. By the way, how is the actual situation relating to German stamps? Nazi-Germany was more as 70 years ago. Similar considerations are for the areas of the former German Rich in the East, now Polish/Russian. Areas occupied by German military are an other topic.

3) stamps of Portugal and Spain'…? ...no copyright license or understandable licence template is present, inclusive colonies etc....

I have still many questions, but I will ask you from time to time after any special things. Not understandable was for me the deletion of the stamp for Italian-Eritrea with the portrait of the Italian King. The creator/engraver was Augusto Calcagnadoro (1876 – 1935) – so, he dead more as 70 years ago.

By the way, are you German? I would like to write in German language…In each case should I agree with you my activities relating to stamps at Wikimedia Commons - in order to create an total-survey to stamps without any payment-demands as world-wide project - for the future (real, not only desired).
--Katharinaiv (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Several questions Katharinaiv and I'll try to answer them when I get a chance to review. In the meantime it would be great if you could provide wikilinks to the categories you are talking about so I don't have to go search for them in the whole category tree. Deutsch schriben can ich nicht, ünterhanltung ist gut und bischen lesen can ich doch. Ich bin nür 25% Deutsch. Ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies Katharinaiv for the delay in responding but the holiday season, real life and the need to research more deeply are the reasons, so I'll try to be as clear as I can. As a benchmark 70 years pma is a good place to start which likely applies to most of your questioned countries.
  • Liechtenstein: You are correct about the artist's death date and if that is the defining criteria they should be deleted. There is a chance that Liechtenstein's stamps are considered "forms of payment" which according to this WIPO document Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (consolidated version of December 19, 2006 are not copyrightable. In some countries stamps are considered as "forms of payment" but that needs more research and might onnly refer for currency.
    Bohemia and Moravia: I would refer to the problem that has been raised concerning most German stamps. Bohemia and Moravia stamps were issued by the German government and most seem to be tagged with {{PD-German Empire stamps}} and so are included in that problem but to date has not been resolved and may mean the deletion of about 10,000 stamp images. For details please refer to: German stamps review and its discussion page. I agree that Czechoslovakia has no validity for these stamps.
    Spain: as with most other European countries that are Berne signatories, so their stamps are copyright to their designers, making copyright 70 pma as the standard (after 1987; before 1987 80 pma applies) and when the designer is unknown, public domain applies 70 years after it was issued (80 years if issued before 1987).
    Portugal: There seems to be little about Portugal on wikipedia/wikimedia but it too claims normal copyright of 70 years: the same as Spain. I have consulted the WIPO page Code of Copyright and Related Rights (as amended up to Decree-Law No. 100/2017 of August 23, 2017) but don't know the language so had to rely on a Google translation which seems rather poor. The individual country page entry states 70 years pma but for some extra details {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} has more you can follow.
    It may well also be worth your while to refer to the copyright term of the Berne Convention. This may give you some thing to consider for future uploads. BTW, thanks for all the uploads you make. Ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

DR Categories

I suspect you know this, so it was probably just an oversight, but when you add categories to a DR it is important to use the form:

<<noinclude>[[Category:Philately related deletion requests]]</noinclude>

Otherwise the whole DR log gets included in the category. SeeCommons:Deletion requests/File:Prešov na poštovej známke 18 Slovakia.png .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward Oops, actually I was not sure how to fix it. Thanks for notifying me and fixing it. I'll try to remember. Ww2censor (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

File:AOTD Milton.png

Kindly deal with this, I assumed it was a kind of PROD but this apparently not the case, the image is from wikia. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Prince of Thieves, I can't deal with it. You are the uploader and the onus is on you to verify the permission from the copyright holder. You have not even provided a source for the image for us to make an attempt at verifying its copyright status. It looks like a screenshot from a TV program and in that case the production company is likely the copyright holder, even if you found it on a wiki, you need to contact them otherwise it will be deleted. I sorry but I can't help you. Ww2censor (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The source link is in the edit you reverted. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
If that is not good enough then by all means delete it, that is the best I can do. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info but unfortunately I'm sorry to tell you that source link gives no indication of who the author or copyright holder is and under what copyright license it has been released. As I said it looks like a screenshot that some editor has uploaded to that wiki but for which they have no permission, and so unfortunately you don't have any permission either. In fact it is found in different versions on several other fan sites, also without attribution. Ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hôtel de Buet

I've been to Hôtel de Buet, the one you mentioned at User_talk:Ruthven/Archive_4#WLM_2017. The images on Flickr and on WP are correct: the hôtel is now embedded in the courtyard of a more recent building. It's pointless to upload my photos, as there are other ones. Where is the statue you mentioned in another message? --Ruthven (msg) 09:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ruthven: Maybe your images are better than mine, as I remember there was a garbage bin close by as well as cars making wider images not so good. The statue is on the corner of 30 rue des Changes and I cropped a wide shot to make this image but since then I have visited again and have a closer up image but it was quite a dull day, so if you can make a better one, please upload one when you photograph it. Christelle was correct about Mérimée having the wrong photo, similar to this one for the fr:Hôtel de Guillaume de Bernuy in the rue de la Pomme which belongs to the other Category:Hôtel de Bernuy in the rue Gambetta. Maybe the page names need changing so they syncronise between the languages. Hope that helps. I'll also email you later. Ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkback re Israel stamp images

Talkback re Swiss images

Löschung von Datei File:Wappen von Türkoğlu.tiff vom 26.Juli 2014 und 25. Dezember 2014

Hallo Ww2censor! Ich weiß, 2014 ist lange her, aber ich habe immer noch Fragen, die mir keiner beantworten kann. Ich habe das Wappen von Türkoglu hochgeladen, das wegen "fehlender Urheberrechte" wieder gelöscht wurde. Nach einer Diskussion mit EugeneZelenko wurde es wieder hergestellt, dann aber wieder (von Ihnen?) gelöscht. Hier der Dialog mit EugeneZelenko: Hi EugeneZelenko, thank you for working on my file. I used the same license as the file "Datei:Antalya buyuksehir logo.png". But why was my file deleted and this one isn't? The same happens to many Turkish coats of arms, like Adana, Ankara or Izmir. I'm the opinion, the file must not be deletet according to Adana or Antalya. Thank you for your answer; with kindly regards --Christian1311 (Diskussion) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC) File didn't have license tag. Could you please clarify what this coat of art represents: settlement, education institution, etc? --EugeneZelenko (Diskussion) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Hi EugeneZelenko, sorry that I answered so late, business.... The coat of art represents Türkoğlu, a town in Turkey. It has the same license as Antalya buyuksehir logo.png. Please take my file back to wikimedia commons. Thank you very much. Kind regards --Christian1311 (Diskussion) 11:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I restored file, but you still need to specify proper license tag. --EugeneZelenko (Diskussion) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)) Ich verstehe folgendes nicht: Beispiel Adana: Quelle ist "eigenes Werk", was bedeutet, dass Kokojino2020123 es abfotografiert hat. Urheber ist Kokojino2020123. Reicht das aus als Urheber? Dann kann ich mein Wappen von Türkoglu unter gleichen Bedingungen (eigenes Werk; Urheber Christian1311) wieder aktivieren lassen, oder? Überhaupt ist keine konsequente Linie zu beobachten. Hängt es nur von dem zuständigen Bearbeiter ab, ob eine File bleibt oder gelöscht wird. Ähnlich Ankara und Istanbul (ohne Urhebernennung) Schon jetzt vielen Dank für deine Antwort! --Christian1311 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Christian1311: Ich weiß nicht, warum Sie mich bitten, Ihnen dabei zu helfen. Sie sollten den Redakteur EugeneZelenko fragen, der das Bild gelöscht hat, aber es sieht so aus, als hätte das Bild nicht den richtigen Autor. Das ist der Autor, der das Bild entworfen hat, nicht die Person, die es fotografiert. Wenn Sie sich das Bildprotokoll ansehen, sehen Sie, dass es dreimal gelöscht wurde. Wenn Sie nun die richtigen Details, Autor, Quelle und Copyright-Status haben, können Sie bei Undeletion requests anfragen nach dem Wiederhergestellten fragen. Nur weil andere Dinge existieren, ist das kein Grund etwas anderes zu behalten. Ich bin kein Adminsitrator, also kann ich nichts für dich tun; Alles, was ich tun kann, ist dich zu beraten. Viel Glück. Ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die ausführliche Antwort! Mit freundlichen Grüßen--178.7.28.228 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Arditurri2.jpg

Dear ww2censor,

What is the license for this image please? Is it cc by sa 3.0 or 4.0? I don't know where the license is kept but you managed to upload a higher resolution version of this photo. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • In this separate image from the same web source, it was cc by sa 4.0 but at least there is a link to the license to view:
  • File:Aliri baserria 05.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv: Actually when you click on the image in the source page you get a similar image page to the one linked from this image File:Aliri baserria 05.jpg. However, the license is just written {{Cc-by-sa}} without defining which version it is and there is nothing to verify it is version 4.0. That's why I did not give it a good review after finding the higher resolution image. To me either it fails review or we need to look more deeply at the site's copyright statement if there is one to make a better informed decision. Thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You. I did what you did and went to the cc by sa option. Below it when I click on License Deed, it says "cc by sa 4.0" Many people have got images from this website wrong. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
When I go to File:Arditurri2.jpg all I see is "cc-by-sa" on the right of the image and no link under the image. When I click on the "cc-by-sa" on the right it brings me to the page that lists all the different cc licenses, just the same link you gave that lists both free and unfree but not specifically any license. I don't know where you are seeing a "cc-by-sa-4.0" because the link you gave does not verify a 4.0 license for me. It's exactly the same for File:Aliri baserria 05.jpg and the new source links still do not link to a specific license just to the general Creative Commons license page. Personally I dispute the good reviews you have given. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, Leoboudv I'm not so sure, because the page you are brought to is the current general Creative Commons License page and by clicking on the CC-BY-SA all you are seeing is the current version of the CC license which is what you would expect. I'm not going to dispute these reviews with you, or with others, but I still have concerns. The image pages should in that case really link to the actual license page that you eventually found. Anyway, thanks for the info, so let's get on with other things. Ww2censor (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Stempelmarke

Hi Ww2censo, sorry, but the file File:Stempelmarke Österreich.jpg‎ has nothing to do with a philatistic, because it's not a postal stamp but a taxe stamp, so I removed the category from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stempelmarke Österreich.jpg‎ again. --regards from Austria K@rl (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This

Dear Ww2censor,

If you click on any of the 3 boxes in the link above, you get lots of images and the words Creative Commons erkännande which links to CC BY 3.0 when you click on it from the mynewsdesk website. Is mynewsdesk making a false misrepresentation here that they own the photos copyright when they don't? I was just curious since they Normally name the photographer. Nothing more. I don't know if 4nn1l2 had seen my question on my talkpage. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, the 3 boxes just seem to link to subsets of the main Link page. But actually if you hover the mouse over the images on the page, the photographer is usually attributed, such as this one but if you try to see the license as shown on the hovered image from the main page, you can't get there (or I can't see a way). However, not everything is licensed cc-by-3.0, such as this one which is ARR. My concern is that we don't seem to be able to navigate from the source links of images already on the commons to see a license at mynewsdeak upon which it might have been given a good review or maybe never reviewed at all. All we can see is the general CC statement page pop-up window. Finding such images through the link above is virtually impossible as it just lists recent uploads to their site. Ww2censor (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for sharing your concern here. And thanks for your time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Magdalena Wisniowska talkback

Talkback

Wiki Loves Food

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, we are going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up as a volunteer or sign up on behalf of your affiliate here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, we are going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up as a volunteer or sign up on behalf of your affiliate here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Argyle location.jpg

I'm confused. Does your starting Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argyle location.jpg mean you think this needs discussion, and should not be speedy-deleted? Normally, once a formal deletion request is made, that pretty much rules out a speedy deletion (which I would otherwise give this). - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Jmabel: Actually you are probably correct I should have made it a speedy. The uploader stated the image was not their image and they don't own the copyright, and I found the source on Facebook where there is no statement it is freely licenced. As an admin you can of course close it at once as a clear copyvio as I have seen other do on occasions. Either way I think the result will be the same. Thanks for the heads up. Ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Flickr images

Hi, thanks for telling me. Is the license CC BY 2.0 available for Commons?--Prugna (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Prugna: Yes it is accepted here but this Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses is probably what you need to review as it shows the good and bad ones. However, not all Flickr users are truthful, or even understand copyright, and release images under free licences even when the photo is not theirs to licence. So you have to be careful as some images may be deleted even if they have an acceptable licence on Flickr. Ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you. ~~~~

--Ruthven (msg) 08:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

TB

Clara Blandick image

File:Eduardo Milán.jpg

Image from Flickr

Hi Ww2censor,

I have downloaded 3 files come from Flickr : this one, this one and this one. These three files had uploaded under licence CC by 2.0. The use of these files is ok ? Cheers, --Ruyblas13 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC).

Ruyblas13: You did not upload the highest resolution version, known on Flickr as the "original", so the flickrreview robot could not find the size. I've now uploaded the highest resolution images, as you have noticed, and they have been passed. So in future please make sure to use the "original" Flickr image. You may even prefer to use the Flickr2commons tool which ensures the size, licence, etc., are correct per the original Flickr file. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks at all Ww2censor, for good job and advise !   --Ruyblas13 (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC).

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 19211 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 23926 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 24463 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 18465 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 15285 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 23162 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-Wiki Image

Would you be willing to edit an image not uploaded to Commons? - Conservatrix (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix: that depends. What is it, where is it and what needs doing? I don't do much serious editing on my daily computer, am quite busy in real life, so it means pulling out an old one with photoshop, blah, blah! Let me know. Ww2censor (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you willing to email? Link on my English user page. – Conservatrix (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Conservatrix: Honestly I prefer to keep wiki stuff on wiki. Which link are you referring to and is the image already uploaded to the commons? Ww2censor (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Very well. The image in question is here. The photographer will not give permission to upload the image to Commons, but the portrait itself is by a nineteenth-century artist and I should think he cannot govern use of the original artwork. Can we crop the portrait and neutralize the offending glare? – Conservatrix (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Should you elect to publish the finished product, the file name would ideally be Portrait, Marie Antoinette Laure Villeré, John Genin. I will supply the details once uploaded. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Not to bother, but are you willing to do this? – Conservatrix (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Conservatrix: It is not a matter of willingness, but actually just getting rid of the flare is not the only problem with this image. It's a job I doubt I can help you with as I'm not good at this sort of retouching. The problem is that the image has a 3D frame, so is not a slavish copy of the painting, so you will have to get permission from the photographer to use their image, even though the painting itself is old. Sorry I can't assist any further. Ww2censor (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Re: Cropping images

request in Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

i mentioned your request in de:spezial:diff/179674270#Irish roads map
do you agree to close your request on commons?
--Mrmw (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Mrmw: I was going to ask at the village pump how to create such a map from OpenStreetMap because no one has responded to the original request on the illustration request page. I will see if any of the German editors can assist and then close it in a week or so. I hope that works. Ww2censor (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

i closed the request on com:GL/I --Mrmw (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2018 (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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Lieutenant Colonel Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul.png

 
File:Lieutenant Colonel Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The source says it's CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

XenonX3 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Review

Hello Ww2censor, I have uploaded many images from Picasa. All are located here. Could you please review them?--√Tæ√ 13:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

: I've done 3 but the last one cannot be checked because the links don't work. I don't know how you are getting Picasa images as Google has discontinued the service and the current links cannot be used to review the copyright. Ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Photographs by Sheba Also

Hello, For context with my annoyance at this exercise, please see the responses to the discussion you started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Help_needed_to_categorise_these_images While many of the images are useful, many more are not. The careless way the upload was conducted (especially regarding categories) has imposed a significant workload on the Australian Wikipedia and Commons communities. For instance, the top level categories Category:Brisbane and Category:Canberra have been flooded with these photos, most of which also lack useful file names. I don't think that bulk uploads are a good idea - there needs to be some kind of quality control, and care taken to get file names and categories right from the outset. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D: Considering I dropped a polite note about this upload to the Australia Project, it might have been an idea if someone had pinged me. I could have suggested the CropTool for cropping, instead of bringing them down to ones own computer, cropping there and reuploading as w:User:The Drover's Wife apparently did because they did not know about the convenience of the CropTool and cropping is really only needs doing when an image will be inserted into an article. Also categorising with VFC (Perform Batch Task) after a refined search can move many files out of the main parent category into a more appropriate one quite quickly. I've used this on several occasions to select and recategorise many images at a time. Not to repeat everything but I can't see anyone doing a manual review of a batch upload like that prior to uploading. IF they have to do that then we will be basically reduced to only manual uploads in future. I disagree with you that most of the files are useless but that's just a difference of opinion. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you please categorise the photos then? From looking at them, many lack sufficient information for bulk categorisation to be useful, but if that can rapidly reduce the scope of this problem and encourage use of the images your efforts to do this would be most appreciated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now is not a good time as I am an OTRS member too and am going on holidays this week with many things to clear up before I leave. I'll give it a look at the end of next week unless I get some spare time in the interim. Let me know which are the worst categories and I'll see what I can do but you guys are the Australia experts, not me, so don't blame me if I miscategorise some files. Ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The Brisbane category seems to be by far the worst. Plane spotting categories and the Canberra categories have also been affected. As you go through images there, I suspect that you'll see the scale of the problem and other areas where clean up is needed. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi ww2censor.

I refer to [:w:Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Help needed to categorise these images|this at en wikipedia]] and this here.

I am currently going through all 22k now 23k of these images...!

I am very much a novice at commons but it seems to me that while some of these have already gone, all the rest should also be deleted? What is the process for such?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Aoziwe: Thanks for asking but as you see right now is not a good time for me to help out. Last Sunday I recategorised almost 1000 images and then Nick-D complained I had flooded a different category. Hopefully you are using VFC (Perform Batch Task) as mentioned above, especially when tagging any for deletion as the uploaded's talk page was swamped with many individual deletion nomination notices when VFC could have done them like the one you noticed I did and have been deleted; Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with family incategory:"Photographs by Sheba Also". Also see this eletion nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with benjamin incategory:"Photographs by Sheba Also" before you nominate any more. Depending on the reasoning for deletion, they should really be nominated in bulk but not too many at a time and in my opinion not more than 100 or so. But try out VFC first if you have never used it before as the damage you can do can be rather great. The objective is to reduce the two categories Canberra and Brisbane down to some manageable size. If you see any more categories that seem too full of this Flirks user's images, drop me a note and I'll look at them at the end of the week. There are several Flickr tags and other descriptors that cam be used to find images to bulk move to other categories without doing them one by one, which is essentially a thankless and tiresome task. Thanks for your interest in helping out. Ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Election

As a Thai Citizens l think File:Lieutenant Colonel Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul.pngthat you uploaded will be deleted. The person who is trying to delete it now seem to come up with the new idea to delete it

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_157145480

Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul should be her name and the per son delete her maiden name for some reason180.183.121.138 01:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to respond at the deletion page Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 157145480, not on any user's page because the closing admin will not be looking here. Ww2censor (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

File:1941 Tikhvin.jpg

 
File:1941 Tikhvin.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Not PD-RU-exempt. Source is not PD too.
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Alex Spade (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

missing license at File:Pondera Consult Belevingsvisualisatiescherm.jpg

Hi Ww2censor, could you add the missing license-template to File:Pondera Consult Belevingsvisualisatiescherm.jpg. --Túrelio‎ (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Túrelio: I did that yesterday. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, no. I meant not the ticket[1] but the license template. --Túrelio (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  Done: Túrelio Oh, oops! Thanks for the heads up. Ww2censor (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pavel Valek

Hi, I came across these files. Could you have another look at the ticket? As far as I can see the permission is insufficient, because it comes from the depicted person, not from the photographers, and there is no evidence or even an explanation of a transfer of copyright from the photographers to the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb:: Well, article 10 of the ticket was sent by Petr Kozlík, the stated photographer, who has a photo website that has the email he used on his contact page http://petrkozlik.cz/contacts/, and has 2 jpg attachments that are written permission statements. I believe these are certainly good. Thought Pavel Válek, the subject, also stated he paid for the photography which likely means it was all "work-for-hire". I admit that File:Pavel-Valek-rozhodci.jpg only had a permission statement from Pavel Válek, so that may be a mistake. Please remember that I am relatively new at this and I try to be extrememly careful so if I have made a mistake please advise me. Ww2censor (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so the first two should be fine. (Please update the 'author' field in such a case to avoid confusion). The third now has the blue template again. Please be aware that a statement that the depicted person has paid for the picture does in most cases not mean that the copyright has been transferred. Only if there is an explicit transfer in a written document this could be valid. Many photographers only grant a 'usage right' to their client. Most of such cases can be resolved by asking a copy of the invoice, many photographers clearly state in the invoice whether they transfer the copyright or not. Don't worry if you make mistakes, I came here to resolve the situation about these files, not to blame you. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: I'm now told that image is by a different photographer but they are working on getting a permission statement. I could do with some guidance on some other tickets as my "mentor" is away, so can I post on your OTRS talk page as opposed to a regular commons page? Ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello, Ww2censor I have uploaded the following files from YouTube. Please review them as I am not sure about their licenses :-

--√Tæ√ 11:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

On my upload verification

Hi ! I uploaded two files Files:Aditya Narayan in 2017 which is a screenshot from a YouTube video and File:Udit Narayan in 2018 which was my own photography . Please verify those files and they are my own work not a part of any media in the internet . Thank you ! Aomine9 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Aomine9: Thanks for asking but any issues with permission verification takes place at the OTRS permissions system. I presume you are asking about these two images: File:Aditya Narayan 2017.jpg and File:Udit Narayan in 2018.jpg as noted on your talk page because the links you gave above don't work. If you have sent a verification email it will be dealt with as OTRS agents get around to them. Please remember that they are all volunteers dealing with permissions and there is also quite a backlog, some tickets taking up to 150 days, so please be patient. Ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Aviso de borrado

El archivo fotográfico "File:Casasbajas-conciertoInaugural (2018).jpg" corresponde a la portada de un folleto editado con motivo de la bendición e inauguración del órgano de la "Iglesia parroquial del Salvador (Casas Bajas)", carece de Depósito Legal, de copyright reconocido, carece de ISBN. Se trata de un folleto, no de un libro. Pregunto: ¿Quién tiene que firmar la autorización para su publicación en Wikimedia, el que ha preparado los textos, el que ha hecho la composición informática, el fotógrafo, el impresor, el que lo ha financiado, todos ellos...? ¿Alguien sabría decírmelo? Otra cosa: en los enlaces externos de la página donde se halla la fotografía dice: "Este artículo contiene material escrito o gráfico procedente del sitio web www.desdeelrincondeademuz.com, con permiso de su propietario". Acaso hace falta más permiso que ese... Es por ello que, salvo mejor opinión y atendiendo al sentido común, manifiesto mi disconformidad con el aviso de borrado del archivo. Saludos.--Orxeta (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondonera (talk • contribs)

10:31, 21 December 2018

Hondonera: I don't speak Spanish. That permission has already been moved to the Spanish permission queue and I will post this to the ticket. Ww2censor (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ww2censor/Archive4".