User talk:Martin H./Archive 10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−



Archive Note

Maybe something left open in the archive. Please add proper sources to your uploads and only upload an image if you certainly know its copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pff

Pues mira, tu subes muchas fotos de flickr y nadie te las borra, en cambio yo subo fotos de flickr y me las borras, lo unico que quiero es que me dejes en paz, no me molestes y yo no te molesto, no hagas caso a lo que yo edito y fin del problema. Ademas ya no quiero que bloquees mis cuentas, como quiera yo a seguir haciendo mas, si vas a hacer algo, nomas dime, pero ya no me bloquees.

Template ru-mid

I see you deleted the template ru-mid Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:RU-MID. Do you think the pics could be uploaded under some other license? As stated in the deletion discussion, the copyright notice does allow some use. Offliner (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Template:Speedy after the deletion request was closed as images from ru.mid are not free enough for Commons, see Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms. So images from that site are not ok on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible to upload these images to regular WP then? Thanks for answering. Offliner (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not as part of the Wikimedia projects free content because it is unfree, only if the image qualifies for fair use depending on the local projects policy, see meta:Non-free content. --Martin H. (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My Image you deleted

actually, I'm almost positive that images from google products are free to use so long as they are not used for commercial purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewazhere (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Images on Commons - and content on all Wikimedia projects by the way except fair use on a small number of Wikipedia projects - must be free for every purpose including every possible and impossible commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File:ZonaVerde.jpg

Was it a coincidence that you marked this image as having a unknown copyright status, in the same minute, but before i marked this one as a deletion request? I ve seen all the others images uploaded by this user and in all of them he marks the author as anonimous or unknown, so i think that it can be almost certain that this images are copyvio. Tm (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No coincidence, we both entered "googlemaps" into the search and both found this users contribs. After I deleted his Googlemaps images I of course checked all other images, the images appear to be not self-created or falsely claimed as own work, but the sourcing is too pore to evaluate the copyright status. Therefore deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked if was coincidence as i been working in organizing Category:Freguesias of Portugal. I saw this image of a town (Mondim de Basto) that happens to be near where i live, and saw the info present to be funky and smelly (at the minimum) and so pressed the delete button (should have pulled the speedy delete), so this whas really a one in a million coincidence, that you and i saw this in the same minute:). About the others images, if you translate the authorship info, written in portuguese, you will see that there are stated to be anonimous or unknow author wicht it can´t be true if the uploader as the copyright of this recent photos, so it can be almost beyond any doubt that this images are copyvio, and not self-made, of the uploader. Tm (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's really a coincidence :)) Yes, I understand the author statements and marked the images therefore as no source. For me - I'm sorry - its less work than searching the images on the Internet or opening a deletion discussion. The uploader can fix the source but unlikely this helps to keep the image because his source is most likely not published under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging File:TsuboEn_OkarikomiCloseUpWinterIMG_2426p25e.JPG

The images are mine hence the reference to the website. That too is mine. Hope this clarifies.Karesansui (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) My name is stated on the copyright page and on the about page. Thanks, Piet

User page now updatet. Thank you. Karesansui (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing File:Novacom historique Googlemaps.jpg

Hi,

I would like to know why have you deleted this image? This is not a screenshot of googlemaps, this is a screenshot from a commercial product using googlemaps inside of it and paying the licences to google for doing so. The screenshot has been authorized by the owner of the software and is here for information.

The same applies to the other Novacom platform software screenshots. Please, clarify your actions.

Regards,

Jordi

Hi Jordi, any content on Commons must be free for every purpose including modification and commercial use under the terms of a free license. Only the copyright holder can voluntarily provide such a licensing. Having a license (non-transferable and non sub-licensable) from Google does not give you the right to re-license their content under a free license. Your illustrations of technical equipment using Google maps are derivative works of Google maps, the screenshots are only a part of the photo/illustration but not small or unimportant enough to be de minimis. --Martin H. (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way: I just noted, that you did much and good work in w:fr:Géolocalisation - however, Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise one proudct, see w:en:WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles. Same applies for the french Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Guillermo Zavaleta Rojas/Enrique Caballero Peraza

Guillermo Zavaleta Rojas

An email of the owner of the rights. I mean Guillermo Zavaleta Rojas, will be enough ? Please let me know. Thank you. --Henry Knight (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enrique Caballero Peraza

This pictures is 100 % my own work, is funny because I took it with my camera and results that let me tell you.. I AM . Enrique Caballero Peraza. An email of my personal account will be ok ? Let me know. This is funny. --Henry Knight (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I merged the two sections: In both cases an Email from the copyright owner is ok. It is suggested to follow the wording of Commons:Email templates (Commons:Modelos de mensajes#Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones), everything important is included in this text. Using the spanish or english version is your choice. --Martin H. (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I allready send the mails let me know what i should do. thank you for your time. Best regards

--Henry Knight (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin. I am sorry to bother you, I am waiting for the result of my email about this two pictures. Please let me know, i really do not want to see this work erased. Thank you for your time, and if i have to do something else, let me know. --Henry Knight (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Picture you deleted

File:Some-of-the-people-killed-001.jpg is public domain. The source is here. Should you read the picture caption, you will see the caption: "A selection of those killed or arrested - and in some cases still in detention - since the 12 June presidential election in Iran. Photograph: Public Domain". Please restore the picture--Behzad.Modares (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They are public in sense of common property or the copyright owner will never find out, but not in terms of the copyright holder voluntarily placed the image into the public domain. The face http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jun/29/iran-election-dead-detained collection program clearly says that the images were grabbed from various sources that are not public domain and maybe not even the right holders (Iranian.com, Tabriz news, Amnesty, Repoter without borders...). At least image number 16 is a photo of a photo, a derivative work, so the whole collection CAN'T even be public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file

Hi, Martin!

As my photograpy — one uniquely of my ownership — has been deleted, how can it be recharged on my userpages again? Can you realize this goal for me? If possible, please, email to me about this. Thank you so much. EgídioCamposDiz! 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow the instructions in the information on your talkpage, User talk:Egidiofc#File Tagging File:EgídioFoto-1.jpg. The source information is still visible in the log. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it! All I want to know is "where is my yet charged file — that file (above mentioned), not other one"? In fact, the ethically correct procedure, once cleared the question, the ethically expected procedure is that which should imply the recharge made by the author of the deletion. Otherwise, Wikimedia will be a scenario of anarchy and disrespect. EgídioCamposDiz! 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a good reason

Hi Martin H., please give me a good reason to delete my images?,--Inefable001 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Permanently uploading images grabbed from other websites, wrong claims of authorship on other peoples photographs. See your talkpage for evidence. Next step will be Template:Copyviouploadindefblock/es. --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy violation tag : Vue flotte vehicules.png and others

Hi again Martin,

I've seen you tagged again the photos as copyrigth violations. Well, I made the necessary changes not to be considered as a copy violation for googlemaps or webraska. The portion not blurred are not big enough to be considered as a copy violation, as described by the "Copyright exceptions" as you can see here Copyrigth, also called "fair use" policy.

The data is nor exploitable or recognizable so I think your tag does not apply anymore. Moreover, this can be considered in my point of view as a de minimis, like you can see in the example of the Louvre photography under the chapter "An example under Civil Law".

I would like you to reconsider your tag. This kind of screenshots helps people understand the "geolocation" chapter. It would be a shame if we could not show this example to the public because this tiny misunderstanding.

Regards,

Jordixmaster (talk)

I not remove my tags but I also not delete the images, someone wil give it a second view. You should simply use FREE content, like Open Street Map or for stallite images NASA content which is public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Aviones Fac

mira la licencia por favor http://www.fac.mil.co/index.php?idcategoria=31378 Pagina donde se indica las condiciones de uso 6.Derechos de Autor: Todos los derechos de los contenidos y las fotografías publicadas en el sitio Web de la Fuerza Aérea son propiedad de esta institución, o están autorizados por sus autores o referenciadas las fuentes de las cuales se extrajeron. Su uso y/o publicación está autorizado, con la consecuente incorporación de la fuente y enlace a la página principal de la Fuerza Aérea. excuse me but i dont speak in english --Angel paez (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For non-commercial puposes as stated in section 2. Please see Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia requeridos. The source is not free. --Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also modification is not allowed. --Martin H. (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
la licencia dice que cualquier modificacion debe llevar referencia a sus autores y es lo mismo que expresa la pagina de la fuerza aerea colombiana ud la puede modificar siempre y cuando de los creditos ademas dice informativos, académicos, educacionales, de investigación o personales, que en ningun caso impliquen la utilización de los mismos para fines de lucro pienso que wikipedia califica aqui no es una enciclopedia.--Angel paez (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I cant translate your last statement. But no question:

La información [...] no puede utilizarse con fines comerciales, prohibida la copia, modificación, distribución o reproducción de los datos, [...] imágenes o gráficos [...] sin el previo visto bueno del Comando de la Fuerza Aérea.

Sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

y la segunda parte leela yo pense que esto era un medio académico y educacional veo que no que wikipedia es una empresa con animo de lucro --Angel paez (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Sobre las licencias: Wikimedia Commons sólo acepta contenido libre, es decir, imágenes y otros ficheros que puedan ser usados por cualquiera en cualquier lugar.. La término de licencia "uso exclusivamente educativo o no comercial" no está permitido! See again Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia requeridos and the section Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia no permitidos. So end of discussion now, its obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kabir.jpg

Hi Martin, You have questioned about the File:Kabir.jpg's licencing on its page. I can see the licence tag below it as {{GFDL}}, however if you feel that it is not a correct licence, kindly see the original source of file here and let us know on image's talk page that which lince should be applied ot it, as the source website doesn't hold any copyright.--Dsvyas (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, Can you please reply and remove the tag from the file????--Dsvyas (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's Ok

Thanks for conserving these 5 files, there were 2 or three others that I had taken during a training of Le Mans's football club, but it doesn't matter. That's ok for me, i'll not reuse images of others people, you can be sure of that. And so, I'll try to make the best article of the city of Le Mans without using any false image. You know, I have taken some good pictures (and I'm quite proud of them!) and you can see them on my "good account", the "Le Mans" one. (For example this one: File:Rue Gambetta Le Mans.JPG, File:Siège du Crédit Mutuel Le Mans.jpg or File:Coeur du Tunnel du Mans.JPG Just one last thing, Do you think you can delete my account of "Trowa Barton" or not (on Wikipedia and on wikimedia both)? I would just keep my Le Mans's account only (understand that with this one, I've never made any "mistake" anywhere else, on Wikimedia or Wikipedia...). I'm sorry for these bad uplaods and for the jobs I've given to you. Good luck for everything and finally... thanks for your vision and your advises, it's better like that, not to cheat (A real article, without mistake I want to say... just pictures of the reality, not only so beautiful pictures that other people take and that you, you can't!). I'm sorry if this message seems too much "soft" and so "stupid" but that's the reality of what I feel. I'm very interested in this project and I'll follow you advices. I apologize if I've been agressive. See you soon. --Le Mans (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you protested on some of the football images, but I can keep all images. One was cropped from http://www.muc72.fr/galerie.php?gfi_id=2104, one other from http://www.muc72.fr/galerie.php?gfi_id=1981.
Accounts cant be deleted. Not here nor on Wikipedia. You can have the userpage deleted or the talkpage blanked, but not more.
Im quite unsure about your second account, You may find this offending, but im quite sure that not all uploads with that account are your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It's as you wish, but for the pictures of my other account, you'll have to prove it seriously my friend, because all images of this account come from my own cameras. I let you do what you want but you'll lose you time. You'll see by yourself. But do it and at least you'll after that that I'm not totally "lost" for wikiprojects. But for the two images I was talking about, these were File:Samuel Bouhours.JPG and File:AbdouDieye.JPG. These one were old and were my own work with my old camera. If you can, just look at and you'll see that I'm just acting in good face this time. Just a question, I'm not obliged to indicate my own name on the "autor" to prove that I'm really the photographer? --Trowa Barton (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


File:116278pv.jpg

File:116278pv.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Teofilo (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


File:116285pv.jpg

File:116285pv.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Teofilo (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia:

thanks to the Martin H. (a very bad man) you have loose a free translater from Spanish-English into russian. I wanted to enreach your collection of articles but your user like Martin H., who got into his head that he is a God, has discouraged me from helping such a good web-site... Sorry

Dear user, if you join a project you should first read the very basic principles. I answered you on your email. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My Pictures

You recently clarified some stuff about my images that i have uploaded.

im sorry to say that many of my images violate the "no fair use" policy.

perhaps you should go through all of my recent uploads, and delete them, as it seems that i cannot do so myself.

im sorry for wasting your time --Tim1357 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The album covers are already deleted long time ago. Can you refer to filenames? Reviewing your uploads I see only File:Recaptcha logo.jpg (We can use it? We are not enough, everyone must be able to use it!) and File:Ibiza Wall Lizard.jpg (no permission from the author to a free license, no license selected) marked as problematic. --Martin H. (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Venice Ghetto.JPG

Didn't you see the source? The source is the description: Karl Baedeker: l'Italie des Alpes à Naples. 2e éd. Leipzig: Baedeker 1905. Map of Venice, detail: Ghetto of Venice. So what? --Warburg (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nein, in das Beschreibungsfeld habe ich wohl nicht genau geschaut. Ich habe nur die Quellenangabe gesehen. die keinen Autor der Karte nennt aber sagt, dass der Autor seit 70 Jahren tot sei. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

I made the screenshot of that picture, so it's my own work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan120791 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A commons mistake. I informed you on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Anastacia_HMH_2009_Amsterdam.jpg

Hi. As stated in the description page, I trasferred this file from en.wiki, where uploader was the copyright holder.--Trixt (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I marked the image as missing source per the en.wp uploaders other uploads, I informed the uploader. Also im currently at the other uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Naiyyum.JPG Deleted

The flickr image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/50626594@N00/3797988156) is created by me, and I uploaded it there to have CC, and ultimately upload it to wikipedia. "Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. " Could you please explain that? If I am the photographer, am I not the copyright holder? --Smcbuet (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Given the Flickr photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/50626594@N00/3797988156 I see a lot of photographs and this web size image. The image is also present at http://www.bdsbmb.org/pastcommittee.htm, so a permission from the bdsbmb would clearify the situation, permission should read like Commons:Email templates and send to Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I did not know the photo was uploaded by bdsbmb beforehand. But are they the true copyright owner just because they uploaded it to the web first? And I can also bring the permission of the person whose photo graph it is to wikipedia. Will Dr. Choudhury's permission suffice?--Smcbuet (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I assume you uploaded the image in good manner and belive that you are the photographer and copyright holder but following the page Commons:Permission also a copyright holder can be asked for confirmation if the image is published elsewhere under different copyrigth claims. Using an image somewhere does not give copyright, permission must come from the original owner - as you said yourself. Maybe you can explain how your work comes to bdsbmb website in you email, the email is handled confidentially by OTRS so you can give information I not ask you to write here on my talkpage where everyone can see them. --Martin H. (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Speedy delete text

After the last (accidental) edit by a (new) user, wouldn't it be better to have this widely used template protected or at least semi-blocked ? --Denniss (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guter Vorschlag, ich hatte mir nicht angeschaut welchen Zweck die Vorlage genau erfüllt sondern bin durch die Benutzerbeiträge darauf gestossen. In der Tat ist sie die Basis-Vorlage für die Speedydelete-Vorlagen, daher zu schützen. Vielen Dank, --Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this right?

I've added some information, though I don't know whether it is what you want. Editing is not my speciality.

Link:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emerphoto.JPG#Summary

--SportingShooter06 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You changed the source and authorship to own work, thats correct if you are the photographer (author) and sole owner of all copyrights. Someone already doubt this and started a deletion discussion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emerphoto.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Escudo de Ciénaga de Oro

Can you help with File:Escudocienagadeoro.png and File:Escudocdeoro.png? The first one has an OTRS ticket. Which is the problem? --V.Riullop (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I still strongly doubt that the uploader is the creator and therefore the copyright holder of this Logo, it might be the City who holds the copyright, but ok, I oversaw the OTRS ticket. Therefore removed the problem tag. --Martin H. (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, I can not be sure at all. It is hard to know when a coat of arms is an own work or a derivative one. From the OTRS ticket I can only trust the user who declares that he has made it himself with Adobe Illustrator. Perhaps it is a problem of many coat of arms. --V.Riullop (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the creator or origin is often unclear, however it is no problems in countries where the copyright status of COAs was already clearified per discussion - thats regretably not the case for most latin american countries. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind not deleting photos that were JUST uploaded?

Seriously, 1 minute ago? People need time to get the licensing information added at least, among other things. This is ridiculous. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you delete every one of my images that I JUST uploaded, excluding one which you tagged, then you really just wasted an hour of my life and I do not appreciate it. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
First: 20 minutes later, not one. Second: I gave you an info on your talkpage. Commons dont need scaled down versions. --Martin H. (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll stop assuming what a user is actually trying to accomplish before deleting all of their files. The images were cropped for excess height. If you want to correct the situation, then fix it. It was frustrating as hell to even upload the files - do you really have to piss off people even more here? Cyborg Ninja (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I already did so. --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It has taken a special amount of courtesy for me not to go any further with this. You did not restore the files. Instead, you edited my sandbox page, even though I explicitly told you I already knew about how to make thumbnails. Considering I have hundreds of edits over several years, what you did is condescending. You edited a private sandbox that was not linked anywhere else. I suggest you fix the situation and stop fooling around. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will add again - the images do not have the same aspect ratio and they were cropped by me to be standardized. They were not even used in an actual article, but a private sandbox. I think that what your response here would look quite bad to Wikipedia's administration. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
a 85px version is not useful for use outside an "infobox"
a 85px version is not useful for use outside an "infobox"
hi Ninja, one day later I excuse for my quick action, however the deletion is justified as the images are scaled down duplicates - no need for downscaling as you can thumbnail images to every size and also external users can download every size of an image smaller than the original (20px 50px 78px original). If you really need images in a special ration or cropped on some sides you should upload them in best quality - not low quality thumbnail versions with 85px - and you should use the "derivative work of a file from Commons" in Commons:Upload. As same as Wikipedia is interested in good quality of text Commons is interested in quality of files. It seems like you created the 85px size especially for the thumbnail in this infobox, a 85px thumbnail is useless for e.g. an portrait in the persons article or other purposes because of the small size. My edit was intended to help you, I think that's the purpose of a collaborative project. As said above: You can upload modified versions, but please in a good quality. Maybe you like to create "File:Albert Einstein, 3-2 aspect ratio portrait.jpg" or something like this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'd like the picturebox to look like this: [1]. A dozen images of no uniform size? You apologize and yet did not correct the situation. Wikipedia is not interested in cracking down on 22kb images that are not used in actual articles! Oh and btw, I did use "derivative work of a file from a Wiki project. In fact, I used it for ALL of the files I uploaded. I have told you SEVERAL TIMES that I already know how to thumbnail an image. In fact, you could clearly see that on my sandbox page! It's right there, eight times, where I put "80px" to downscale the images further. Did that not register with you? Again, you gave me barely any time to correct any problems that arose: literally a few minutes before you deleted the files. I am shaking my head right now. You are standing on such weak ground right now. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I noted your 80px, and I really wondered why you created an 85px image to thumbnail it to 80px instead of simply creating a quality version and thumbnail it to 80px - means cropped versions of the required aspect ratio and a standardized portrait size in a useful, the best available, quality. Best quality for Wikipedia but Commons only serves the purpose and no one cares?? Or simply create something that is collected on Commons as "ethnic group collages". --Martin H. (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hevert Arzneimittel

Hello, revising new pages I've found this page but google translate isn't working for me today. I suspect it is an off-topic page but I'm not sure. Since you speak German; can you please review it?. Thank you. Cordially, — df|  10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was promotional spam for a drug store - also out of scope as an article and not a gallery. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, however, Herbythyme deleted it few minutes after this message was posted. Sorry for the double work and best regards. — df|  17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Licencia de 3 fotografías

Así:

- José Arbiol Sanz -a la derecha- en una fotografía tomada en los años 50.JPG

- José Arbiol Sanz -2-.JPG

- Antonio Bielsa Alegre como proyeccionista de cine en una fotografía tomada en los años 60.jpg

Se hace constar que el autor de las mismas (de nombre Mariano Arbiol Bernad), todavía en activo aunque jubilado tras el cierre de su laboratorio Foto Calanda en los años 1980, acepta la licencia tras previa notificación de la misma. Para un contacto con el autor, enviar comunicado al correo de la hija: [email protected]

--Sacha Delton (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Por favor envía un e-mail con una copia del permiso a OTRS ([email protected]). --Martin H. (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


¿La copia del permiso debe ser un escrito de puño y letra del autor o la licencia fotográfica del mismo en sus años de fotógrafo? --Sacha Delton (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand correctly. Mirar Commons:Modelos de mensajes para un ejemplo. --Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text removed* --Sacha Delton (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

*Please forward your permission to OTRS - not me. --Martin H. (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

SAT1932CU images

Hello Martin,

Thank you for making revisions and comments on my images. As you can probably tell I am new to this and I need all of the help that I can get! I have added categories to the images that you tagged. If you wouldn't mind checking those to be sure I did them correctly I would really appreciate it. You deleted my image FirstmarkCU 2008AnnualReport.pdf. I understand that I put it in the wrong location. Would you suggest my putting it in WikiSource?

Thanks again for your assistance! SAT1932CU (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct place for a companies actual annual report is the section "Investor relations" on the companies website but not a Wikimedia free knowledge project. For Wikipedia this report is maybe an external reference.
Second I think the copyright on the report belongs to the company.I can guess that you are acting on behalf of that company but I'm not sure, a Commons:Permission for some of your uploads would be good.
Third I guess, that the images used inside this report, specially the images of oaks, are licensed from a stock photograph distributor. Licenses from image distributors are typically non-transferable, therefore the company is not able to publish their report in whole under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{GFDL}} (the selected licenses) as the report in whole is not free of third party copyright. Assumable the copyright holder of the photographs gave permission to reuse the images in the report, but he not gave permission to the mentioned licenses allowing unrestricted free reuse by everyone for every purpose including modification and commercial reuse. So the pdf is not only outside our scope but also questionable in permission and questionable in third party copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

About Big Show and Chris Jericho's image

Ok, thanks for giving me the comment. I think I'm gonna erase your comment, but I agree your decision and I think you made a good job making that--Black jorge24 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mail

Did you get it ? :) --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and answered now. --Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

for your attention and then transclude, thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did so, thanks for your trust. --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Heinrich_Jöckl.JPG

Not my image, i just cleaned it up. rather indifferent to its deletion. thanks EraserGirl (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I informed the original uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not covered by PD-CzechGov

My images comply with following: "Chamber of Deputies and Senate publications". Please restore the "no_license".

File:Vladimír_Špidla.jpg complied with "an official work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register and the collection of its records, and also" - the eu2009.cz is copyrighted to "Úřad vlády České republiky", which is the main govermental body of CZ, which means it goes PD by this.--Kozuch (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. A photograph in a multimedia gallery is not an official work, legal regulation, decision, public charter, register or collection or a record of such an document. --Martin H. (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The website itself says:

Digital photographs in print quality are stored in the photo archive where they are sorted in different galleries according to event and month. All photographs from the events can be accessed, downloaded and used free of charge for non-commercial purposes only (including the media).
Each photo taken by the Presidency photographers must be published with indication of its source eu2009.cz. To download a photograph, just right-click on the photo and select “Save picture”. An even easier solution is to click on “Download in print quality” under the detailed version of each photograph.
The Office of the Government of the Czech Republic is not the copyright holder for the commercial use of photographs taken by the Presidency photographers. All rights to these photographs are governed by Act No. 121/2000 Coll., the Copyright Act.

So the case is absolutely clear for the eu2009.cz image. --Martin H. (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong at least on the Senate images - senate website is clearly a "Senate publication":

--Kozuch (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But a photo is not an official document according to the law. Thats also quite obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you show some evidence?--Kozuch (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph in the law exempts copyright for works that are of public interest and where a copyright protection is bad - such as copyright on laws, copyright on governmental decisions, copyright on official symbols. Is it of public interest to oust the photographers rights? No, it is not. The same is for nearly all other PD-government licenses. Photographs are not justifiable official documents with a valid public interest. Argumentations like "people should know how this politician is looking" or "its a historic event" not describe a valid public interest. A valid interest is that it is not possible to create legal relations without having the text of laws in the public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think we both have our truth. It is correct I mixed more issues together - the eu2009.cz photo, the Senate photos and few more. But let us talk about the "Senate publications" point now. I partially agree with your above comment - laws/bills, their proposals and other TEXT documents clearly do qualify for the PD status. Howerver, not all PD-govs are same - in this case the Czech Copyright Act clearly lists cases where any stuff goes PD (which means text, photos, audio, video etc.). One of this clearly listed cases is "Senate publication". Of course, in the last point it says "and OTHERS such works", which does not say "Senate publication" has to be implicitly perceived to be of public interest, because it is already listed above.--Kozuch (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Some debate about whether official photographs of Czech MPs are PD-CzechGov or not, was held at cs:Wikipedie diskuse:WikiProjekt Autorské právo/Díla vyjmutá z autorskoprávní ochrany, with no definite result. (More generally, you really do need to exercise a bit more restraint with PD-CzechGov; I have no idea why a photograph by the SŽDC company should be PD-CzechGov.) --Mormegil (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was unsure about this image and one other image from the central bank if they are government work. I adopted the uploaders opinion. The discussion is realy hard to find, both answers share the that a work must be of public interest. I only rechecked w:cs:Šablona:PD-CzechGov to make sure that there was no discussion saying otherwise on cs.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
So I see no clear result on the Senate photos here...--Kozuch (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Senate publications" (in Czech "senátní publikace") is a technical term. It is defined in law No. 107/1999, § 149, section 1. Senate publications are supporting documents for senate proceedings or stenographer records of senate sessions. Images on senate website are not senate publications according to the law. --Beren (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User Diego quintana88

I have marked some images from this user as copyvio: User talk:Diego quintana88 (he uses to blank his discussion page). I really can not trust any of his uploads. As you have previosly dealt with some problems with his user, can you check all his uploads? --V.Riullop (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good work, I knew that this images are not his own images, I already bookmarked him. Now blocked, all uploads will be deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Goofy

Thanks for catching and fixing my goof at the VP! Lupo 08:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerne geschehen :) --Martin H. (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor's summary: Please send a permission for File:Djetcha_Haltura_Raschi_Pack_Buran_tête_b.jpg to OTRS

I AM the author of this picture and I don't need à permission to publish it on the wiki. :-)))) - Best regards - Doumouchka (Design Madeleine)--Doumouchka (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_10&oldid=26854688"