User talk:Martin H./Archive 17

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

Page was archived on April 1. See the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing uploaded images

Hi Martin. After uploading (many) images LIKE THIS HERE TO HERE, I learned to change the backgrounds to clear/white. Is it possible to edit the uploaded images with an external image editor, like IrfanView, and gradually convert them? The images are categorized by volume and the file names indicate the project, the volume, the page number, and the figure number, if any. Ineuw talk page on en.ws 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, you can make the background color transparent, but I dont know what software is the best to use. Maybe someone with graphic abilities can help you (graphic lab e.g.). --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 15:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I tried finding an answer in Help here, on Mediwiki, on Wikipedia, and I have no luck. I have the software and it works fine, but it's the plugin configuration I can't configure properly. Perhaps you can recommend me someone who is knowledgeable in helping to configure Wikimedia commons to edit images? Here is the link to my post in the graphics help: Commons:Graphics_village_pump#Cannot_configure_external_editor Thank you, Ineuw talk page on en.ws 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Sztojaydome.jpg

This image created between 1935 and 1937, when Sztójay served as military attaché in Berlin. So, the image is older than 70 years. The author is unknown, you can find the image on the webpage of www.holokausztmagyarorszagon.hu. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And what reference do you have, that the author is unknown? What research did you do? I can only say, that the same image was already deleted because NO research was done and the copyright status is completely unclear. see log on en.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • [1], there is no copyright status and this image also uploaded to the Hungarian Wikipedia: [2] --Norden1990 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The hu.wp has a different regulation on portrati photographs. The image must come from a print, the photo was not "born" on that website. Ask the website operator where it is from and who is the owner of the original negatives. Assuming: "No author mentioned on some random website = unknown" is not ok. --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How to get my legitimate pictures up

Hello Martin, A few weeks ago, you suspended my account for one month accusing me of posting copyrighted photos. You were right about that instance, but you also went and deleted two other photos I had earlier posted which were completely legitimate. Those two photos had been approved by Wikimedia previously. They are original works by a friend of mine, and he gave me permission to post them on Flickr under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike and Wikimedia. How can I get them up on Wikimedia again? Can I email them to you for you to look at them? I don't have a Wikipedia email account because I forgot to enable the email feature. Could you kindly email me at miles_of_aisles @ yahoo.com (REMOVE THE SPACES) so that I can send you the photos? Thanks.Woodsman18 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I cant found "two" images. All images where uploaded with wrong author and source information ("own work") you later tried to launder the stolen images through flickr. I will not upload anything on your behalf, read Commons:First steps and make sure, that you not upload other peoples work without having their written permission on free reuse (free= free to reuse by everyone, any time, everywhere, for any purpose inclduing commercial purposes or modification under the terms of a free license). --Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bok.jpg

Hello Martin,

Could you delete this file: Bok.jpg because I imported this image on commons without the permission of the author.

Thanks.--Hippolyte44 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"File:Корягин Петр Корнилович.jpg"

Здравствуйте, Мартин. Фото "File:Корягин Петр Корнилович.jpg" есть собственность семьи. Фото из семейного альбома, сделано по заказу. Права принадлежат не фотографу а лицу, изображенному на фотографии. В данном случае его наследнику - сыну. Сын, Корягин Анатолий Петрович предоставил мне, Гусеву Юрию это изображение специально для размещения в Википедии. Я, как участник Википедии гарантирую, что в данном случае авторские права не нарушены. С уважением, Юрий Гусев.

Guten Tag, der Martin. Das Foto "File:Корягин Pjotr ist das Eigentum der Familie Корнилович.jpg". Das Foto aus dem familiären Album, es ist auftragsgemäß gemacht. Die Rechte gehören nicht dem Fotografen und der Person, die auf den Fotografien dargestellt ist. In diesem Fall seinem Erben - dem Sohn. Der Sohn, Korjagin Anatolij Petrowitsch hat mir, Gussewu Jurij diese Darstellung speziell für die Unterbringung in Wikipedia gewährt. Ich garantiere, wie der Teilnehmer Wikipedia, dass in diesem Fall die Urheberrechte nicht verletzt sind. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Jurij Gussew.Юрий Гусев (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Robot translation? So Im going to answer in english as the translation Russian->German in google translation leads to mistakes. If the copyright holder gave you permission please forward this permission to OTRS. Note however, that a permission for use "in Wikipedia" is not enough. --Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jumamuba sock?

Anthonio212 (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Bogota 25a.PNG, which is a repost of Jumamuba's image deleted per deletion discussion as a copyvio. It is in PNG rather than BMP format though. I am sorry if this turns out not to be the case (as you suspected with Mbs1 (talk · contribs)), but there seems to be a pattern of sock/meat-puppetry (differences in file naming, as with Mbs1, suggests that the uploader might be a different person). Does he look like a duck to you (not asking for CheckUser)? PleaseStand (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is possile that he toke the same image from another website after searching for Bogota (e.g. a mirror of Commons that hosts this non-free montage). Its also possible that it is sockpuppetry, but then it is some strange case of longtime abuse given the account creation ~1 year ago. In all cases, all other images are copyvios too, see the filenames, see the 500px image, I will mark some soon. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the evidence from the montage I checked that user, the technical evidence is not clear at all, its also possible that he toke the montage from elsewhere - so no clear evidence. However, one more copyvio and he will be blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete!

Hello Martin! You could delete this image? Why is it being used constantly by User Paul Hip Hop. Truu (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Dont know, but it is not the first time that users from Brazil upload non-free images of pt:Beyoncé Knowles. --Martin H. (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Alina123

Hallo Martin! Kannst du mal einen Blick auf die Bilder werfen. Die sind alle von der HP des Unternehmens, viele noch mit (C) versehen, und alle wurde von der Benutzerin nach CC lizensiert, obwohl nicht zu erkennen ist, ob sie dazu berechtigt ist. Viele Grüße!--Johnny Controletti (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ein Fall für Commons:Permission und {{subst:npd}} (dt: schriftliche Freigabe erforderlich). Wie auch immer, wenn de:KOCHS GmbH gelöscht wird, würde ich die Uploads als Inhalte mit rein werblichem Charakter auch schnelllöschen. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Könntest du das in die Wege leiten?Johnny Controletti (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich hab da nichts mehr gemacht, auf die Bilder haben sich schon genug andere gestürtzt. --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Julian assange.jpg

Hello,

you signalled File:Julian assange.jpg as lacking permissions [5], but the file seems to have had the Cc-by licence at the time. Could you clarify? Thank you very much in advance. Rama (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at File talk:Julian assange.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New sock

Checked and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:17.4.1921.jpg

Hi, this photo was scanned from the library of congress and I don't have the original photographer. however since 89 years past, there seems to be no issue with copy rights. what do you say? Shamira (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Any reference? What collection, archival reference numbers? Commons hosts some ~20,000 images from the LoC, the LoC itself has how many million of items? So saying "source=Library of Congress" is no source at all because it absolutely not allows to find the image at the LoC. The saying, that it is from the U.S. News & World Report is obviously wrong. -Martin H. (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
ok, give me plz few days to check and update. Shamira (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip on how to wikilink. Tango7174 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Category:Portrait photographs of men

Hi Martin! Why did you remove the "Category:Portrait photographs of men" in the Files File:SBFellows.jpg, File:Calle.png, and File:Asassel1.jpg? regards, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Weil die Bilder mit Portraitfotografie nichts zu tun haben. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Und kannst Du dann vielleicht auch noch "Portraitfotografie" definieren und möglichst in der Kategorie selbst, damit man auch weiß, was zumindest Du Dir darunter vorstellst? --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Ist das notwendig? Ich denke nicht. Das sind Bilder von Benutzer die diese auf ihren Benutzerseiten haben möchten und zu diesem Zwecke hier hochladen müssen und unter eine freie Lizenz stellen. Weder ist klar, ob die Benutzer die Bilder in den content-Kategorien haben möchten, noch ist klar, ob die Bilder den Qualitätsansprüchen der content-Kategorien genügen bzw. dort irgendeinen Mehrwehrt schaffen. Zumindest eins von beidem sollte offensichtlich erfüllt sein, z.B. ein Benutzerwunsch die Sichtbarkeit seines Profilbilds derart zu erhöhen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Du schreibst selbst: "Weder ist klar, ob die Benutzer die Bilder in den content-Kategorien haben möchten, noch ist klar, ob die Bilder den Qualitätsansprüchen der content-Kategorien genügen bzw. dort irgendeinen Mehrwehrt schaffen". Ich finde auch, dass das nicht klar ist, und deshalb bin ich mit den Bildern wie mit allen anderen verfahren. Ich finde, Du solltest Deine Meinung, wenn Du bei ihr bleibst, in der Kategorie kundtun und sie damit nicht nur verallgemeinern, sondern auch kritisierbar machen. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, da der Benutzerwunsch nicht gegeben ist (und qualität auch nicht), ist es völlig ausreichend wenn die Bilder mit Category:User page images kategorisiert sind. Es braucht keine weitere Kategorie. Die Bilder werden hier geduldet entsprechend COM:PS#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project, aber sie haben mit unserem content nichts zu tun, also gehören sie auch nicht in die Kategorien. --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Da bin ich anderer Meinung. Die Relevanz eines Bildes für einen noch unbekannten Zweck lässt sich m.E. schlecht einschätzen. Und wenn doch, dann gäbe es in der Commons sicher einige hunderttausend Bilder, die keine User darstellen und trotzdem entweder von geringer fotografischer Qualität oder inhaltlicher Relevanz sind. Auch sie bleiben normalerweise ungelöscht, schon allein, weil es zu viel Arbeit macht, sie auszusortieren. Aber ich habe keine Probleme damit, trotz abweichender Meinung, Deine Ansichten zu berücksichtigen. So long, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

Hello. I'm Italian, so I hope I won't make mistakes writing in English. I just want to know why you've deleted the files File:Hilary_Duff_Olivia_Burke_Gossip_Girl.jpg and File:Hilary_Duff_Olivia_Burke.jpg.

Best regards, Lorenzo

For the reasons stated in the deletion summary and on your talkpage. This project is a free content project, this screengrabs are not free content. They are not released by the copyright holder for free reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial purpose. Or? --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Those files were just pictures from Flickr. I thought I was free to upload them on Wikipedia Commons. Maybe do I made mistakes about the license?
No, only if the flickr user is the sole creator (photographer or... film director in this case), the sole owner of all copyrights and if he published his work under one of the two free licenses available on flickr (cc-by or cc-by-sa). Please dont only use the flickr upload form but also read the instructions there. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Newbie question: picture change

Hi Martin,

ich uploaded my own work, a Bootshandel logo for the article de.wikipedia.com/bootshandel-magazin and send the asked sheet to [email protected]. After two days I realized that the logo was in cmyk instead of rbg. I uploaded a new version with the same name but it was not confirmed as current version yet. What do I have to do to let you (someone?) activate the rgb version?

Thanks a lot, Stefan

07.04.2010

Wenn du das alte Bild File:Bootshandel-Magazin Logo 2009.jpg überschrieben hast, dir aber immer noch nicht die richtige Version angezeigt wird, dann ist das ein Problem deines browser caches. Auf die Bildseite gehen und Strg+F5 drücken um browser cache zu aktualisieren. --Martin H. (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:LakatosG.jpg

I have a permission e-mail from the Vitézi Rend (where I found this image). What should I do?--Norden1990 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct the source information (author: hungary.....) and forward your written permission to OTRS. Permission must come from the owner of copyrights, permission must allow everyone to reuse the image for everything including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Please mark as patrolled

Hi Martin H.,
Thank you for helping fight vandalism on Commons. However, it is recommended to mark the bad edit as patrolled. The will remove the edit the unpatrolled queue and reduce our backlog, and thus prevents double work. See also Commons:Counter Vandalism Unit. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, is the license used on this picture compatible with wikicommons?? MaenK.A.Talk 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is licensed under the GFDL 1.2 which is a free license. For non-commercial purposes you can also use it under a creative commons license, see Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
don't we consider these license contradicted?? one is free and the other is not?? why to use the other license??. In general is this license compatible with wikicommons?? MaenK.A.Talk 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, NC is not compatlible with Commons. But you can add licenses for personal, non-commercial purposes as long as one license is free. See Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing, this is fulfilled here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mrinalini Sharma.gif

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Abutorsam007's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Dear Martin H.,

I am afraid that I cannot satisfy your requirements regarding proof of copyright for this photo. All I can say is that the photo is widely used in Mozambique (e.g., newspapers, magazines). I believe the original may be in the National Historical Archive. I created the photo file by scanning a copy of the photo which appeared in a Mozambican book about the life of Josina Machel. The authors of the book, which is cited in my contribution to this page, did not provide any attribution for the source of the photo. So I guess you will be forced to delete it, which is a pity since I have no other way of honoring the memory of this courageous young woman patriot of Mozambique Ralph terry (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Durch die Umstellung der Categories entstand ein wüstes Durcheinander!

Es ist viel Arbeit, alles wieder in Ordnung zu bringen! --GFHund (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Im grunde ist nicht viel geschehen, also wenn was durcheinander sein sollte wäre es schnell zu reparieren. Die Änderungen:
Category:Bilder Gerhard Hund -> Category:Gerhard Hund. Unnötige Kaskadierung.
Category:Photographer Gerhard Hund -> Category:Photographs by Gerhard Hund, entsprechend dem Namensschema solcher Kategorien.
Inhalt von Category:Photographs by Gerhard Hund auf Kategoriennamen verschoben, die den tatsächlichen Inhalt wiederspiegeln. Es handelt sich bei Category:Bilder Deutschland 2010 nicht um Bilder aus Deutschland 2010, siehe Category:2010 in Germany für die entsprechende Themenkategorie, sondern um Bilder die von einem Fotografen bzw. Benutzer in einem bestimmten Jahr an einem bestimmten Ort gemacht wurden, also um Category:Photographs by Gerhard Hund, Deutschland 2010.
--Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Better quality ABr

Thanks for reminding me. I always forget about that link there... I do feel a little frustrated now, specially considering that ABr is quick to delete old pictures these days. Missionary (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats realy ugly, they must store them forever! (ok, cant force them - but serious.) Also the restructuration of the website is a mess, cant the simply use links like "http://agenciabrasil.com.br/image/1234567890ab" or seomthing like that? I hate them ;) --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It used to be a great site for pictures. They had a great archive. Now we have to get those pics in less than 24 hours, else they vanish. Ridiculous, really. Missionary (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your work! --Martin H. (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

2 picture files of Greenpeace

Dear Martin,

I saw that you might have deleted the files Greenpeacedumpedcoal.jpg and Carfreeday2008-2.jpg I uploaded it to be used in the Greenpeace's wiki page in Thai (กรีนพีซ). I'm not the photographer or owner of the pictures, but I'm working a contract job with Greenpeace Southeast Asia in Thailand. I just wanted to make the page much more interesting. Could I use the 2 pictures, or do I have to choose some statements at the pictures' pages?

Thanks you, Kind regards, Niz

HR313 (talk · contribs)

Hallo Martin,
zur Kenntnis: User talk:HR313, falls du ihn dauerhaft sperren möchtest, nur zu. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mykee881211

Well, he didn't last too long as unblocked... Tabercil (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

_;) yes, sad. Maybe hes angry because you just deleted his image he uploaded and voted deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armani Simpson.jpg ;) --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Ramsey Images (Deleted?!)

Hello Martin,

Inthernar (me) is Dylan Ramsey, and I have the rights to my photographs to post them in my Wiki. If you need further proof of my identity email me at: [email protected]

Each photograph that I post in my profile is a work for hire that I have hired a photographer to work for me. Therefore I own the copyright.

So, as I appreciate you doing your job to ensure that everyone's rights are secured, you made a mistake in this case. Can you kindly return all the photographs that you have removed. Next time, please check with me before making changes. Sincerely,

Dylan Ramsey (aka: Inthernar)

Inthernar (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, after you first failed to upload your images you second tried to trick Commons with adding random author information and random OTRS tickets to images. See COM:OTRS/N#Special:Contributions.2FInthernar. So no. --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ARtiklen "Дилювий", "Скэбленд", удаление фотографий.

Прошу вернуть в статьи фотографии мои, илиопубли кованные с разрешением, которые имеется в обсуждении. Alles Gutes!--Heljqfy (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilder Schloss Sonnenstein (Benutzer Dresdenbell)

Hallo Martin, Benutzer Dresdenbell hat hier unter der Überschrift 2012 einige Computersimulationen des in Sanierung befindlichen Schloss Sonnenstein eingestellt. Nette Bilder, ich bezweifle aber, dass es dafür ein Freigaberecht gibt. Bilfinger Berger als Generalauftragnehmer der Sanierung verwendet in seiner Pressemitteilung dieses Bild mit dem Hinweis: "Foto: Bilfinger Berger". Benutzer Dresdenbell hat hingegen als Quelle sich selbst angegeben. Ich hatte Benutzer Dresdenbell vor einigen Tagen gebeten, die eingestellten Bilder hinsichtlich des Urhebers korrekt zu beschriften. Dies ist nicht passiert. Wie siehst du als commons-Admin die Sache ? Grüße, --Norbert Kaiser (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich teile deine Meinung. Bei den Bildern File:Burganlage Neues Landratsamt Pirna-Sonnenstein Nr.2.jpg (von dir genannt) sowie damit auch für alle anderen Uploads von ihm in Category:Schloss Sonnenstein welche aus dem gleichen Computerprogram zu stammen scheinen, besteht ausserhalb von Wikipedia eine Information, die auf ein abweichenden Urhererrechtsstatus hinweist und die Vermutung zulässt, dass die Angaben hier falsch sind. Das Prozedere auf Commons ist schwammig, da sowohl die Quelle falsch oder unvollständig zu sein scheint als auch die Freigabe fehlt können die Vorlage {{subst:nsd}} und {{subst:npd}} auf den Bildbeschreibungen angebracht werden. Bei Bedarf Begründung in die Edit-Zusammenfassung oder auf die Bilddiskussionsseite. Gleiches gilt für File:Residenzschloss-Dresden (Model).jpg und File:Residenzschloss Dresden (Model).jpg. Meine Interpretation: Dresdenbell ist recht offensichtlich eine Sockenpuppe von User:Kay Körner, der hatte es mit dem Urheberrecht und er ist leider eher unkooperativ. Wahrscheinlich hatte er irgendwie Zugriff auf diese Simulationssoftware und hat die Screenshots erstellt und stellt das ganze nun als seine Arbeit dar. Da er wahrscheinlich nicht der Rechteinhaber der Software ist, kann er auch die Screenshots nicht frei lizenzieren. --Martin H. (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

source of photo of Patricia M. Haslach

In response to your question, Pat Haslach's photo is the official State Department portrait posted on the Department of State webiste, www.state.gov. You can find it here: http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bios/91213.htm Since it is from the U.S. Government it is not subject to copyright restrictions (the Department of State is a Cabinet department of the U.S. Federal government). Amustard (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, thats source information - essential source information. --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please. :)

Mr. Martin, Can you please unblock my account? I will delete every file that i uploaded and will upload new photos that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. I'm sorry if i didn't read the rules. Please forgive me. bash 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)User:Baaash 18:36, 12 April 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.40.9 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Answered here –Krinkletalk 10:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thans Krinkle, the comment shows a basic understanding of Commons policy, so unblock is good. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Ok,I understand; Thanks;)

Deletion understood

I just checked Google images and found this. I am looking for female albinos or those with white hair. Sorry for the erroneous upload.Better than Hustler (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See the deletion request for that image. Category:People with Albinism. --Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GustavKraatz.jpg.

Bonsoir Martin,

  • Je ne sais pas comment argumenter la photographie de GustavKraatz.jpg. Elle date de plus de 101 ans. Il n’y a pas de copyright qui la couvre. Je suis naturaliste et j’essai d’honorer nos anciens, surtout si, comme Kraatz, ils le méritent.
  • I do not know how to argue photography GustavKraatz.jpg. It dates back over 101 years. There is no copyright which protects. I am a naturalist and I try to honor our elders, especially if, as Kraatz they deserve.

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote:
Date :11 April 2010
Source: Own work
Author: Didier Descouens
Non of this information is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

own work

Schlageter. My work was transferring this specific image after the request of his grandson, to be placed on his biograhy on internet. --Farkasven (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide written permission. And not only for use in his biography, but for usados por cualquiera en cualquier lugar. La reproducción total o parcial debe estar permitida. La publicación y redistribución debe estar permitida. La publicación de obras derivadas debe estar permitida. El uso comercial de la obra debe estar permitido. --Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi I saw your comment - and you might note also the various comment at docu talk page - I simply was going by the rename suggestion found with the rename tag originally - then in the confused (perhaps) conversation at docu talk page - i think that docu was suggesting the flickr id number - and I honestly objected - in my interpretation of the information that I checked so far - it seems that the enquiries i have since made offline suggests that some admins never remove any numbers found but simply add the extra description - to try to avoid something like the current issue at the elvissa images. I would appreciate any further comment - I simply see no functional usage in having what are potentially unhelpful numbers cluttering the names of files, - I would be very interested in others comments - seeing I havent been in this for very long so far. cheers SatuSuro (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly revert all my renames of elvissa images from what I have done - which was from all numbers to the suggested text - to something else if I can see some advice from a number of experienced re-namers - bearing in mind some offline have suggested leaving all the numbers and adding the text at the end of the title - if that will help resolve the issue - SatuSuro (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I didnt and I will not read through any discussion on this, I just talk on the particular image that I commented while visiting Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Media_requiring_renaming (I tried to work on the most recent request, thats the way I found that). In general I think differentiation of generic geographical names is a good idea. Docu preferes the number from flickr, which is imo just a meaningles number, I prefer the date. To prevent a dispute that I saw in the version history I added my preference for a date instead of a number to the file talk. If required please comment there, I will not participate in a general discussion about renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough - I can accept that, thanks for your honesty on the matter . cheers SatuSuro (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Find my paintings back !

Hi Martin

my three paintings have been deleted, i used them on Ignacio garate martinez's page. Yet, those 3 paintings (of freud, lacan and mannoni) are from my private collection, so i have all the rights to upload them on wikicommons. Can you help me to find them back, because i can't upload them again.

MaudMannoni.jpg JacquesLacan-EmilioZaldivar.jpg Freud-Zaldivar.jpg

thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelphea (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Physicall posession of a painting does not give you any copyrights. You must be the copyright holder, thats the painter or the heirs or you, if copyright was transfered to you in a written contract not on buying the painting but on transfering the copyright.
2) You where asked to provide written permission from the copyright holder, see your talkpage.
--Martin H. (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Militärkarte

Hi Martin, ich weiss nicht wie Du auf die Idee kommst, nach einer Einwilligung des sowjetischen Generalstabs für die Datei File:I-32 1-Mio 1970 CH.jpg zu fragen. Es gibt die Sowjetarmee nicht mehr, und demnach auch den Generalstab nicht mehr. Ich hoffe, das macht so für Dich Sinn. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Trotzdem besteht ein Urheberrecht, entweder ist die Karte ein "orphaned work", dann Pech, ansonsten gibt es einen Rechtsnachfolger. Auf jeden Fall ist es nicht ohne Grund gemeinfrei, siehe Commons:Licensing#Russia and former Soviet Union für die Bedingungen. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Es gibt keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Darum sind alle alten Generalstabskarten auf diversen russischen Internetservern frei zugänglich. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Frei zugänglich heist nicht frei. Welche Situation in Commons:Licensing ist anwendbar, warum ist die Karte nach dem Gesetz nicht mehr urheberrechtlich geschützt? --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Weil es die herausgebende Behörde nicht mehr gibt. Seit bald 20 Jahren. Denkst Du die Server wären in Russland alle noch am Netz, wenn die Karten der heutigen Armee gehören würden? --Allesmüller (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Das hat trotzdem immernoch keinen Einfluss auf das Urheberrecht. Siehe z.B. Template_talk:PD-Soviet#.22No_one_will_ever_sue_us.22, Lupo erklärt die Angelegenheit dort zutreffend. --Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Rechte kann nur ein Inhaber haben. M.a.W. wenn dort richtig steht, nur noch 50 Jahre nach Publikation habe der sowjetische Generalstab die Rechte an der Karte, es ihn aber gar nicht mehr gibt... den Rest kannst Du sicher selber folgern. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So ist es nunmal, ich kann es auch nicht ändern. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Willst Du damit sagen, dass Du begriffen hast, dass niemand mehr Rechte an der Karte hat? (=Public Domain) --Allesmüller (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, damit will ich sagen, dass die Karte NICHT gemeinfrei ist, auch wenn das schwer zu glauben sein mag. --Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha, und wem gehört sie denn? --Allesmüller (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Na, dem Urheber oder eben dem Rechteinhaber. --Martin H. (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Du bist lustig. Die Diskussion kann nun am Anfang dieses Abschnittes weitergehen. Und immer weiter. Weil es den Urheber eben nicht mehr gibt. --Allesmüller (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ja, und genau das kann ich nicht Ändern. Es ist nunmal einfach so, es macht ein Werk aber nicht frei im Sinne von free content. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Bitte hör auf hier herumzutrollen. Es gibt keinen Rechteinhaber mehr. Es ist PD. --Allesmüller (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Entschuldigung wenn ich mal deutlich werde. Den Begriff Extremzeitraubing kennst Du? Ich habe, meiner Meinung nach in allgemeinverständlichen, einfach formulierten und kurzgehaltenen deutschen Sätzen versucht, Dir mitzuteilen, dass niemand mehr Rechte an dieser Karte hat. --Allesmüller (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe gleiches Versucht. Das Urhebererrecht erlischt nicht mit der Auflösung des Rechteinhabers. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Rechte ist etwas, das jemand hat. Wenn es diesen jemand nicht mehr gibt (und im vorliegenden Fall auch keine Erben, Rechtsnachfolger usw.), dann erlöschen die Rechte. Und wenn ich mal ganz abstrus weit denke, hier kannst Du nicht mal ein "postmortales Persönlichkeitsrecht der UdSSR an ihrem Bild" geltend machen, denn die Karte ist von Westeuropa. Capiche? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Es ist das Urheberrecht anwendbar, nicht der Menschenverstand. Weise deine Aussage mit dem Urherrecht der Sowjetunion und Russlands nach. Ansonsten gilt dass, was in COM:L zu Russland steht. --Martin H. (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Das gilt generell, nicht nur in der Sowjetunion. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Das ist absoluter Unfug. --Martin H. (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In der Tat. Da bin ich froh dass Du es begriffen hast. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, deine Aussage ist Unsinn! 'Das gilt generell, nicht nur in der Sowjetunion' - Bullshit. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wenn die Rechte niemand hat, hat niemand die Rechte. Schönen Abend. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

..und selbst wenn es den Inhaber der Rechte noch geben würde, hätte er keine, weil amtliche Dokumente in Russland (Militärkarten gehören dazu) keinem Copyright unterliegen, vgl. Art. 1259 Ziff. 6 al. 1 BGB Russland. --Allesmüller (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eine neue, falsche Aussage die im übrigen in COM:L erfasst ist als Gesetzestexte, Gerichtliche Entscheidungen, offizielle Dokumente und deren Übersetzungen. Diese sind frei, weil ein etwaiger Urheberrechtsschutz den freien Rechtsverkehr und die Anwendung von z.B. Gesetzen behindern würde und damit dem Gemeinwohl im wege stünde. Die Interpretation ist eng auszulegen und nur auf Dokumente anzuwenden, bei denen ein solches Interesse besteht. So ist es auch in Deutschland, wo Gesetze, Verordnungen und Dergleichen, Gerichtsurteile sowie Symbole des Staates und z.B. auch Briefmarken vom Urheberrecht ausgenommen sind. --Martin H. (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Du hast diese Privatauslegung auch bei den beiden Löschdiskussionen reingeschrieben. Der Gesetzestext ist aber eindeutig. Was bringt Dich auf die Idee, dass eine Militärkarte kein offizielles Dokument ist? Im von mir zitierten Gesetzestext steht nichts dergleichen. Es hilft beim Verständnis eines russischen Gesetzes, wenn man russisch versteht. --Allesmüller (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Chace Watson

I think our favorite Corbin Bleu lovin' sockpuppeteer has reappeared, as User:Usa Girls. I've knocked out two images as clear copyvios from WireImage, but I can't conclusively prove that at least one other is from there as well (one copyvio could be chance, two could be a coincidence but three makes it a clear pattern). Unfortunately I have to head off to work in a few otherwise I'd keep looking and find that third copyvio, but could you do some looking and finish the job off? Tabercil (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost obviously a sock. You may download File:Corbin Bleu Reivers.jpg and have a closer look at the file, thats number 3. I will make use of the checkuse tools to make sure that no mistake happens with blocking. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

about Yadollah_Sahabi_p.jpg

hi martin why you want delete this picture? this photo was taked more than 30 years ago in iran have a premission i saved this photo from mizan newspaper page in facebook --Arashk rp2 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See the deletion request. 'Taken more than 30 years ago' is completely irrelevant, the reuquirement is 'published more than 30 years ago'. That publications requires a source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Darma2.jpg

Hi Martin, Thanks for your note on the potential issues with the Darma2.jpg file I uploaded. After researching, I thought I was ok uploading it based on the "fair use" policy, which is why I documented that in my posting. You noted that English Wikipedia allows fair use, but Commons doesn't. Can you shed some light on how I could upload the file (if it is appropriate) to the English Wikipedia...or how else I can use the phote, while ensuring I am not breaking any rules. Westsidebill (talk)Thanks, Bill - 04/14/10~~

Im not familiar with fair use on en.wp, you may start reading at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Outside this limited exemption of fair use you can not make use of the image on Wikimedia projects as this are free content projects. --Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kannst du mal ...

... bitte auf File:SocAnoOkNe.jpg bzw. Commons:Deletion requests/File:SocAnoOkNe.jpg kurz schaeun, ob was zu retten ist? Danke im Voraus und noch viel Spaß heute, Gruß -jkb- (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

  • Ich sehe nichts, dass mich überzeugen würde:
- ineligible: klares Nein.
- Urheber unbekannt oder nicht ermittelbar: kein Argument, COM:PRP
- Urheber unbekannt und Urheberrecht (unter dieser Annahme) abgelaufen: Ebenfalls nicht laut Löschdikussion.
Für mich ein Foto eines geschützten Werkes. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Habe vielen Dank, etwas geklärt hat es sich auf de.wiki (im gleichen Sinne mit dem Unterschied, dass man es da evtl. dulden kann). Viele Grüße, -jkb- (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:C-130 60528 Texas.JPG

Was willst Du? Es gab 1958 noch keine Website. Larry Tart ist zitiert im Artikel, der das Bild verwendet. --Allesmüller (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Eine Quelle muss keine Webseite sein. Das ist hier Wikimedia Commons, ich sehe keinen Artikel der das Bild verwendet. Ferner ist die Lizenz unsinn, da sie auf das Ursprungsland nicht passt. Bitte eine korrekte Lizenz die das passende Kriterium in COM:L erfüllt auswählen. --Martin H. (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Welche Lizenz passt nicht (warum nicht) auf welches Ursprungsland??? Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum Du nicht siehst welcher Artikel das Bild verwendet. Ich sehe es. Es ist de:Abschuss einer Hercules über Armenien. Zum Vorfall gibt es ein Buch. Das steht im Artikel. Der Autor dieses Buches war in der USAF und hat für mich das Bild organisiert, damit ich es hochladen kann. Wenn Du ihn nicht kennst, erstaunt das niemanden, aber es gibt ihn. --Allesmüller (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Dann trage bitte die Quelle hier auf Commons ein. Commons ist nicht Wikipedia. Wenn jemand ein Buch schreiben möchte über das Erigniss und auf Commons nach Bildern sucht dann braucht er vollständige informationen. Das Ursprungsland ist das Land, in dem ein Werk zuerst veröffentlicht wurde oder das Heimatland des Urhebers. Es ist das Urheberrecht des Ursprungslands anzuwenden und das Urheberrecht der USA da der Server auf dem das Bild liegt in den USA steht. In beiden Ländern muss das Bild gemeinfrei sein. Siehe Commons:Licensing. Dazu ist ein Nachweis zu führen. Weder ist das Bild vom Urheber unter cc-by veröffentlicht, wie du behauptest, noch ist nachgewiesen, dass es aus einem Land stammt, in dem Bilder nach 50 Jahren automatisch in die Gemeinfreihet fallen. --Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Eingetragen hatte ich, du hast wieder revertiert. Ich such mal die Stelle, wo man Vandalismus auf Commons melden kann. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Gleiches gilt für andere Bilder. File:Manuel Saitzew.jpg ist wohl nicht "own work" und ferner gilt in der Schweiz, dass etwas 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers gemeinfrei wird, nicht 50 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung. Das Archiv sagt zudem kein Wort von cc-by. --Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Bitte schreib so, dass man Dich auch versteht. Was ist cc-by, was willst Du? Dass das Bild in SH im Archiv liegt, heisst noch lange nichts über die Urheberschaft, weder der ursprünglichen Fotographie noch einer Reproduktion derselben. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
CC-by heist Creative Commons Attribution, eine Lizenz, eine freie Lizenz, die jedem die Weiternutzung gestattet zu jedem Zweck einschließlich kommerzieller Zwecke solange der Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte (own work, also du) in der Nähe des Bildes genannt wird. --Martin H. (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Und wie soll es sein, damit Du friedlich wirst? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Der richtige Fotograf ist genannt, der Fotograf ist entweder seit 70 Jahren tot oder er hat seine schriftliche Genehmigung zur freien Lizenz gegeben. Siehe auch Commons:First steps/License selection. --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Du redest hier doch von Saitzew?? Warum machst Du meine Quellenangabe bei der Hercules-Fotografie immer rückgängig?? Mit der Begründung, es fehle eine Quellenangabe, entfernst Du die Quellenangabe! --Allesmüller (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe die Quelle jetzt deinen Angaben folgend vervollständigt. --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Kannst Du lesen? Habe ich gesagt es kommt aus dem Buch?? Oder habe ich gesagt es kommt von der US AIr Force und der Autor des Buches hat es mir überreicht? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe die Angabe des Buches entsprechend deines verweises auf den Artikel - der nicht ausreichend ist als Quelle - ergänzt, da du dazu scheinbar nicht in der Lage warst und davon ausgehst, dass "Larry Tart" eine Quellenangabe ist. Es fehlt die Freigabe, gemeinfrei ist das Bild nicht. Wenn das Buch nicht die Quelle ist, dann schreib was die Quelle ist richtig auf. Larry Tart ist keine Quellenangabe. --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Das Bild kommt NICHT aus dem Buch. Das Bild kommt von der Luftwaffe der Vereinigten Staaten. Und ist darum gemeinfrei. Kannst Du mich vielleicht jetzt in Ruhe lassen, BITTE? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Du hast zuerst geschrieben, es sei "anonym", also bleibe ich bei der Information. Wenn es von der Air Force ist, so weise das bitte nach - COM:OTRS sobald du die information von der Air Force hast. --Martin H. (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Natürlich ist es anonym im Sinne dass der Name des Fotografen von 1958 nicht mehr bekannt ist. Den Namen des Unteroffiziers der Airforce, der es mir übergeben hat, ist dir bekannt. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Dann schicke seine Informationen zu COM:OTRS, wenn er versichert, dass es ein Angestellter der Air Force wärend als Teil seiner dienstlichen Pflichten erstellt hat, mag das Korrekt sein. Ansonsten kannst du die Richtigkeit auch mit einer anderweitigen Publikation nachweisen. Generell: Arbeite mit vollständigen Quellenangaben, gib die richtigen Autoren an und wähle nicht irgendwelche willkürlichen Lizenzbausteine aus die entweder nicht zutreffend sind oder zu denen der Urheber nicht zugestimmt hat. In diesem Fall hast du einfach einen von jeder Sorte ausgefällt, was soll das! --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, ich verstehe Deine Sätze nicht. Bitte nochmals auf Deutsch. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Erbringe einen schriftlichen Nachweis, eine Bestätigung von Tart oder einen Verweis auf eine AF Veröffentlichung, der bestätigt, dass das Bild von einem Angestellten der AF als Teil seiner Arbeit (nicht in seiner Freizeit) erstellt wurde. Sende den Nachweis an COM:OTRS oder führe die Publikation als Quelle auf. Füge keine unsinnigen Lizenzbausteine hinzu die mit der Realität nichts zu tun haben. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha, danke. Bis auf die "unsinnigen Lizenzbausteine" kann ich Dir jetzt folgen. Und was unterscheidet eine Bestätigung des L. Tart von einer Bestätigung durch mich? --Allesmüller (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
1) Sie ist schriftlich und stammt von einer Quelle ausserhalb der Wikimedia-Projekte 2) Du hast das Bild nicht vom Fotografen erhalten und bist weder qualifiziert eine Aussage darüber zu treffen wo das Bild herkommt, noch wer es erstellt hat[haben könnte], und noch viel weniger eine verbindliche Aussage zu treffen wie der urheberrechtliche Status sein könnte. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Deine Lizenzbausteine sind Unsinn da 1) {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} eine Lizenz ist, die der schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers bedarf, wenn der Rechteinhabe nichtmal bekannt ist... nungut. 2) {{Anonymous work}} in Einklang stehen muss mit Commons:Licensing, was hier mit den US, siehe auch Commons:Hirtle Chart absolut nicht der Fall ist, der Lizenzbaustein ist also aus offensichtlichen Gründen falsch und nicht zu wählen, und das sagt er sogar selber. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich weiss nicht was wer "sogar selber sagt", anyhow das OTRS kriegt eine E-Mail von L.H., auch wenn dieses Vorgehen absolut unüblich ist (lies mal was dort steht, wie man mit OTRS umgehen soll). Und bis dahin, bitte verschone mich mit weiteren neunmalklugen Aktionen in der Art wie gehabt. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

E-Mail vor drei Stunden an OTRS rausgegangen. --Allesmüller (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kannst Du bitte veranlassen, dass das Bild jetzt freigegeben wird? --Allesmüller (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Cabinda map-fr.svg‎

Thank you for renaming and correcting my mistakes on Cabinda map-fr.svg‎ – it was indeed Cabinda and not Angola. --Pethrus (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, I was unsure if you wanted that or not. --Martin H. (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Schülerlabor

Hallo Martin, Ich bin neu hier und ausschließlich für die Seite des Bayer Schülerlabors zuständig. Kannst du mir vielleicht in ein paar Dingen helfen? Zum einen wäre da das Löschen der online gestellten Bilder. Wir haben zwar die Rechte aber es ist schwieriger als erwartet, diese zu belegen und würden deshalb nun gerne andere verwenden. Könntest du deshalb die Bilder löschen? Zum zweiten gibt es wohl immer noch ein Problem mit dem Artikel. Kannst du mal schauen und mir erklären, was das Problem ist? Und zuletzt: Ich würde gern bei den Verlinkungen andere Namen nennen, als als Link genutzt werden. Zum Beispiel Kunststoffe (obwohl es auf Kunststoff verlinkt ist). Wie kann ich das programmieren? Vielen Dank für deine Hilfe, Charlotte

Bei den Bildern kann ich dir helfen, beim Artikel nicht. Nur soviel: Der Artikel ist ein Werbetext und kein Artikel. Die Verlinkung funktioniert mit einem 'pipe', indem du den Text [[Kunststoff|Kunststoffe]] verwendets. Also Linkziel, pipe, angezeigter Text. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

deleted files

my deleted files, dear martin, are of educational value, eg. hommage to arthur RIMBAUD - paul verlaine, GOETHE - f mendelssohn - i need them to be on since they are linked to my art blog: http://mvart4u.blogspot.com/ - i was recommended to you by wikimedia.ch (mr. kenel) and have difficulties, if you just delete pictures donated for free use and sent to the press (LE MONDE, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE) by providing them just with the link on wikimedia commons. therefore, kindly reestablish my paintings where they were, it's important. many thanks and best regards, mischa vetere

www.vetere.ch http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischa_Vetere

Ausser File:Heidi fanal (collage).jpg ok, "Heidi fanal" ist eine collage aus unfreien Inhalten, das ist hier ein free content-Projekt für Mediendateien die jeder weiterverwenden darf zu jedem Zweck inklusive kommerzieller Zwecke. Aber: Die misßbräuchliche Verwendung von Commons ist zu beenden. Hotlinking ist absolut nicht erwünscht und Commons ist KEIN webhoster für deinen privaten Blog. Das geht garnicht, wenn du die Bilder in deinem Blog verwenden möchtest lad sie woanders rauf. Beachte zudem, dass sie hier auf Commons von jedem bearbeitet werden können und dürfen. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

noch eine bitte - die schöne verhängung meines wikipedia-eintrags http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischa_Vetere mit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mischa_Vetere?uselang=de macht 3 portraits "mv 2009.jpg" (drei mal das gleiche bild) von mir (davon eines verhängt / gebraucht für besagte wikipedia-eintrag) sichtbar. bitte zwei davon löschen (achtung: eines davon ist schlechte qualität). danke und guter gruss

Die nicht im Artikel verwendeten habe ich als Dubletten gelöscht. --Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Verbindlichen Dank! Neues Problem - wie muss ich die von Euch neuangelegte Kategorie "Mischa Vetere" (s. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mischa_Vetere?uselang=de) beim Hochladen genau benamsen, damit es automatisch in das mit wikipedia gelinkte Dossier kommt? - Bei http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mischa_vetere_a_poem_good_luck.jpg hab ich nicht an diese Möglichkeit gedacht und, weil es um Poesie geht, eine Kategorie "Poetry of Switzerland" kreiert. Kannst Du mir bitte richtigen Code angeben und dieses Bild dazu-codieren. Ich glaube, nachher bin ich fit für selbständiges Arbeiten - Herzlichen Dank nochmals und Sonntagsgruss. mischa v.

Ich verstehe das Problem nicht. Wie du einem Bild eine Kategorie gibst weist du scheinbar ([[Category:Bsp]] ans Ende der Bildbeschreibung), alles weitere siehe Commons:Kategorien. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, ich kann es nicht umcodieren, leider.

ich verstehe nicht, weshalb mein edukativer kommentar zu "LE BATEAU IVRE par mv 2010", welcher zum bild gehört, gelöscht wurde - dieser ist für das verständnis des bildes vital, gehört zur 'donation' - wie gestern bei maintenance talk angebracht, finde ich zensur dieser art bedenklich, zumal wenn nichts historisch oder ethisch unrichtiges gesagt wird. deshalb bitte wieder als bildkommentar einfügen:

"this historically 'immoral' relationship between young paul verlaine (1844-1896) and very young arthur RIMBAUD (1854-1891), the scandal of paris (leading to a note in the local press, unfortunately PARIS...), is exemplary until today - "the rest of homophobie at its best!" 3 questions: would we know RIMBAUD without verlaine? would both have written what they wrote without each other? what moral is provided by an immoral acting church (for whom)?

mischa vetere, april 2010"

danke und gruss

Why are pics deleted?

Hi,

I'm inquiring why are the following pics tag as copyright violation and deleted? These are pics taken by myself and shouldn't be flagged.

Teal_Defying_Inequality.jpg Teal_laugh.jpg Tealheadshots1.PNG

because they where grabbed from other websites, facebook, and uploaded here with false authorship claims. Pay attention to copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know how to reply to the other thread so I'm starting a new topic

This is in regards to Teal_Defying_Inequality.jpg Teal_laugh.jpg Tealheadshots1.PNG

I took this picture myself how can this be claim as false? If ever you see that picture uploaded to facebook I think I'm the one who upload it there. Not sure if you have a process to verify the authenticity of the picture.

The "Teal_Defying_Inequality.jpg" was taken when I went to the Defying Inequality Event in San Francisco

The "Teal_laugh.jpg" was taken when we went to Wicked last February 28

The "Tealheadshots1.PNG" was taken last Feb 21 Wickedly spice5.

Then please upload ORIGINAL photos from you camera with intact EXIF data, not image in exactly the same thumbnailed size that everyone can download from facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded new copies of the files Teal_headshot_withEXIFinfo.jpg and Teal1_Blurred_Background.jpg with all the EXIF info intact. Thanks. ----Wickedly spice5. Wickedly spice5 (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Oopsalion

Hello, you may want to respond to this user's undeletion request or look at my talk page where he requested the same --Justass (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


File:Patrio-Arsenij.jpg‎

Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinpin (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And???? What do you want to tell me. --Martin H. (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Bei Dir scheint es schon Methode zu sein. Du hast das Bapperl gepflanzt, der Uploader bestätigt Dir hier dass es seine eigene Fotografie ist. Offenbar findet er sich nicht genau damit zu recht, was er tun soll. Und kann noch schlechter Englisch als Du. Hilf ihm doch, anstatt ihn blosszustellen. --Allesmüller (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Der obige Kommentar wurde hier platziert bevor ich das Bild markiert habe. Es wurden weitere eindeutige Urheberrechtsverletzungen gefunden und dieses Bild wurde zudem auf einer anderen Seite publiziert. Der Uploader ist auf ru.wp wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung kurz dannach gesperrt worden. --Martin H. (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Szalasioath.jpg

Hello Martin, regarding your request for the origin of [6] I must say I used the automatic tool to transfer the image from the English wikipedia that, as far as I can remember (I transferred the image a long time ago), accepted it as sufficently documented to enter Commons. For further information I suggest you contact the original uploader to the English wikipedia that appears in the image description page.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Will write him. However, a 1945 photo will in no case be public domain, citing only the wikipedia project is considered not as a valid source according to Commons:Licensing#License information (except for self-published works like self-created photos). --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Ufabc-lula-camisa.jpg

Hi Martin! This image and other official images of President Lula are provided by the Press Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic, you can find it, among many others, the official website, here: http://www.info.planalto.gov.br/ These images are available for unrestricted use provided the source is cited, see the official note about it here: http://www.info.planalto.gov.br/static/inf_fotonormas.htm And more information about it here: https: / / www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Portaria/P1091-03-ccivil.htm Originally, this picture can be found in this gallery: http://www.info.planalto.gov.br/exec/inf_fotografia.cfm?diafoto=29&mesfoto=8&anofoto=2008 As you can see in the comments I made to perform upload the photo I kept credit to the original photographer (Ricardo Stuckert / PR), thus fulfilling determined. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or suggestions on the subject, I am available. A hug --User:LongDouble (talk)

Then provide a link to the source. The permission depends on the website (source) so you must link it, otherwise it is not clear that the image is covered by that permission and it fails the COM:L requirements of a clear and verifiable source. --Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added to the source of the photo a link to the website containing the photo. If there is anything else I can do to ensure that this file is not removed from Wikipedia, please let me know. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Hi Martin! I added to the image the link to the original source, which can be seen that note of "unrestricted use" I quoted above. However, the image still is scheduled to be deleted. What more do I need to avoid that it be removed? --User:LongDouble (talk)

I am still awaiting a response. Thank you! --User:LongDouble (talk)

If you say, that an image is from an source than it obviously must come from that source and not from anywhere else. Ill reupload an image that COMES from that source. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Ufabc-campus-blocos-a-b.jpg and Ufabc-entrada-bloco-b.jpg

I did these photos personally, and my intention was just to make them available in the public domain in the easiest way possible. The first is in my library of images since my first visit to UFABC when I did it. And the second was taken this week. If I did something wrong to upload these photos let me know. I will do everything possible to correct and make it clear to their origin. Thanks in advance for your patience and the help they're giving me. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Yes, can you explain why someone else uploaded the same image taken from their website? --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. But I already distributes this and many other pictures I took of UFABC via MSN, Orkut sites for student organizations and various other places. But this picture was taken by me, yeah, sure, I have it in my picture library. Can I replace it with several of the photos I have here, taken by me, of the UFABC. If there is any better way for me to share these photos and make them available do not hesitate to tell me. I am fully available and I do not see why so much problem trying to share a photo. I understand your concerns about copyright, but I still intend to make many uploads, for this article to other articles, of other pictures that I've here, and that I still will do, and I still wish released they without problems on Wikipedia . Teach me the right way to do this and I'll do. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Upload a full size photo with intact EXIF data. The image had exactly the same downscaled size and was clearly taken from their website. You copied enough other photos with false information from their sites and the copyright statement is absolutely clear: Copyright UFABC. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I saw that picture Ufabc-entrada-bloco-b.jpg is no longer scheduled to be deleted, thanks. But the image Ufabc-campus-blocos-a-b.jpg is still scheduled to be deleted. Is there something I can do to prevent this? I could swap it for any other of the old images that I took the same time as her, but I do not see how these images would not be erased, since the current image is to be deleted. Still available, thanks. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Ufabc-entrada-bloco-b.jpg was never questionated. File:Ufabc-campus-blocos-a-b.jpg is - not even your date is correct! This is a copy from the Ufabc website and an exact duplicate of File:OBRAS UFABC2.jpg. Provide a full size version, otherwise I have no reason to believe your words. --Martin H. (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Timiriova

Dear Mr. Martin H.

I have just found out that you have deleted the Timiriova file despite the detailed explanations I have provided. I consider this an abuse and have posted a request for dispute settlement to have this matter discussed.

As far as the Leshchenko file is concerned, you are again wrong and I have the feeling that this is getting a personal vendetta. But I am deleting the file myself. However I would appreciate if in the future you would not just tag the pictures you do not like but explain what is wrong. You are acting as a policeman but in a democratic system the policeman cannot also be the judge. This would be a dictatorship.

Hochachtungsvoll Afil (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You claimed the photo as beeing an document of administrative nature, it is clearly not anything like that. The justification of my tagging was 'fails Template:PD-RU-exempt completely'. Thats still correct. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Book cover

Hello again. I found this book jacket at the NYPL digital site and was surpised to see it there.[7] It was published in 1926–1927. Does that mean the work is still under copyright? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally dont see how that dust jacket can qualify for copyright, its Commons:Licensing#Simple design at least in Germany. The source is {{NYPL-image-DigitalID|id=487722}}, the license tag might be {{PD-ineligible}}, it should also have {{Nazi symbol}}, inapropriate use is an criminal act at least in Germany (en:Strafgesetzbuch section 86a). --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy response. I was going to upload it and place it on the Adolph Hitler wikipedia entry instead of the photo of the book. I think the cover has more impact. Is it okay then to upload the image to Commons? just doublechecking. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO yes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will upload but you might want to check if I've marked the license correctly. Again, many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the initial book cover I was searching for was this one.[8] Is this permissible to upload to Commons? Thanks again for all your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO not so easy, thats not {{PD-ineligible}}. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Licenza Rivista_Corso_carristi_116_AUC.jpg

Scusa se scrivo in italiano ma il mio inglese è di basso livello. Ti scrivo in merito alla licenza d'uso della foto in oggetto per comunicarti che sono il proprietario (insieme ad altri 69 compagni di corso) dell'immagine che è stata utilizzata come copertina della nostra rivista del 116° Corso Allievi Ufficiali di Complemento dell'Esercito Italiano che si è tenuto dal luglio al dicembre 1984 a Caserta. La rivista (foto compresa) è stata creata anche graficamente da noi allievi come contributo e ricordo della nostra attività militare. Non esiste un copyright del documento essendo lo stesso realizzato ad utilizzo personale di ognuno di noi ed è per questo motivo che chiunque ne può trarre vantaggio dall'uso in quanto lo scopo della rivista non è di natura commerciale. Come prova del possesso posso solo inviarti una copia della pagina dove viene indicato l'elenco dei partecipanti al corso. Il fatto che sia una foto ed un documento libero da copyright è riportato nel contesto della rivista. Fammi sapere come posso risolvere il problema e cercherò di fare del mio meglio. Cordiali saluti. Alessandro Carosio - Roma/Italia --Leopard11 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • non è di natura commerciale: Files on Commons must be free for commercial reuse (L'uso commerciale dell'opera deve essere permesso, see Commons:Licenze)
  • libero da copyright: pubblico dominio dopo 70 anni dalla morte dell'autore
Please provide written permission from the copyright holder(s). --Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File:აბასთუმანი 1930 წ.jpg

Hello Martin,

Painting from 1930 have to get permition from OTROS? Geagea (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From the painter, see http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=1762#P132_14327, No 32, the copyright has not expired, it last the authors lifetime +70 years. The license template {{PD-Art}} is wrong for that painting. --Martin H. (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So you have to delete all tha category: Category:Paintings of Elene Akhvlediani. Sorry. Geagea (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
? Thats a quick answer, why did you upload them then? --Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My mistake of understanding the lisence. Geagea (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will have a look tomorow, Its late now. --Martin H. (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This also Category:The Knight in the Panther's Skin by Irakli Toidze. Geagea (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, was hard to do. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Geagea (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

delete request

help me to delete theese file

  • File:Student uniform.JPG
  • File:Student uniform2.JPG
  • File:Student uniform3.JPG
  • File:Student uniform4.JPG
  • File:Student uniform5.JPG
  • File:Student uniform6.JPG
  • File:Student uniform7.JPG
  • File:Student uniform8.JPG
  • File:Student uniform9.JPG
  • File:Student uniform10.JPG
  • File:Student uniform11.JPG
  • File:Student uniform12.JPG
  • File:Student uniform13.JPG
I agree that this files are trash and I honestly ask how someone can waste his time and our resources and upload such ugly and completely useless files, but no, I will not 'help you to delete' as this is not my function nor my power on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov.jpg

I apologize, I must have added the PD-ineligible tag, as I am very used to using tha tag, for my signature images. Thanks for the correction. :) Connormah (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I also used the chance to remove the typo from that persons category, Category:Gurbanguly_Berdimuhammedow, if you want rename of your file please say so. --Martin H. (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whiskers history at night

Hi Martin I am just getting back to Wiki and re-editing various contributions. I notice that you deleted the above picture but at the time I emailed "permissions" as requested. Other images I also upload to Commons have been deleted by Killiondude, even though I email various permissions for them. we wiki Peter Evans (restaurateur) Sorry, but at the time I was knew to the vagaries of WIki and had no real idea of the various 'permissions' required by Commnons, so I think some may have been given the incorrect permission. However, the sources are confirmed adn the images will be going up shortly. please advise to whom I shoul address any queries? PS Sorry the computer I am using for this does not have the line that you use to put in signature. Georgie sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgie sydney (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The information on how to provide written permission was explained on your previous accounts talkpage. Please ask any questions there based on the given information and help saving the time and effort it will cost to start an explanation from zero. Additionally see Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :/

Well, I just get pissed off with all this copyright stuff, and I thought that it might be a Bot that removes the images that I upload, then I made a test with the photo of the band Strike. I won't do it again, one more time sorry (: Crash Overclock (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad test. --Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the Dutch... rather than NIS in full name - do you think there is any reason to delete the NIS (fully spelt out) category? Or is it better to leave it? Thanks again SatuSuro (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Category:Dutch East Indies Railway Company. When I find a source that writes an English name I prefer that English name instead of the Dutch name 'Nederlandsch-Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij' to open this great content of ecnomomic history to the English speaking community. The original name is always written in the category description which I think is essential because many companies dont have articles. See Category:Companies of the Netherlands Indies. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I suppose my creation of the dutch name as a category was that I was so used to seeing the dutch name in records all the time when I was living in Java. Maybe it should be deleted then? The category in dutch name? SatuSuro (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I found what you mean, Category:Nederlands - Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij. I dont read many books on this, only a few sources just what I find online. So please do what you think is correct, either merge your category into mine or my category into the original name. The important is IMO to collect all files together and to describe what we collected, the name can be changed quickly with CommonsDelinker. --Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I am not clear first time off - please excuse my way of expressing myself. I will empty the NIS category in preference of the english usage - as your indication of Category:Companies of the Netherlands Indies- they all the english versions - maybe it can be a redirect? SatuSuro (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would create a {{Category redirect}} in any case, that will improve the project for our Dutch users too. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is the first time I upload anything to wikipedia.

I uploaded three images for the wiki page of a band I work with. Every image I've uploaded (and others I plan to upload) are created by me. I mean, I am the original artist. You say something about the license, but I don't understand what I have to do to keep everything smooth and legit. I'm totally new to this, and I want to learn. Can you please teach me what I have to do exactly? Cruizg (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Every file on Commons requires a license tag indicating for a free license that allows everyone to reuse the file anywhere for every purpose including e.g. modification or commercial reuse. File:Sexto sonar grupal.jpg does not have a license tag. Only the copyright holder can provide such a free license, if the work was published elsewhere before or if the uploader is not the photographer/creator evidence of written Commons:Permission is required, thats a written document from the copyright holder allowing to reuse the file under the free license and/or describing the way of copyright transfer if the person who grants the license is not the photographer/creator. --Martin H. (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Great... but in this case I am the photographer/creator. The pictures are only published on the official website of the band. www.sextosonar.com There you can see my name on the pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruizg (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the work was published elsewhere before evidence of written Commons:Permission is required. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia prime ministers

Why is this license {{PD-Yugoslavia}} good only for images of Nikola Pasic and Džemal Bijedić but for other images of prime ministers is not ??

I dont care about old uploads, I cant be everywhere. You must provide a second license tag, thats written inside that tag. Additional you must provide evidence, that any second license tag is valid.--Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And note: Evidence must be given for every photographic work individually, so comparing to other images is always a bad idea, no matter whats written there or if that is correct or not. --Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Celeste Thorson images

Regarding Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Double-check_requested, subsequent correspondence via the OTRS system confirms that the uploader was also the photographer, so we have a self-licensing situation here. Does that satisfy your concern about transfer of copyright and licensing rights?--Chaser (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If everything is confirmed and documented in OTRS, of course yes. --Martin H. (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_17&oldid=38036129"