User talk:Andel

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For your information, I have added two extracts of your Sterculia balanghas photograph to my Sterculia Gallery. (Lavateraguy@Wikipedia (English))

File:Palmitoleinicacid.png[edit]

File:Palmitoleinicacid.png 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 ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

DMacks (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Mengjiang.svg[edit]

If you're mostly removing file metadata, then you aren't "optimizing" an SVG or "cleaning up code" -- you're just removing file metadata. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arab text in File:CNTnames.svg[edit]

Hello. Yes your translation is perfect and understandable by any native Arabic speaker. Thank you so much for your effor. Regards--باسم (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Categorie 2 CSA.svg[edit]

Hi Andel. Can you help with the color of the larger circle? Thank you. 大诺史 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andel (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Circle Area τ.svg[edit]

There are 3 errors pertaining to File:Circle Area τ.svg. Hope you can fix it. 大诺史 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you! Andel (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allotropes of carbon diagram[edit]

It turns out that the image it replaces, File:Eight Allotropes of Carbon.png, is a FP on the English Wikipedia. In the debate to replace it with your version, as FPs on en.wp must be used in articles, it was suggested that balls be added at the location of each carbon atom in a similar manner to the original. This change significantly helps the viewer to visualise the 3D structure. See w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Allotropes of carbon. MER-C 16:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andel,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andel,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andel,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg[edit]

File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg 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 ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Reversions[edit]

I actually don't mind all the reversions, but have a question re: how to update MediaWiki's rendering. The SVGs I updated are correct (& render on multiple browsers, &c, identically to the previous version), yet are incorrectly rendered to PNG by MW. Any ideas where to get that solved? TSamuel (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TSamuel, WikiMedia's SVG rendering uses the librsvg-library, which has several known issues. There's not much you can do to solve them, other than lobbying for another (open-source) rendering engine or to contribute to librsvg (with code or financially). Cheers, Andel (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of a non-existent symbol as if it were correct[edit]

La provincia española de Alicante no tiene bandera, al igual que las provincias españolas de Castellón, Valencia, La Coruña, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife y Soria. He sustituido la falsa bandera (File:Alicante (provincia).svg) por el texto que expone este hecho porque existe la tendencia de utilizar este símbolo falso que alguien se ha inventado (por ejemplo in ar:لقنت (مقاطعة)). Esto es una enciclopedia y se exige rigor, no un sitio para fantasear sobre símbolos fantásticos inexistentes. Tener que estar revisando el uso erroneo que se hace de este símbolo de fantasía puede ser un trabajo de Sísifo que no tiene sentido. Un saludo.

The Spanish province of Alicante does not have a flag, as do the Spanish provinces of Castellón, Valencia, La Coruña, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Soria. I have replaced the false flag (File:Alicante (provincia).svg) with the text that exposes this fact because there is a tendency to use this false symbol that someone has invented (for example in ar:لقنت (مقاطعة)). This is an encyclopedia and rigor is required, not a place to fantasize about non-existent fantasy symbols. Having to review the misuse of this fantasy symbol may be Sisyphus' work that doesn't make sense. A greeting.

--Macondo (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macondo
It is possible that Alicante has no flag, I honestly do not know. But the function of Wikimedia Commons is to host media files, so that they can be used in Wikipedia and other projects. It doesn't matter if the files depict real things or not, e.g. just because Sherlock Holmes isn't real doesn't mean he can't be on Wikimedia Commons. The Flag of the province of Alicante is very clearly labeled as not official, so I see no problems in its existence. An author of a Wikipedia article will see that, an it is very easy to spot in which article(s) a file is included, so a review is very easy too. There is also no reason to overwrite the File with a "Without offical flag" symbol, since this symbol already exists as File:Without_official_flag.svg. It can be included in an article about the province of Alicante if an author pleases.
Cheers, --Andel (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you spot an error in a Wikipedia, no matter the language, you can just edit it. I've already done it for ar:لقنت (مقاطعة). --Andel (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bundesratsfoto 2020.jpg[edit]

Hallo Andel, nur damit du dich nicht wunderst: ich habe das o.g. Foto, das ich bereits schnellgelöscht hatte, vorübergehend entlöscht, um prüfen zu lassen, ob es unter ein vorhandenes OTRS-ticket fällt. --Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Túrelio, Besten Dank für den Hinweis. Mir ist nur aufgefallen, dass das Bild über keinen Lizenzbaustein verfügte und das die Quelle die kommerzielle Nutzung ausdrücklich verbietet und so die Nutzung auf Commons verunmöglicht. OTRS-Ticket könnte natürlich existieren. Gruss, --Andel (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaroslav Vondrák(1881-1937).jpg[edit]

co vás k tomu vede obrázek mazat? Vy znáte autora? Já nesouhlasím fotografie je volným dílem, vznikla před rokem 1919. Co vy víte českých zákonech.--Martin wolf (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Martin wolf: Neznám ani autora, a to je problém. Podle československého autorského zákona je obrázek bezplatným dílem, pokud byl anonymně publikován v Československu před rokem 1946. To znamená, že k vyvolání tohoto článku potřebujete znát datum a místo, kdy byl obrázek poprvé publikován. To, že neznáte autora, také neznamená, že byl obrázek publikován anonymně. Možná byl autor jasně uveden, když byl poprvé publikován. S informacemi, které vy a já o obrázku máme, nemůžeme říci, zda je či není chráněn autorskými právy, takže by to nemělo být na wikipedii. Žádost o odstranění není útokem proti vám, ale výzvou k objasnění stavu autorských práv a odebráním, pokud to není možné. Andel (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flaguk.svg[edit]

File:Flaguk.svg 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 ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jahobr (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Kohn básník[edit]

autor je neznámý a foto je z roku cca 1895 co furt navrhujete smazání, autor je určitě 80 let mrtvý tak o co vám jde--Martin wolf (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC) rači jsem to smazal, nemám náladu něco namítat, nemá to cenu--Martin wolf (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

foto rollerová[edit]

Jste normální, jasně je napsáno, že autor fotografie je neznámí, foto je z roku 1912, fotograf nebyl určitě 18 letý a těžko se dožil do roku 1950. Mě nevadí, že tam není, na internetu se dá najít. Končím nekontaktujte mě, příště budu neslušný!!!!!--Martin wolf (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Martin wolf: , please read Commons:PD_files and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Feels free to ask if you still have questions after. Cheers, --Andel (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Pacovský, ak. mal. a grafik.jpg[edit]

Jste normální, co vám vadí na licenci, vždyť se jedná o detail z obrázku Grupa uhersko-slovenských malířů, zleva G.Mallý, J.Augusta a E.Pacovský.jpg a tam je licence v pořádku. Co to má znamenat. --Martin wolf (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"from en wiki screenshots"[edit]

Hi Andel, you have sent me over 20 templates concerning images I have created from en wiki screenshots.... and which say they are "from en wiki screenshots". Your concern is said to the sourcing on these images which are from en wiki screenshots. What more do you want to know? I have included the name of the Wikipedia article in the middle of each image. What could be the problem? These images have been seen by very very many Wikimedians in the last five years and they have not identified the problem, what is it? Hope you can advise. Victuallers (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Victuallers: ! You're right, you technically can argue that you cited the sources and by assuming the right article, it is also possible to find the included images. A very labour intensive process, which also includes some guessing and which makes it very hard to check the licenses. But citation preferences aside: You also must comply with the licences of the used media. Let's take for example your image File:Sep21 Woman of the Day.png; The included image is, I guess, File:Portrait_of_Masoumeh_Ebtekar.jpg, which was released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license by the Tasnim News Agency. This licence grants you the right to reuse the image, like you do with you screenshot, but you must attribute the Tasnim News Agency in the description of your image. The same is true for the text. Wikipedia is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 Unported License, so you also must attribute the authors of the text. You can do that in the same form, by listing the names of the contributing authors, or, since such a list would often be very long, by placing a link, as Wikipedia suggests. For the included images, I would suggest you to use the Template:Derived from, with which you can attribute the author and which makes it very easy to check the licence. Hope this helped to clarify the issue. Cheers, --Andel (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm OK with being able to "argue that [I] cited the sources'. It may be a labour intensive purpose but few are going to do it after seeing that it is obviously a Wikipedia article. I understand that some people who donate images say that they must be mentioned but a cc-by-sa license is a complete item. The donate can request that the user donates money to the Wonky Cats charity in Kalamazoo but the cc-by-sa license still applies. So taking your example I see that File:Portrait_of_Masoumeh_Ebtekar.jpg is used on the English Wikipedia.... and where it is used, there is no mention of the Tasnim News Agency. Sure I click on it and get to the link (eventually) but if I use Wikibooks to requests a printout then the electronic link is broken. I'm OK with that because the attribution can still be found in a very? "labour intensive process", but how does this fit with "you must attribute the Tasnim News Agency"? Now I admit that every image's attribution can be improved, but why is the sourcing here not adequate. What you are implying would result in a very labour intensive process and I would like to be sure that there is wide comsensus on your view as I suspect we may lose millions of (IMO) adequately licensed images if the must is correct. 08:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Victuallers: , by releasing material under CC-BY-SA, or any other CC licence including BY, the author is not requesting to be attributed, he releases it only under the condition that he's attributed. Any reuse without attribution is therefore a clear violation of his copyright. So attribution is a must. Having the information one click away, like in Wikipedia articles, is generally accepted as complying with the licence conditions (see for example here: [1]). Having to "guess the article based on clues, search the article, search the image, then click the link" is clearly not. And if somebody is printing parts of Wikipedia other than for personal/internal use, he's also required to properly attribute the images, otherwise he's violating copyright laws. Cheers, --Andel (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you have a view but I think you present it too strongly as if it is unarguable. People who dig the road would not consider any of this a very labour intensive process... and you describe the attribution as "technically.... citing the sources" but this does not support your "clearly not" above. It is not clear to me.... when the reader has to "guess" the title of an article in clear view. "Based on Clues" ... clues including "from en:wiki screenshots" ... if only CSI investigators had such clues. "Search the article" ... Oh there it is! in the top right hand corner looking just like the picture I just saw... and then click on the link. Have you tried going to a library getting a book out and then finding the source for the illustrations so that they are one click away? Now some might think that labour intensive but few would say that it is "clearly not" compliant with the law. As I say, all sourcing can be improved. but I'm not convinced by the imperatives that you offer. Victuallers (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Victuallers: , Commons:Licensing#License_information, an official policy on Wikimedia Commons, is clear: "All description pages on Commons must indicate clearly under which license the materials were published, and must contain the information required by the license (author, etc.) and should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws." Please add the required information to the description pages. Thank you, --Andel (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws". Your demonstration of finding the source of File:Portrait_of_Masoumeh_Ebtekar.jpg works for me. Thank you for your advice. Victuallers (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that you intend to delete these images even though there is no clear case IMO. As we cannot agree on a sensible way to resolve this I intend to refer this to a third party. It would be a pity if you were to decide to delete as the images are used daily of WikiWomeninRed, Twitter and elsewhere. If you can propose some text that could be added to the 500 plus images involved then maybe a volunteer might add that. Obviously I would suggest that you remove the templates you have added to a few of the images and let things just improve naturally. Victuallers (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Victuallers: , I'd suggest that you replace current derivative work template with a Commons:Deletion requests, to initiate a public discussions. Also otherwise, the images would be reviewed by an administrator before they are deleted. In my opinion, if a picture isn't worth proper attribution, it isn't worth much. --Andel (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andel: I'm not sure how to achieve this without nominating each one for a deletion (that I think unnecessary) but I'm willing to do it. I agree with your thought that every picture deserves attribution but few would destroy a picture because they could see exactly where all the derived work came from, but they justified the destruction as they thought the attribution could be improved. However! Is there an easy way to make sure that each of the images you have templated are included in the debate? Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Victuallers: ; Another suggestion: I just saw your discussion at the village pump and hope it helped to convince you the the missing attribution is not just something I made up, but a real problem. So how about we remove the notice from all the affected pictures and instead commit to fix the problem? I know it is going to be a bit of work to fix all the "Woman of the Day" pictures, but I'm happy to contribute and maybe you can motivate other "Women in Red" participants to help us too. Ok for you? Cheers, --Andel (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Andel: . I know its not something you made up, but a threat of deletion is not the way that I would persuade others to assist us. Sticks works for a while but the volunteers just drift away to where there are carrots. I realise that this is the way commons sometimes operates. Feel free to remove the tags and I would encourage you to do so. I intend to see where the consensus ends, if the community decide to delete them then so be it. I have been improving those images for three years and that is the commitment I will continue with assuming making a further contribution appears both collaborative, pleasant and productive. Victuallers (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Градницы Церковь Троицы Живоначальной.jpg.[edit]

Добрый день. Спасибо за интерес, проявленный Вами к моим загрузкам. https://sobory.ru/profile/?author=7713_AndreyAgafonov здесь автор дал недвусмысленное согласие на использование его работ. Сообщите, pls, если этого недостаточно. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemchinvk (talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Привет @Nemchinvk: , большое спасибо за разъяснения. Пожалуйста, укажите такую информацию в следующий раз прямо в разделе «Разрешение». Таким образом, каждый может напрямую проверить разрешение. Я изменил лицензию с CC-BY-SA на CC-0, поскольку это соответствует условиям выпуска Андрей Агафонова. С уважением Andel (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. Извините за мой плохой русский язык.[reply]

Привет! Спасибо за помощь! В следующий раз буду иметь ввиду. Ваш русский весьма хорош :)) Nemchinvk (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Юго-восточная башня ограды церкви.jpg[edit]

Добрый день. Спасибо за интерес, проявленный Вами к моим загрузкам. https://sobory.ru/profile/?author=7713_AndreyAgafonov здесь автор дал недвусмысленное согласие на использование его работ. Сообщите, pls, если этого недостаточно. Nemchinvk (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

См. Выше. --Andel (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Статус изображения File:Северо- западная башня ограды.jpg[edit]

Добрый день. Спасибо за интерес, проявленный Вами к моим загрузкам. https://sobory.ru/profile/?author=7713_AndreyAgafonov здесь автор дал недвусмысленное согласие на использование его работ. Сообщите, pls, если этого недостаточно. Nemchinvk (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

См. Выше. --Andel (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Статус изображения File:Деревня Фралево, Бежецкий район, 2005 г.jpg[edit]

Добрый день! Спасибо за интерес к моим загрузкам Данная работа была использована с ресурса "Фотопланета". Правила этого ресурса допускают использование фотографий в сети Интернет, при соблюдении определенных условий. https://foto-planeta.com/p/rules.html Nemchinvk (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Привет @Nemchinvk: . Этот веб-сайт требует очень конкретных условий для повторного использования изображения. Я не думаю, что эти условия выполняются с лицензией CC-BY-SA. С уважением Andel (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Привет! Спасибо за ответ! Как мне кажется я выполнил все условия, указанные в правилах.[reply]

Nemchinvk (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Статус изображения File:Егорова Александра Федоровна Герой Социалистического труда.jpg[edit]

Добрый день, спасибо за интерес, проявленный Вами к моим загрузкам. Это произведение находится в общественном достоянии в России согласно статье 1281 части четвёртой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации № 230-ФЗ от 18 декабря 2006 года, а также статьям 5 и 6 Федерального закона Российской Федерации № 231-ФЗ от 18 декабря 2006 года «О введении в действие части четвёртой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации». Произведение представляет собой фотоинформационное сообщение, созданное работником ТАСС в порядке выполнения служебного задания в период с 10 июля 1925 по 1 января 1951 года. Nemchinvk (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Привет @Nemchinvk: . Спасибо за информацию, я пометил изображение соответствующим образом. Вы можете сделать это в следующий раз самостоятельно, добавив {{PD-Russia}} в качестве лицензии. С уважением Andel (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! Спасибо за понимание и помощь! Это же касается и других моих загрузок, которые вызвали у Вас вопросы: File:Скрипачева Мария Матвеевна Герой Социалистического труда.jpg File:Гусев Иван Степанович Герой Социалистического труда.jpg File:Гусев Матвей Степанович Герой Социалистического труда.jpg File:Скрипачева Александра Яковлевна Герой Социалистического труда.jpg File:Никитина Анна Ивановна Герой Социалистического труда.jpg File:Апышева Анна Федоровна Герой Социалистического труда.jpg File:Варганов Иван Иванович, Герой Социалистического Труда.jpg File:Калязина Екатерина Матвеевна Герой Социалистического Труда.jpg

Они тоже находятся в общественном достоянии в России согласно статье 1281 части четвёртой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации № 230-ФЗ от 18 декабря 2006 года, а также статьям 5 и 6 Федерального закона Российской Федерации № 231-ФЗ от 18 декабря 2006 года «О введении в действие части четвёртой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации». Nemchinvk (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Привет @Andel: Я добавил информацию о лицензировании, как Вы мне советовали. Еще раз благодарю Вас за помощь. Nemchinvk (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SkypeButtonKLS.png[edit]

← Andel, this button is meant for my private use only, on a user subpage. It is not meant for general usage, and I fail to see how Skype would have a problem with it, anyway. It only promotes their product, and I certainly do not make any money off it. Copyright paranoia is a pervasive problem here. If you think it belongs on en:WP (where I use it), then transfer it there, or else cut the copyright disruption out. Kelisi (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kelisi: Wikimedia Commons does not distinguish between private and public images (all images are free for public and commercial use under the given license) and by claiming that you're the author and that it is available under CC-by-sa, you're violating Microsoft's copyright. In this specific case, since the Skype logo is quite simple, it likely does not meet the threshold of originality and you can use it under certain conditions. I changed the license-tags for the file accordingly. Cheers, Andel (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't think there's copyright paranoia on Commons. It is paramount for a free and open source project to follow the (copyright) rules, otherwise it's shut down very quickly by lawsuits.

Question[edit]

Hi Andel, I would like to know if the licence CC BY-SA 3.0 was autorised on Wikimedia Commons to download the pictures from this [website]? Thank you in advance :) Vmv2705 (talk) 18:48, 20 february 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vmv2705: , thank you for the question! Unfortunately, those images are licensed under CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) which is not compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 and not accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Sorry, --Andel (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thank you. have a nice week :-) Vmv2705 (talk) 19:16, 21 february 2022 (UTC)

František Antonín Jelínek[edit]

Já jsem majitelem autorských práv a mnoho obrazů tohoto autora jsem nahrál pod stejnou licencí před několika leta a nich jsou již práva potvrzena. To si nemůžete ověřit a nepřidělával liden nesmyslnou práci. To jste tak ...... .

Hey @Martin wolf: . Poté prosím poskytněte důkaz o povolení, jak je popsáno. Děkuji Andel (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by František Antonín Jelínek[edit]

Dobrý den, dědic autorských práv k dílům Františka Antonína Jelínka zaslal řádný souhlas s jejich zveřejněním do VRTS. --Gampe (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfektní, děkuji za informaci. Andel (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy[edit]

Hi Alamy, I actually search some recent pictures of Nightwish for illustrate an artcicle. And I would like to know if the pictures on the website Alamy ( like this one), are accepted ? Thank you in advance ! Vmv2705 (talk) 12:09, 13 juillet 2022 (UTC) Vmv2705 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhi Suzumiya images[edit]

The issues with the images have been fixed. I found better links. The missing evidence of permission notice said "Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license" so that's what I did. I provided new links TreeElf (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Copyright of CT Scan[edit]

Greetings @Andel, You recently tagged one of the images that I uploaded can you let me know how can I confirm the copyright of the scan. 511KeV (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @511KeV, all you need to do is fill in the written permission with your details and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. An even easier way is to use the release generator. Cheers, --Andel (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andel&oldid=867067768"