User talk:Martin H./Archive 18

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Archive Note

Page was archived on June 3. See the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


I was going to use it on the German Wikipedia as part of the artist's Entry. -- Micrologist (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Leider ist der Upload von Album-Covers oder dergleichen auf Commons nicht gestattet. Commons ist ein Projekt ausschließlich für Freie Inhalte, alle Mediendateien und Texte in Wikimedia-Projekten müssen frei sein so dass Jeder sie verwenden kann, jederzeit, überall und zu jedem Zweck einschließlich kommerzieller Zwecke. Ausnahme bilden nur die fair use Regelungen für z.B. CD-Covers oder Filmplakate in einigen Wikipedia Projekten, eine solche Ausnahme gibt es auf Commons nicht (und auch nicht in der deutschen Wikipedia). --Martin H. (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Question on Fair Use Rationale for Sculpture

Hello Martin, I was going to upload an image of Rachel the unofficial mascot of the Pike Place Market, Seattle, Washington. As you can see from the wikipedia piece on the Market (under 'Rachel and Pigs on Parade'), the sculpture of Rachel the Pig was created by a local artist and a fair use rationale is required. [1] I have an image of Rachel the Pig that I took and would like to use on the entry, but am unsure of how to write the qualification for Fair Use Rationale. (It's a good image and would go well with the piece, I think.) Should I go ahead and upload my image and let you have a look? Thanks for any guidance you might be able to give. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

fair use in any form is not accepted on Commons, there is no "fair use rational" on Commons. A photo of any other artistic work (sculpture, painting, even a toy, a television screen, a book or architectural work including e.g. office buildings) is a derivative work. The sculpture must be public domain by law due to copyright expiration (e.g. 70 years following the sculptors death) or there must be an exemption in copyright law called freedom of panorama. This is not the case for the U.S., there is no freedom of panorama for works other then architecture. So we cannot upload any photographs of any protected work created by some other artist here to Commons without this artists written permission that they agree to the licensing of the photo. --Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: Thats why en:File:Pike Place Piggy 2008.JPG is under fair use on en.wp, the reasoning there is clear: there is no freedom of panorama for statues in the United States. As such, this work must be considered non-free. Non-free content or fair use isnt what Commons is looking for. Free content only here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comprehensive explanation. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing Meg Whitman head shot deletion discussion

I accept any decision of the community regardless off reasons. But would appreciate your reason for the closure of the deletion discussion.

There are several things wrong with that image. Not being one of the two CC licenses accepted as described in Wikicommons first steps is one reason I argue for the deletion discussion. Whether that is a simple guideline that can be ignored or a set policy must be a matter to debate to understand what all the policies mean together. No explanation is being given.

It states that care must be taken to even e-mail through flicker accounts if necessary to get the needed information to keep the image within licensing guidelines here. I understand that CC 2.0 Generic is the old version of CC-by-3.0. Guidelines state that all flicker uploads are released treated as 3.0. That difference is not apparent to me but the guideline is. It states that flickr uploads are to be licensed as one of the two 3.0 versions of CC the only Creative Commons license accepted by Wikimedia commons. And that the copyright holder be aware of this and approve.

The Meg Whitman Headshot is attributed (summary does give attribution and can be seen as the required attribution from the author), It does have a release in a CC License but requires the author and original upload to agree that the license be released and treated as 3.0. This does not appear to have been done but that doesn't mean it wasn't. Flickr review guidelines state that OTRS may be need in many cases, but no OTRS is indicated.

Finaly, there is no explanation as to why the second copyrighted image released on the same site from the same member does not override the CC. If this is because we are giving CC license the weight on the decision I can understand that. Err on the part of the most free license is something I am aware of, seen before in discussions and agree can live with if it is the consensus of the community.

I began the original deletion request on THIS upload. However this is not the only version of the image uploaded here from flickr. The copyrighted version showed up a number of times.

I saw the complaint from Sanderstien about how the original uploader is annoyed and dismiss that claim. Accusations of another being annoyed is not relevent since it is not the actual person making the claim and good faith attempt to clarify the wishes of the original Flickr uploader should not be painted as annoying. I did not attempt personal communication as I am not a flickr reviewer, admin or represetative of Wiki. Guidelines are clear. Requests can be made directly to suggest OTRS. I could also request OTRS through wiki myself, but wanted a community open consensus.....But this is not the image or uploader in question.

This particular debate had it's tag removed, and had an IP user retag it as speedy delete. All things I had reverted with edit summary and full explanation.

If I am incorrect the sky will not fall in. But it does require some explanation, some debate and descussion or we are not really using consensus. It becoms a simple "Closing this debate. You are wrong. Period". And that is hard for any wiki editor to understand.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please make shorter comments? Flickr offers a set of licenses, cc-by-2.0 is one of the two accepted license for images from flickr with default licensing, the other is cc-by-sa-2.0, see Commons:Flickr files and the license selection drop down in This file was validly licensed by the copyright holder on flickr under cc-by-2.0 and transfered under the conditions of that license to Commons as tousends of other images in Category:Files from Flickr are. The opposite: Files on flickr are never licensed under any 3.0 license as this license does not exist in flickr universe, the only exception are personal agreements. Users can ask flickr users - as well as other photo comunities on the web - to license their works, this written conversation must go to COM:OTRS and can result in an image from flickr licensed under cc-..3.0 licenses (example File:KellyMacdonaldOct07.jpg) while the original file on flickr is licensed different, the copyright holder can publish his work under different licenses on different places. Besides such personal agreements all other free content from flickr is licensed under 2.0 licenses. So what exactly is the problem? --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin! You could delete this image? Why is it being used constantly by User Kdeira. Truu (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thanks mattbuck for catching this from my talkarchive (2) its already deleted, maybe this is one of the two(?) Raven Symone sockpuppets I know. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct Tagging for Licensing Section

Hello Martin, What would be the correct way of tagging the licensing section when uploading company logos and product packaging images without having copyright issues. The images are ours but we are being flagged for copyright issues that we are unsure how to resolve. Thank You.

Every media file on Commons must be published under a free license voluntarily by the copyright holder. You have to obtain written permission from the copyright holder who has to agree to a license, see Commons:Copyright tags for a selection. Commons proposes multilicensing with GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, thats one of the license options in the license selection drop down in the upload form. The written permission from the copyright holder must go to OTRS (a template for a declaration of consent can be found on that page). --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A question?

The images I'm loading of flickr are illegal? Let me know if they are! Truu (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Only those two with the video screen in focus. The video screen is not free and was by far not de minimis. --Martin H. (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


..das ist nicht etwa ein PA meinerseits, sondern ein Zitat (du hast mich so bezeichnet [2]). Schau mal das erste unterstrichene Wort an, und komm wieder runter von da wo du jetzt bist. Schönen Gruß aus Moskau --Allesmüller (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Andere Materialien legislativen, administrativen und judicialen Characters, völlig Richtig. Eine Karte hat keinen solchen Charakter, es besteht kein öffentliches Interesse z.B. eines nicht durch das urheberrecht behinderten Rechtsverkehrs, der Nichtanwendbarkeit von Gesetzestexten da das Urheberrecht die Zitation von Gesetzen verbietet etc. Sachen sind frei vom Urheberrecht weil das Gemeinwohl es erfordert (nicht weil jemand es möchte oder weil ein Staat großzügig ist, sondern weil es für den ungehinderten Rechtsverhekr erforderlich ist) dass ist das dahinterstehende Konzept. --Martin H. (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Das Problem scheinen deine Sprachkenntnisse zu sein. Auf dem Template in Englisch ([3]) geht es vielleicht einfacher: "including", d.h. "einschließlich." --Allesmüller (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Dein Problem scheint zu sein, dass du einen Satz - das sind die Worte zwischen zwei Punkten, hier sogar nur ein Nebensatz zwischen zwei Kommata - nicht als zwingende Einheit verstehst. "other materials" und "legislative, administrative and judicial character" gehört zwingend zusammen, es geht um Dokumente im öffentlichen Interesse: Orden dürfen nicht getragen werden wenn das Layout der Orden durch Urheberrecht geschützt ist, Briefmarken können nur eingeschränkt verwendet werden wenn das Aussehen der Briefmarke geschützt ist, Verordnungen können nicht durchgesetzt werden wenn sie nicht öffentlich vorgelesen werden dürfen, Gesetze nutzen nichts, wenn sie nicht ausgesprochen werden dürfen und so weiter. Wir sprechen hier weder von einem militärischen Interesse noch von einem Recht der Bürger auf alles Zugriff zu haben was die Regierung macht oder alles verwenden zu dürfen was die Regierung erstellt (wie in den USA der Fall wo, einfach gesagt, alles mit Steuergeldern bezahlte nicht durch Urheberrecht schützbar ist). Ferner, ich hoffe wenigstens das ist klar, sprechen wir hier auf Commons nicht von einer Nutzung zu Bildungszwecken sondern von freier Nutzung - also von kommerzieller Nutzung. Wir sprechen über das individuelle Recht des Autoren/der Autoren das dieser/diese verliert/en wenn ein öffentliches Interesse legisliativer, administrativer oder richtlicher Natur dieses erfordert. Ein solches Interesse, dass eine Verneinung des Urheberrechts rechtfertigt besteht hier nicht. Das Urheberrecht ist auch noch nicht abgelaufen. --Martin H. (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Also auf Russisch (und ich denke auch in der englischen Übersetzung) ist es ziemlich klar: Offizielle Regierungsdokumente. Einschliesslich Gesetze usw und andere juristische Texte. Wahrscheinlich hat man das "einschliesslich" angefügt, weil jene nicht von der Regierung kommen, sondern vom Parlament oder den Gerichten. Ob in casu der Urheber (Generalstab der Sowjetarmee) überhaupt einen Rechtsnachfolger hat, lasse ich offen, will hier niemanden noch mehr verwirren. Es ist auch egal. Man muss einfach das Gesetz lesen. --Allesmüller (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Es ist mir zu blöd hier schon wieder eine Diskussion zu starten. Warum lässt du die Adjektive weg? Das ist unanständig. Werke "законодательного, административного и судебного характера" sind gemeinfrei, ein solches Werk liegt hier nicht vor. Ob ein Rechtsnachfolger besteht oder nicht ist völlig schnuppe, das Werk ist schlichtweg nicht gemeinfrei. Ich hoffe, dass du dir die Mühe machst tatsächlich mal richtig zu lesen und nicht versucht Worte so zu drehen oder wegzulassen damit deine Version irgendwie passt. Wir haben hier ein vorbeugendes Prinzip, dass heißt die Argumente müssen 100% stimmen, nicht 99% oder vielleicht oder im Rahmen des Möglichen, die Nachweispflicht liegt bei dir. Du bist nicht zum lesen oder verstehen verpflichtet und kannst dir deine eigene spekulative Meinung bilden, ich möchte mir die aus deiner Verdreherei resultierenden Schlussfolgerungen aber nicht anhören müssen, daher an dieser Stelle: EOD auf dieser Seite. Ich habe meinen Löschantrag gestellt damit andere Entscheiden können, der Löschantrag steht dir als Diskussionsforum offen. Solange du nicht anfängst dir anzumaßen, du könntest über den Ausgang der Löschdiskussion entscheiden und diese für beendet erklären ist mir egal wie lange es dauert, bis endlich jemand darauf aufmerksam wird. Es hat mich gefreut, dass dir nach zwei Monaten aufgefallen ist, dass deine Behauptung die Karte sei vom Rechteinhaber unter Creative Commons veröffentlich worden vielleicht nicht so ganz richtig ist und du den Unsinn endlich entfernt hast. Leider zeigt mir die Lange Zeit aber auch, wie viel Wert du auf die geforderte 100%ige Genauigkeit legst. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ich bin bitteschön nicht unanständig. Aber die Grammatik ist eindeutig: öffentliche Dokumente ("official documents", "официальные документы") sind gemeinfrei. Einschließlich ("including", "в том") Gesetze, juristische Texte, Gerichtsentscheidungen usw. ("laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions", "материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера"). Vielleicht hilft es, wenn Du die Sache mal sorgfältig von einem Dritten beurteilen lässt. Es wäre hilfreich, besagte Person spreche russisch. Sorgfältig zu sein ist ja ok, bitte verzeihe mir mein Missgeschick mit der CC-Lizenz. Hat nichts m it dem Gesetzestext zu tun. --Allesmüller (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Offizielle Dokumente sind gemeinfrei soweit genannt... alles andere ist erstmal als nicht frei anzunehmen. Andere Dokumente, solche mit besagtem Charakter sind frei. Einen solchen Charakter hat deine Karte nicht. Vielleicht liegt das Problem auch tiefer und verstehst den Begriff "offiziell" völlig falsch und viel zu breit? Eine Definition was der Gesetzgeber meint findest du im Urheberrecht von 1993, eine theoretische Begründung warum sowas nicht geschützt ist habe ich oben gegeben. --Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Eben nicht "soweit genannt", sondern "einschließlich". Es ist im Gesetz sogar definiert, was der Gesetzgeber unter "ofizielle Dokumente" versteht: "официальные документы государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления муниципальных образований" (das heisst alles, was von irgendwelchen Behörden inkl. lokalen Behörden kommt). Das Gesetz ist übrigens von 2006, nicht 1993. --Allesmüller (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, dann haben wir den Grund, du versteht den Begriff "offizielles Dokument" völlig falsch. --Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Habe eine Arbeitskollegin gefragt, russische Juristin. Die versteht es offenbar auch "völlig falsch". Ich werde ihr gerne von dir ausrichten, sie sei ein dummdickköpfiger Herr Schlauschlau. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Es kann nicht wahr sein, du gehst mir unglaublich auf die Nerven. Du behauptest, eine Landkarte hat eine gesetzgebende oder administrative Natur vergleichbar eines Richterspruches oder eines Erlasses während sich der Rest der Community fragt, ob überhaupt Wappen von den Regeln eingeschlossen sind oder ob diese offizell genug sind, bitte, bleib bei deiner Meinung. Es ist falsch und ein Blick in Category:PD-RU-exempt zeigt ganz klar, dass du der erste bist der auf die Idee kommt dass jedes amtliche Werk gleich offiziellen Charakter hat. Ich sagte oben bereits EOD. Das heißt: Ende der Diskussion auf dieser Seite. --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Und weil ich dir den Link zu der Kategorie gegeben habe: die 4. Datei in der Kategorie ist auch eine Karte, File:01 01 Map of borders of Volgograd (22.03.2005—25.06.2006).jpg, sie ist gemeinfrei weil sie tatsächlich Teil eines offiziellen Werkes ist, nämlich Teil eines Gesetzes. Das ist nunmal die Anforderung und so wurde es auch im Kontext der Wikipedia-Diskussionen genannt die ich früher mal verlinkt habe. --Martin H. (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
EOD einverstanden. Und nein, ich habe nicht behauptet die Karte habe gesetzgeberische Qualitäten. Ich behaupte nur, sie sei ein offizielles Dokument. Weil sie eben vom Generalstab der Sowjetarmee kam. Und arbeite mal ein bisschen an deinen Umfangsformen. --Allesmüller (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted files

Hi,I just noticed that you deleted, in late April, two images ("File:Cepotina 03.jpg" and "File:Cepotina 002.jpg") I uploaded as Copyright violation.

If it`s Copyright violation,then they should be deleted,but I uploaded it,when I saw this one,which was taken from the same page on oficial site of Serbian Ministry of Defense.

Thank you for your time, CrniBombarder!!! (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, not covered by the copyright exemption. --Martin H. (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

These images can?

Hello, I wondered whether Commons accepts this image?

I was also wondering if the commons accepts images of this flickr? Truu (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The photo of the poster is not ok because the poster is not free and too large, see COM:DM again, the photos of are not ok because chicagofabulous is not the author but only a reuser who added wrong licenses on Flickr, we have chicagofabulous listed in Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. So sorry, both are not ok. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin H.,

Would you be so kind and undelete Main Page/pano? It seems easier to update it than to figure out how it had been. I was going to ask Evil IP, but he wouldn't be able to do it now. -- User:Docu at 04:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please move to user namespace e.g. if not longer needed. At the moment it is difficult to have a temporary maintenance page in gallery namespace. --Martin H. (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'm afraid it might break its layout if it's transcluded from any other namespace, but I can move it out of gallery namespace on Friday. BTW, would you do the edit request and the page protections outlined here as well? -- User:Docu at 11:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I set my clock and will add "switch" on midnight or short before if not done by someone else. As said before: Im not an expert with this, I have no problems to edit templates e.g. but the mainpage is something different. --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, someone already did ;) --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Álvaro_Dias,_February_2007_-_1901FP408.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yanguas (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User notices

Sry that you had to fix them; I'll have a look what went wrong in my script--DieBuche (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:npd}} ist fürs Bild, {{subst:image permission|datei}} ist für den Benutzer. Ich empfehle dir das Gadget Quick Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Das weiß ich ;). Problem is folgendes: Commons:Village_pump#Auto_submit_broken?. Deswegen habe ich eine sauberere version geschrieben, an einer stelle aber die variablen vertauscht, und deswegen ist das passiert. --DieBuche (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
kk, das Problem mit dem nicht speichern tritt gelegentlich auf, im moment bei mir nicht, wenn es endlich behoben wird wäre natürlich schön. --Martin H. (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mauné Escamilla 1966.jpg

Hello, I speak on behalf of the user Josep Xicota which cannot write in English. Under the Spanish intellectual law there is a simple photography (photography without artistic value) and whose copyright expires 25 years after its realization. TÍTULO V Protección de las meras fotografías Artículo 128. De las meras fotografías Quien realice una fotografía u otra reproducción obtenida por procedimiento análogo a aquélla, cuando ni una ni otra tengan el carácter de obras protegidas en el Libro I, goza del derecho exclusivo de autorizar su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, en los mismos términos reconocidos en la presente Ley a los autores de obras fotográficas. Este derecho tendrá una duración de veinticinco años computados desde el día 1 de enero del año siguiente a la fecha de realización de la fotografía o reproducción.

TITLE V Protection of simple photographs Article 128. Of the ordinary photographs Whoever engages in a photograph or other reproduction obtained by a process analogous to it, when neither having the character of protected works in Book I, has the exclusive right to authorize reproduction, distribution and public communication, in the same terms recognized this Act to the authors of photographic works. This right shall last twenty-five years counted from the 1st January of the year following the date of taking of the photograph or reproduction.

Some of the photos that have been removed are of unknown authorship and now are the property from the heirs of ca:Mauna Florenci i Marimont. These photos in my opinion fall into the category of ordinary photographs and their copyright has expired.

Cameta (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The template saying that was removed from Commons long time ago, see Template talk:PD-Spain-Simple. Its not good, that an IP user now tried to reinstaded that against our policy and hidden in a strange and unsourced {{PD-because}} rational. This files are not public domain. Additional the uploads where claimed as beeing "simple photographs" without any difference. You cant say, an professional portrait photograph is a simple photo, thats the one of the most skilfull kinds of photography, it cant be "to simple for copyright". Thats a lame excuse, this files are not public domain and not ok on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the explanation.
As I just read the pictures are not public domain, but because the photos are of unknown authorship we have a copyrighted work for which the copyright owner cannot be identified and contacted: an en:orphan work. I'll explain him to don't upload these files. Cameta (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If the author is verifiably unknown the file will be public domain 70 years following its anonymous or pseudonymous publication. See COM:L#European_copyright_law. A reference to the publication (source) is required then. --Martin H. (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Of course, I made a mistake. The background is not for free use, sorry. Delete it.--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you need free background look e.g. in {{OpenStreetMap}} --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuggerorum et Fuggerarum imagines

Ah, what a beautiful book! Thank you for it :) Shakko (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, thanks to the Bavarian State Library and those artists who once printed and colored this book ;) --Martin H. (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Somali Presidents

Hello. I don't know why you keep tagging these images for deletion. I already explained that they were originally taken in Somalia by the Somali government and have since fallen into the public domain. This is why they are featured on all sorts of Somali websites, some of which even tag them with their own proprietary logos (e.g. this news website) i.e. because they are in the public domain. Somalia also has no existing copyright relations with the United States or any copyright protection for that matter. PD-URAA stipulates that: {{PD-URAA}} All of its conditions have been met. Again, with regard to the File:Abdirashid Ali Shermarke.jpg image:

This file is in the public domain because it was published in Somalia before 1978 (the President depicted in it was assassinated in 1969). Somalia has no copyright relations or signed treaties of any kind with the United States, making the photo in question not copyrighted in the U.S.. Somalia is also not a World Trade Organization (WTO) member (1), and is a party to neither the Berne convention nor the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (2). Due to the civil war in the country, there is also no copyright protection.

And with the regard to the File:Pres Adan Abdulle Osman.jpg image:

This file is in the public domain because it was published in Somalia before 1978, during the tenure of the nation's first President (depicted in image), who was born in 1908 and was in office from 1960-1967. Somalia has no copyright relations or signed treaties of any kind with the United States, making the photo in question not copyrighted in the U.S.. Somalia is also not a World Trade Organization (WTO) member (1), and is a party to neither the Berne convention nor the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (2). Due to the civil war in the country, there is also no copyright protection.

The COM:EI policy page you directed me to also indicates that "there are different ways of giving source information" and then lists several of those ways, only one of which pertains to the situation at hand since these images are in the public domain:

"For content which is in the public domain, it is important to know the date the content was created to judge whether its copyright has truly expired already."

And we of course know the date the content was published (i.e. before 1978) for the reasons already explained above. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The requirement is simple. You say "it was published in Somalia before..." - provide a reliable source for that. You say, that all requirements have been met and repeat the requirements with sources to the legal documents, but you still not provide a source for the image. Its important for any reuser to have evidence, that it was indeed published in Somalia so that it is indeed public domain. Provide a publication to demonstrate, that it was first published in Somalia and that all the above can apply, no reason to repeat the requirements over and over. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no such Wikipedia policy which insists on what you and only you are insisting on above. In fact, the relevant Source section of the actual policy you yourself pointed me to -- COM:EI -- only indicates that "for content which is in the public domain, it is important to know the date the content was created to judge whether its copyright has truly expired already." All materials published in Somalia are in the public domain since there is no copyright protection, as I have already pointed out several times before. Now you ask me to prove as well when the images were published? Did you not read when I mentioned that one of the image's subject was killed a good decade before the 1978 date that PD-URAA specifies? Or when I explained that the other image's subject's tenure as President likewise ended over a decade before the relevant 1978 date and that he was born in 1908 (and therefore would have been 77 years old in 1978 -- does this look like a 77 year old man to you?)? Did you even read let alone absorb what I wrote? I mean, you sure responded back as fast as humanly possible (i.e. knee-jerk reverted), so it's highly doubtful that you did. Like all other editors on Commons, I only answer to actual policies. So if you have any actual policies that support what you claim and/or counterindicate what COM:EI itself specifies, do produce them (and by produce, I mean quote the relevant passages, as I have done above with COM:EI; don't just vaguely point me to them). Otherwise, you are delete-tagging these images for no legitimate reason. Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "to judge whether its copyright has truly expired already" - the requirement for this is the time and location of publication. Yes, you have to provide a publication name/citation.
  • You say, it was created by the government - after you finaly removed your copyfraud, thanks - how do you know? What is your source? It cant be so difficult to simply say your clear-cut source confirming at least the information that it was created by that government and not by a french photographer for a british newspaper.
  • Not even an immidate source is listed, does the image suddenly appeared on your computer? From all I learned in my life I can exclude such miracles.
--Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh, that's a fragment of the quote I already posted above that goes "for content which is in the public domain, it is important to know the date the content was created to judge whether its copyright has truly expired already." You forgot the underlined part, which I've already more than addressed above.
  • It's clear by now that you have quite a bit of trouble with civility and assuming good faith, core Wikipedia policies. This is the second time you are referring to my edits with the corny neologism "copyfraud". And this is likewise the second time I am telling you that COM:EI does not require what you have indicated just now, as can clearly be seen in that quote above from the relevant section in it. Only you do, and Commons does not function according to your say-so or whims.
  • You still have yet to quote any policy supporting your incessant delete-tagging of these images. As I have already demonstrated above, quoting the actual relevant part of the Source section of the COM:EI policy you yourself pointed me to, you are literally inventing your own terms for what is and is not admissible as a Commons file. You are not relying on any policy, just citing conditions of your own making, thereby making your edits illegitimate. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Licensing: The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag. All information required by that license must be provided on the description page. The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status. Now go ahead and add your sources and stop talking arround with "creation" and "date"... Anyone must be able to verify, not only you and your word, that it was created by some government is simply not sufficient for any reuser, neither for Commons nor for any publisher who wants to reuse it outside Wikimedia. Per COM:EI you should make sure that other people have enough information to verify the licensing claims. Your unsourced finding that it comes from and was created by the Somali government isnt verifiable nor reliable. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin, please delete this image repeatedly that I put in Commons. Truu (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

These images from flickr suspicions? take a look Avril Lavigne Paint.jpg Justin Bieber WMsoundcheck.jpg Jonas Brothers meet Avril.jpg Justin Bieber on set.jpg Truu (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


why did you delete my photo with my girlfriend (File:Kissing by Teen 1.jpg)? I just wanted to donate photographs of my work? While other photographs were donated photos of my friends. My friends do not know how to menyubang photos of their work. Please return this photo (File:Kissing by Teen 1.jpg, If this photo is not copyright violation). Erik Anggara (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I answered this question already above: You had stolen to much. --Martin H. (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If this picture (File:Kissing by Teen 1.jpg) is not stealing, but me and my girlfriend and my friend photographed. I've never had a picture again because my flashdisk is missing. Please please please please Erik Anggara (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to DR's

Hi! It seems you have a talent for finding Flickr washing. But when you delete images it would be nice if you linked to the DR or wherever the proof is. Example:

That makes it easier for others to check and learn. --MGA73 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See the file history of File:Young Divas at Kmart 2.jpg and the edit from May 2 2009. --Martin H. (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes but as I said a link makes it easier :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do so or will leave a rational/summary in the deleted revisions. --Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Albert "Bert" Hodgkinson

Martin: you refused my photo of Albert Hodgkinson because it didn't have a source or author name. This photo was given to me by his daughter Lilian Hodgkinson Bruce (my mother) as belonging to her. I have her explicit consent to upload it to Wikipedia. Neither I nor she knows where or when the photo was taken, nor by whom, except that it was a studio shot during the war when Albert was still a private, ie 1915, The studio name on the back is illegible. What to do? Dr Peter Bruce

Personal collection isnt a sufficient sourcing. Your explanation above opens the way to an argumentation that may lead to the conclusion, that the file is {{PD-UK-unknown}}. I dont know however, how much research is required to fulfill the requirement of reasonable enquiry, maybe shortly writing down the history of the original negative and how it came to your personal collection is sufficient already. --Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the public information officer for the agency page I created. When I viewed the page I saw you deleted the logo I uploaded. I have again uploaded and am using the image in the article. Please leave it. We are the sole entity using the logo and as the public information officer for the agency, I have permission to use it in this format. Thank you.

The author information is wrong and its questionable if permission is given. Does the copyright holder gave written permission that not only you but anyone can reuse the logo anywhere, anytime for every purpose including commercial reuse? This is a free content only project, permission that everyone (not only Wikipedia or you) can reuse the logo must be given vuluntarily from the copyright holder in written form. --Martin H. (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does image jenni_muldaur.jpg come from?

Hi Martin, could you help me understand what I need to do to keep this file up? It's a snapshot from Jenni Muldaur's personal files taken by her friend Amanda Rowen. Not sure as to what I should specifically label it. Ringo1000 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The file is used on many places, e.g. and the album cover art I wouldnt call this a snapshot taken by a friend. Its required now to provide true and correct source information including information on previous publication and copyright holder. Permission is required too, the photo was published on an album cover, so maybe the record lable is the copyright holder of the photo? --Martin H. (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The file is from Jenni Muldaur's collection. Amanda Rowan is her god-daughter. The photo was taken at her house. I am a graphic designer. Jenni supplied me with this photo that I used to design her album cover with. The record was released through Jenni's music company, dandelion music. There is no copyright on this image. Ringo1000 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There always is copyright, except the copyright holder waived it (in written form). Please provide written permission form the copyright holder to our COM:OTRS. Refer to the exact filename so that it can be restored after permission arived. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I sent the release/copyright form to Amanda Rowen, she signed and dated it and sent it back to me. I then forwarded it with her email header to the address. What do I do now? This notice is also appearing on her page. "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by addingreliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (June 2010)". How can I avoid this? Sorry, it seems I don't know what I'm doing. Help is appreciated. Ringo1000 (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Hope Martin doesn't mind my chiming in....) I've tagged the image as OTRS pending, so you don't need to do anything more about the image at this point. It's up to the volunteers who look after the OTRS queue to process it. As for the notice on Jenni's page on EN, what that means is that there's nothing to back up the statements made in the article. For instance, the article says she is the daughter of Geoff and Maria Muldaur... where did you originally read that? It says she toured as a back-up singer - where did you learn about that? That's what they're asking about. If you have any more questions about her article, leave me a note on my user page at en:User talk:Tabercil and I'll help you out. Tabercil (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, thanks for answering this. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

About file Azimut magazine cover.jpg

Hello Martin

Editor of magazine RBG-Azimuth (she is an owner of file [Azimut_magazine_cover.jpg]) sent e-mail with permission to publish image of the cover of magazine in wikipedia. I updated the image, however it disappeared.

Could you help me with it, please? Thank you. Markus50

File:Azimut magazine cover.jpg never disapeared. If the permission was sent to our COM:OTRS the file will be marked accordingly by an OTRS-volunteer. This will however take some time. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The permission was sent. Well. I will wait.)) Thank you for all your help! Markus50 8:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi! OK. I don't remeber the file because last time I uploaded and verified their a lot but if it was a derivative photo it should be deleted. Nobody's perfect, but I everybody should hard to try ;). Thanks Electron <Talk?> 12:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The original source links is visible in the file log. If someone asked you to upload the file from their flickr account please tell this user, that we dont like flickr washing on commons. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As I remember it was a corupted file without a photo waiting to be verified so I try only help the user and I uploaded it myself. I didn't notece that it was a copyrigted photo. It's all... In the future I'll be more suspicious ;). Electron <Talk?> 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info and no problem. --Martin H. (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Martin H.,

kann ich Deinen Beitrag auf seiner Talk so verstehen, dass er hier eine Google-Übersetzung verwendet und die dann abspeichert? Liebe Grüße --Catfisheye (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oder ein anderes Übersetzungsprogramm. Ja, Google Translate verändert die geschweiften Klammern in normale Klammern und erstellt durch die Übersetzung der Vorlagennamen und -parameter einen furchtbares Durscheinander. Ich bin mir sicher, dass es dort zum Einsatz gekommen ist. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Nur warum speichert er die ab? Ich habe nochmal versucht, ihm das mit dem Urheberrecht ansatzweise zu erklären und ansonsten auf die italienische Bar verwiesen. Ich bezweifel, dass eines der navigli-Bilder behalten werden kann. Grüße --Catfisheye (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hat keine Kentniss zur technischen Funktionsweise von Vorlagen und Commons ist nunmal ein Wiki dass stark auf Vorlagen basiert. Vielleicht verweis auf it:Aiuto:Template und die Anweisung, bei Bearbeitungen auf keinen Fall google translation zu verwenden und auf Bildbeschreibungen nur den Text auf der rechten Seite des = zu bearbeiten, niemals den Vorlagenparameter. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission has been granted for use of image files of the ChicagoCatz

Please do not delete these image files that you marked for deletion. Thanks.

Regarding the following image files...Permission has been granted to use these image files as an email has been sent to the permissions email at wikimedia as of June 11, 2010 by Chicago Catz, LLC representative Richard Davis.

File:ChicagoCatz_Logo.JPG. File:ChicagoCatz_RichieDavis.jpg. File:ChicagoCatz_HouseOfBlues.jpg

Zology (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please forward the required permission to our OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The permission has been sent to OTRS via the email address as instructed which was done several days ago by the above mentioned copyright holder...I do not see it listed anywhere as an active I looking in the wrong place? Help. Thanks.Zology (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It will take some time, no hurry. An OTRS volunteer will check the mail and tag the images accordingly. --Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Images upload from a Wikisource project

Hello Martin H., I need help to resolve a number of issues connected with the images of my work on Wikisource with the The Popular Science Monthly project. I uploaded 1,000+ images from this project to here and now I must upload and replace most of them. The replacement images are to be cleaned, further categorized and renamed to meet both the project's and the Commons' naming requirements.

  1. The replacement process I tested was to upload the new image and de-link and delete the old. Is this the simplest and fastest way to go about it?
  2. I also considered uploading them to Wikisource temporarily, (have them approved by one of the administrators interested in image quality,) and then transfer them to the Commons directly, but the toolserver transfer tool is currently disabled. Your input to devise the proper strategy would me most appreciated and there is no hurry.Ineuw talk page on 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, uploading free content/public domain files to another project is redundant work in any case. Upload directly to Commons. Second, im unexpirienced with batch uploads and not realy know what you mean with 'upload and replace most' of the uploads. If you have to upload a bunch of files ask the people at COM:BATCH or, if you have to do the same work again and again ask bot support at Commons:Bots/Work requests. If you just need to do some little cosmetic or corrective changes to your filenames you can ask to have the filemover permission granted on COM:RR. I dont think I can help you at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me to requesting file renaming privileges. I didn't know that it existed. For the rest, please ignore. Ineuw talk page on 01:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Hola, Martin solo te queria preguntar como me doy cuenta cuando una imagen es libre M.A.M.E.-Marcos moreno (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuera de carta and Nazareno Cruz y el lobo

Hola, que fuera borrado el primero es entendible no era mío del todo y no tenía derechos de autor, pero de la segunda no sé por qué es borrada, ya que se han cumplido más de 25 años y es de igual forma que 20px. Por lo que me gustaría saber el motivo por el que se ha decidido borrar.--Botedance (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Juanmoreira afiche.jpg is an photographic work while the other one was a montage of a photo and painted elements. --Martin H. (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This gallery can?

The images in this gallery of flickr can be used in the commons? Truu (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say: No. Because the watermark, because the website says © 2009 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Isnt Wal-Mart ;). Additional compare the self-created images in the early photostream and the later professional uploads - thats too much difference. --Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File for deletion

Hello, Martin. Could you delete this image file for me? Thanks.-Jwkozak91 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Did so. --Martin H. (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I had doubts about the image not being of best quality and later only after uploading discovered that similar David Franklin images had trouble before, by way of encountering remnant references to them. I had not been aware of COM:QFI before this. -Mardus (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. That flickr account is the remaining of an notorious bad user here who tried anything, he even impersonated actors from Xena. --Martin H. (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Source given

Hello Martin.

I have just given the source for one image, (Guillermo Tritschler), but I do not have it for the other one, you may delete it, thank you. Gusvel (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin, I'm Leopold and are several times that I am to be locked in as I was repeatedly accused of being a sock puppet of Leopold. I would continue to upload files on Wikimedia Commons as the ones I created so far that are created entirely by me! For example, all the ribbon bars that I created with the name of the ItalianBars I designed them all myself personally with window's program Paint :) I'm sorry that you deleted me because I am a hard working and meticulous to achieve. The current state of things I can not help more with my work on Wikimedia Commons, I am completely prevented even if it's something that I really like ... I'm sorry for you. FranzJosephI (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You dont mention your dark side... Obviously after the block of User:Leopold you created sockpuppets and not only uploaded ribbon bars, but also a lot of stolen photographs. Thats the dark side. --Martin H. (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello, about File:Nueit-contarela.jpg. I am the author, and I am user:Morburre too. I received on my personal email the advice of your request. Of course I can use this personal email to explain all that to OTRS, but I'm tired of this narrow-minded bureaucracy (no personal offence, of couse)… So feel free to delete all my files, I don't need any explanation. Regards. Morburre (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can bring some light in User_talk:Jimmy44#File:Antoine_de_Roquelaure.jpg? Thats how I found this. If it is you: No problem, didnt know this. --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, the first Antoine de Roquelaure was "mine". I didn't noticed that. Il did it for a book, using the painting mentioned as documentation (in public domain !). The painting by Guérin has been reproduced by the engraving by Louis Hercule Sisco (the recent file:Antoine de Roquelaure). In the same book, I realized a portrait of Maurice Parisot, from the unique known photograph of the man, and after verifying that I could do this with reasonable risks (Parisot's relatives were OK and the photographer unknown). Then I made another portrait for Commons, using the same picture (and waiting to make another one more original) : this File :MauriceParisot.jpg is proposed to deletion and I agree : it's quite illegal ! Thanks. Morburre (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I will likely not participate in the other discussions, please use the deletion request page. I was just interested in the first upload of the File:Antoine de Roquelaure.jpg image and thank you very much for the information. It wasnt easy to judge if your painting is an old painting or a recent - intersting how things make their way through the internet, this came from here - and how something can receive wrong interpretations quickly :) --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Zurückgestellt. Danke für die Benachrichtigung! :-) Cassandro (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Делай что хочешь придурок, ты меня достал. Почему я должен доказывать тебе, что фото с моим отцом не нуждаются в лицензировании. Ничтожество, ты уже посягаешь на фото героя войны Свилюкова. Чмо, ничего святого у тебя нет. Один холодный расчет. Не "понимайт" русский язык...? Найду на тебя управу. Мой заведующий кафедрой Константин Кульчицкий тоже достоин памяти, также как и Сапожников. Мазурмович, был учеником моего отца. Павловский был дружен с моим отцом. А ты "Martin H.", так и останешься всю жизнь под "ником". Ничего ведь из себя не представляешь. Где тебе тягаться с ВЕЛИКИМИ. Снова "не понимайт"? Надоел уже, делай что хочешь.

Written permission is required from that newspaper, the owner of copyrights. It doesnt matter who the person in the image is, nothing is free without a reason, the only valid reason here is that the copyright owner agreed to a free licensing. That requires written evidence. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete Photo

Hello Martin,

The files Lio&brooke.jpg, Bio_Lionel.jpg and Bio_lionel.jpg are from Lionel Rumi himself (i'm a friend of him, he asked me to create his page).

The file Merwan.jpg is from me ( ).

If you want any other details, do not hesitate.


Wiederherstellung von Foto

Hallo Martin! Könntest du bitte die von dir gelöschte Datei File:Elsinore Press Photo 1.jpg wiederherstellen. Wir haben eine Genehmigung erhalten: {{OTRS|2010052010027352}}. Ich beobachte die Datei und werde mich darum kümmern, alle Felder richtig auszufüllen. Nillerdk (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ach so, du warst es gar nicht, aber vielleicht kannst du trotzdem wiederherstellen. Nillerdk (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Klar, ich habs ja als {{subst:npd}} markiert. --Martin H. (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Luster image

Mistakenly. I read news accounts of his arrest, and thought it was an FBI photo. If I contact the Sheriff's department to ask if they release their mug shots in the public domain, will my report on their response be sufficient to keep it, or is there another avenue that can be taken to retain the photo? Sorry about my error. Thanks. Nightscream 03:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont know but maybe yes. Dont know the sollution, therefore I opened the deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Collage Upload

Thnx for the answer, found it! --G-41614 (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Martin, ich hätte wieder zwei Verschiebewünsche. Könntest Du so nett sein und mir

verschieben? Vielen Dank im Vorhinein und liebe Grüße. --Steindy (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Schon geschehen, ich habe auf redirects verzichtet, Einbindungen bitte prüfen und korrigieren. --Martin H. (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Selbstverständlich. Nochmals vielen Dank! – L.G. Steindy (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Es gibt übrigens das Umbennennungsrecht ("Filemover"). Wenn du versprichst es vorsichtig und nur dort einzusetzen wo es nötig ist (z.B. Tipfehler, falsche Identifizierung - kosmetische Änderungen nur wenn die Datei gerade hochgeladen wurde!) kann ich dir das Recht geben, dann kannst du Dateien einfach wie Artikel umbennenen. Dabei wird immer eine Weiterleitung erstellt die bei einigen Einbindungen funktioniert, nicht aber bei allen (z.B. nicht in Infoboxen), so dass du Einbindungen immer nochmal prüfen musst. Siehe Commons:Dateien verschieben. --Martin H. (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Martin! Ja, das wäre wirklich großartig, wenn Du mich dafür freischalten könntest. Gerade bei den Bildern kommt es immer wieder einmal vor, dass in der Eile oder durch Unachtsamkeit einmal ein falscher Dateiname generiert wird. Als ich diese beiden Dateien erstmalig verwenden wollte, ist mir der Fehler ohnehin sofort aufgefallen, aber leider eben zu spät. Wie Du weißt, musste ich Dich zuvor auch schon zweimal um Verschiebungen ersuchen; auch einen anderen Com-Admin musste ich vorher schon einmal darum ersuchen. Ich würde mich also über den “file mover” sehr freuen. Und klar, dass ich diese Berechtigung nicht missbräuchlich einsetzen werde. – Liebe Grüße Steindy (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hab deinen Status geändert, siehe log. Bei fragen kannst du dich gerne an mich wenden, beim Umbenennen wie gesagt vorsichtig sein: (1) da du kein Admin bist kannst du die Erstellung einer Weiterleitung nicht unterdrücken da dass einer Löschung entspricht. Wenn du eine Weiterleitung löschen möchtest (da z.B. kurz nach upload gemerkt, dass Spielername falsch war) musst du auf der Redirect-Seite einen Schnelllöschantrag stellen. (2) Möglichst nicht mehrmals umbenennen da sonst doppelte Weiterleitungen entstehen, zurückverschieben kannst du glaube ich auch nicht, da du dafür die Weiterleitung überschreiben müsstest was ja wieder einer Löschung gleichkäme. --Martin H. (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Achso, Autopatroler habe ich auch aktiviert, dass hat aber auf deine Bearbeitungen keinen Einfluss, nur auf das kleine rote Ausrufezeichen in Special:RecentChanges, siehe Template:Autopatrolgiven für Informationen. --Martin H. (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nochmals ganz herzlichen Dank Martin! Ich kann Dir versprechen, dass ich damit höchst sorgsam und vorsichtig umgehen werde. Jedenfalls wird mir die Berechtigung sehr helfen, wenn ich wieder einmal irgendwo einen Fehler einbaue. Bei Fragen komme ich gerne auf Dein Angebot zurück. – Liebe Grüße Steindy (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: Und ich habe es auch für einen Kollegen schon gebrauchen können und hoffe dabei alles richtig gemacht zu haben. – L.G. Steindy (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo Map 2010 Multilingual.png

Hello. I saw a question for this map (Kosovo Map 2010 Multilingual.png). Its my own creation. At the right top is taken one note. That me explain. I create this image/map by graphical programs. Than I had controled many various maps (UN, Regional etc.) to make it better and standard and then put that same sentences. If it will give problems I can delete these sentences. Thanks... Hiung-Nu (Talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Add your sources and make sure, that your work isnt a derivative work of other peoples work - regretably obviously it is. --Martin H. (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I put source. Is there anything more what I should do? This image is longtime-editing image and I had tried to make it standard, high quality. So because of these reasons I want to make it very clean. Thank you. Hiung-Nu (Talk) 12:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any sources others than "own" in File:Kosovo Map 2010 Multilingual.png. --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In my talk page there is one big note. And it says "If you created the content yourself, enter Own work as the source". So I did it. This is a country map and many creater can create that sort of maps. There are many Kosovo maps and of course it is same in many ways. Because boundaries of Kosovo is same, cities, towns and roads too... I don't want to argue anything. Its my creation. I used CorelDRAW and Adobe Photoshop programes. Can they be sources? I had controled lots of different map for creating it. Also I have got many Kosovo map base. Blank bases... Hiung-Nu (Talk) 10:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Another book dust jacket

Just thought I'd run this one by you. I uploaded it as it doesn't have anything on the cover except for characters from the English alphabet and a few lines, and thought it qualified as ineligible for copyright as it contains common property and no original authorship. [4] Thanks again for your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

por que me aparecen esas notificaciones?


Me encantaría saber que sucede con las imagenes que subo a wiki commons que me mandaste varias notificaciones de eliminacion, cuando lo que yo quiero es aportar material multimedia a la pagina, no entiendo porque van en contra del proyecto, yo solo quiero aportar material de dominio propio...

agradezco la explicación

Estebanelv (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Violar copyright, ver Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Tengo que leer un monton de cosas, y no tengo tiempo, y seguro me eliminas las imágenes que me costó mucho reunir, todo el trabajo que hice me lo tiras en un minuto, que lamentable esta comunidad, asi no da ganas de aportar nada, la única manera es ser fotógrafo e ir hasta al baño con el jugador para certificar la "fuente". Como puedo hacer para que no las eliminen... Para que tantas horas en subir y armar los artículos?. aparte te ensañaste con todas las imagenes mias.... Una ultima cosa: Como puedo contactarme con alguien para que me ayude, tipo chat u msn...
Gracias por leer mi mensaje!
--Estebanelv (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not the photographer - Tuteo no el fotógrafo! You can not upload pictures here that you not created yourself - no puedes subir fotos aquí que no te crea. Do not give false author information - No dé información falsa autor. Ver Commons:Primeros pasos. Ver File:Gustavo Fernández.jpg, File:Funes Mori.jpg, File:Higuain seleccion 2010.jpg, .. - todo mal. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
La verdad no se entiende mucho lo que me decis , porque seguramnete me estas traduciendo las palabras con un traductor... no se de que pais sos y la lengua que usas, aparte no entiendo porque pones un link de una pagina y aseguras que el dueño es esa persona, cuando tranquilamente pueden haber robado de cualquier sitio esa foto, quien te asegura que la foto esa con el link que me pusiste es el autor original?
Cuanto tiempo tengo para poder solucionar el problema?
--Estebanelv (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Simply dont add a watermark to other peoples photos and declare them your own work. Thats all. --Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm explaining him about the licenses on IRC --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sucede que ésas imágenes no te pertenecen, y no puedes licenciarlas como trabajo propio, éso es todo. Y si, Martin H. no habla español. --Diego Grez return fire 00:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading his words, is OK to nuke him, these aren't his pictures. Regards --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio images to be deleted

Can you please delete the following images as they are blatant copyright violations of copyrighted logos, music videos, website images etc. Regards -- Legolas from Mirkwood 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Alejandro Police.jpg
File:Classement fame.jpg
File:Cook 'n' kill.jpg
File:Ecriture paparazzi.jpg
File:Evolution Alejandro's Australia Chart.jpg
File:Lady Gaga logo.png
Text, except File:Cook 'n' kill.jpg, deleted that. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Biondo deserto.png

the Italian it:Template:Screenshot film is not equivalent to Template:PD-old! The author of the movie (or the last surviving author of many authors) is not dead for 70 years as written in Template:PD-old. The 20 years claim of it.wp isnt accepted on Commons, so this file ok on it.wp but it is not ok to move this file to Commons. I talk about it:File:Biondo deserto.png and it is written there: Do not move this file to Wikimedia Commons without adequate review! The criterias for review are written in Template:PD-Italy here on Commons, non of the criterias is fulfilled. --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hum... Ok ! I'm sorry for the disagreement, I don't know.
Regards Stef48 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. --Martin H. (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg

Please look into the discussion re: pending deletion request for this image. I hope I've resolved it. Thanks. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont see this point strong enough to change my opinion, so I will not comment it. As the nominator I also not close deletion requests. You wrote down your argumentation, maybe someone will close it with that information. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Don't you think you are exaggerating by deleting files which have been submitted to ORTS for review. You are right to ask for sources, but at least have the decency to give me time to compile the information and to post it.

I can really not understand why you love this dictatorial attitude and try to show off how smart you are and how powerful you are and that you can do anything you like. I would kindly request you to refrain from such attitudes.

I do not want to take this dispute further, but this is the second time you abuse your prerogatives.Afil (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What image are you refering too? --Martin H. (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

File protection.

I would like to thank you for what you did here, and I am sure the they appreciate it as well. If you don't mind, would you consider such action with this file as well, for the same reason? :) sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (paroli) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

why you delete the pic?

oh my goshhh.. i still supporting to wikipedia and you delete the pic , i don't know why ? that is a public pic , it means don't belong to anyone , always waste my time here that is suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirferro2717 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason is given in the deletion summary. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

deletion request

Hi. Could you delete this file, because I realised that I've made a mistake. This is not necessary. Regards...--Sabri76 18:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been deleted, thanks:)--Sabri76 19:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Exploration Place


I am an employee at Exploration Place and thus, working on the EP Wikipedia page. I would like to know why you marked the picture of the building and of Chirpie as copyrighted? EP uses the picture of the building all the time. Also, Chirpie is our creation and I know that his picture is for our use. I am not completely familiar with Wikipedia or Wikimedia but any information would be helpful.

Thank you,

Caitlin wildcat313

You may provide correct author and source information - not own work but created by someone and published by some organization, not you personally - and, following the instructions in the upload form ("If this work was already published elsewhere without indication of a free license, use {{OTRS pending|month=June|day=27|year=2010}} and send permission by e-mail"), instructions on how this works is written in COM:OTRS or Commons:Permission. --Martin H. (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for resolving this deletion discussion quickly. I visited Tiffin today, so I've created a city category for it in preparation for uploading lots of images; when I saw this photo, I immediately knew that something was wrong. Thanks, too, for pointing out that it was Melbourne; I just find it amazing that someone would make such an absurd claim. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too, thats vandalism. However, because it was obvious for this small town (and because something like that not happens every day here) it is a little bit funny ;) --Martin H. (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I found it funny as well — I linked to Street View to prove my point, but I didn't need to go there to know that it wasn't that way; look at File:Washington from Perry in Tiffin.jpg (and please forgive the tilting) to see what downtown Tiffin is really like. It's just a pity that the Melbourne image was used on the English and German Wikipedia articles for many months before anyone noticed. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I just removed it from the de.wp article, someone realy believed it and added it there :)) --Martin H. (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; it saves me from having to use Google Translate. If you find either of them appropriate, could you add either "Washington from Perry in Tiffin" or File:City of Tiffin from the air.jpg to the German article? I don't want to produce a very badly mangled caption. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, added both. --Martin H. (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Estimado señor Martin, la foto de Lalo Borja a Harold Alvarado Tenorio fue regalada al escritor por el fotografo y puede usarse en la Wikipedia.Su correo es El vive en Inglaterra donde es profesor en una universidad. Le ruego por favor una respuesta a Quisieramos poner una foto del escritor.

Profi oder Schummler?

Hi, ist euch dieser Herr schon mal aufgefallen? Ist das eine gute Quelle oder ein Flickr washer? Grüsse Mutter Erde 13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Eher Zweiteres. Flickr benutzt als Bildtitel standardmäßig den Originaldateinamen wie die Datei auch auf der Festplatte heißt. Dieser Flickr-Benutzer hat den Dateinamen nicht geändert, daher finden wir Bilder wie (Titel: 525864943_fee16777f1_o) indem wir verwenden. Auf den Bildern sind, soweit ich das in der Kürze überlogen habe, endlos viele verschiedene Wasserzeichen. Ein Fan-Account mit falscher Lizenz. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Dankeschön. So ein Frechdachs, siehe hier, unterster Satz. Soll sich was schämen :-). Danke und Gruss. Mutter Erde
Nein, die Flickr Software entnimmt die Beschreibung aus den EXIF Daten, dort steht der Text auch inklusive des wahren Autors. Aber dennoch, gerne geschehen, das letzte Beispiel ist noch viel offensichtlicher und der Fall damit für mich eindeutig. --Martin H. (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nur zur Info ...

... es:Wikipedia:Vandalismo en curso#Bioniccente! Gruß axpdeHello! 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Naja, danke. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Acerca de Etiquetado de imágenes

100px Fecha: 26/06/2010


Autor: villalta_c

Permiso: Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 2.0.


Fecha: 26/06/2010


Autor: villalta_c

Permiso: Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 2.0.

He colocado la información solicitada, que más debo de hacer para que se retire la advertencia, espero una respuesta, Saludos--Stelita (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just "" isnt enough, provide a link to the image. Flickr is big, there are Billions of photos in it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They are my own photos, I use Flickr to display them, I've taken with my own camera, what copyright I am violating? I really don't understand, why you instead of just deleting the files do not help people who do not know how to label the images? It seems arbitrary to me.--Stelita (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? In the past your uploads was found copyright violations and deleted. Now you toke the images, e.g. from here, uploaded them to your own flickr account and forwarded them to Commons with the claim, that anyone on this planet can reuse this photos for any purpose including money making purposes as long as "villalta_c "is properly attributed... Thats nonsense, uploading something to your own flickr account does not make you the author nor does it give you the right to waive someone else rights (economic rights) on it! In fact it is illegal, against the law, against flickr policy, against commons policy, against sanity and all behavioural rules. --Martin H. (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Фотографии Сергея Беляковича

Дорогой Martin H.,

Я получила автоматические запросы на разрешения публикации следующих файлов:

Я являюсь редактором сайта, посвященного истории Театра на Юго-Западе ( Материалы, которые имеются на моем сайте, даны мне в архиве театра для публикации в интернете и в прессе. Сергей Белякович ( - актер этого театра, умерший год назад, и его фотографии - часть архива театра. Я попросила администратора театра написать специально для Википедии официальное письмо, подтверждающее разрешение на публикацию. Если этого письма окажется недостаточно - Вы можете просто стереть эти файлы, и больше никаких архивных иллюстраций театра публиковаться не будет.

С уважением,
Ольга Климова
Klio SW (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you sent the written permission already please wait some time, an volunteer will check the permission and confirm it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Twin Otter pic

Hi Martin. I'm a bit clueless about Commons - could you please tell me what this edit was doing? I've looked at it but its effects and your reason for doing it aren't obvious to me as a very inexpert user. It would be very educational for me if you could please fill me in on this? Thanks! DBaK (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

first 6 lines removed the category review, the categorization is a good start. There are 4 categories for the company that will be merged into a company category sometime, the categorization makes a first step for the future company categorization with location, year of establishment, etc. With the last line I added another category to indicate for the plane type. --Martin H. (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant, many thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi dear. I wonder what is the right definition to put one in the final page. I have been try to put but I never got. Can you please send me the right definition? Sorry for my english I don't speak/write so well. I hope you understand.

No, I dont understand. You must read Commons:Licensing (or COM:L/pt). --Martin H. (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


I know it's a nonsense, it was a mistake. Sorry, i'm trying to get the proper tamplate. --Lizz22 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, remember that ther is no Freedom of Panorama in COM:FOP#Argentina, not upload photographs of artwork taken in public places. --Martin H. (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


You deleted Myroslava Gongadze.jpg today. The picture was taken from Flicr and the licence there (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic) said "You are free:

  • to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to Remix — to adapt the work"

So if I am free to share and remix it why can't it be on wikipedia commons? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just read Commons:Flickr files and the "NC (CC-NC)" is the problem I see now. Sorry for bothering you! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Henri-Pierre Picou

Thank you very much for cleaning up the category and the painting summaries for all of the images I've been uploading recently. I'm used to Wikipedia and hadn't taken the time yet to figure out the appropriate format for the image summaries. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Youre welcome. Maybe my edits give you some examples to use {{painting}}, {{size}} and {{technique}} as well as the Creator templates, in return your uploads gave me some new, interesting sources that I didnt know so far. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll have to sit down and see what you did when I have some free time. I started working on w:Henri-Pierre Picou this weekend and have been trying to track down every image of his I can, so I've been finding lots of nice new image repositories. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on Shenandoah Valley Academy images


Back in April I tagged File:ShenandoahAcademy.jpg and File:ShenandoahValleyAcademy.jpg as missing evidence of permission and raised the concern that based on the comments left by the uploader on the image page, these images were not really being released under a free licence. An OTRS ticket appears to have been received but it was not sufficient as it did not release the images under a free licence. It is now July and the status of these images is still unclear, what action do you think should be taken now? CT Cooper (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait or ask at COM:OTRSN. Im not an OTRS member and dont know if permission was received. --Martin H. (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that anything more is going to happen, so I think that going to COM:OTRSN is the best next step. I will leave a message about this there. Thanks for your help. CT Cooper · talk 12:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bothering you with a question....

Dear Martin,

First of all sorry that I bother you with this question, however, I couldn't find any information about a license type on the commons... I'm not sure that you remember me but I failed the licensing of a couple of pictures and so it was deleted. You informed me about my fail - this is the reason I chose you to ask my question from. I contacted the owner of the pictures I wanted to upload. He gave his permission to upload the pictures to the commons but I have no clue how to license it and how to make his permission appear on the picture's page. Does the commons have an official template for these permissions?
I hope I do not bother you that much with this question. Thanks a lot anyway and have a great day!!!!

Jojojoe (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The copyright holder must agree to a free license in the permission. That license, see Commons:Copyright tags, is the license that you must select for your upload. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unused categories

Hi Martin, Can you delete this three categories?: Category:Trams in Córdoba (Argentina) Category:Government of Córdoba (Argentina) Category:Estadio Cordoba

Thanks Alakasam (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On his behalf, I've done it. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This can?

Hello Martin, check out the source of these images File:EVD-tenis-020.jpg and File:EVD-tenis-017.jpg , this is right? I found several images like them. Truu (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just the moment you wrote here, i wrote the uploader. That was uploaded in a cooperation, it appears a very bad cooperation. --Martin H. (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to upload these images, got a problem? Truu (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of this is screenshot from something called Caras e Bocas - I dont think that this is free. And that images that are not screenshots from that television series(?) is likely not that picasa users work, e.g. for this see TinEye. So I think: No. --Martin H. (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

File: Survivors of Bigfoots band.jpg

I uploaded File: Survivors of Bigfoots band.jpg. You uploaded another entirely different image as the "full size image". The Library of Congress id. number is correct and links to the image I uploaded which was the "full size image". Look at the thumbnails, two different images, can you possibly correct it? 7mike5000 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

US-LibraryOfCongress-BookLogo.svg This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID ppmsc.02517.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

العربية | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | Türkçe | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

I tried to re-upload the correct image and the one you uploaded pops up. I tried to revert to the first image and the one you uploaded shows up on the page and in the thumbnail but when you click on it the correct full size image shows up. 7mike5000 (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I uploaded the wrong file. The not showing of the correct image after your revert was related to either the server or your browser cache, press Ctrl+F5 to purge your cache. I will delete my wrong upload as well as your reupload attempts (to make the history shorter and not confuse users) and will correct all information and reupload the full version of the correct file - summarizing I will do my intended edit and hide the mistake. --Martin H. (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Please add some categories, I dont know much of that topic but I found it a very interesting photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try to add more categories. 7mike5000 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

John Grabill

Hello, Martin, noticed you created a category for John Grabill photographs. You might want to have a look at the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, which also has a few of Grabill's works as well. [5] MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just started to collect the data from LoC and upload those images. If that is done I will have a look. --Martin H. (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot images

Hello Martin, yesterday I found these images that seem to be screenshot, File:Korakuen-Stadium-2.jpg and File:Korakuen-Stadium-1.jpg, after a long editing war [6] [7], You do not think those images should be eliminated? See user's gallery, sources without links, this is right? Truu (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The anwer was given at the Admin board already. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So I must open a discussion here on this page, I'm in doubt. Truu (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the answer, yes. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry to bother, I was confused and not knowing what to do. Truu (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

Since you commented on the w:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League investigation regarding maps earlier, maybe you could give your opinion/advice on the thread I started here about it at Commons talk:Licensing#Copyright status/source of maps? I'd much appreciate it. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I repeat my plea for you to take a look at the situation and give some advice? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I said everything in en:Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Arab_League#Arab Atlas and other maps. Maps always require to indicate the source, I hovewever gave up here on the project because even longstanding contributors violate this self-evident requirement. In the case of AL we have to options: (1) leave the maps allone and dont care, thats what I suggest (2) Require AL to provide sources, Im unsure if the watermark comes from a software (then providing the name of this software would be a start to evaluate the copyright status of the maps used in the software) or if it is just a tag that he created himself, then he must provide sources for the base maps individually. --Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. He asserts that the watermark is his own creation (which I'm inclined to believe since there are 3 or 4 variations of it) and so far I've just been tagging everything to have the watermarks removed; I'll probably follow your advice and leave the maps alone unless anyone else shows interest in them. Oh, and I've been applying what you did for my Henri-Pierre Picou images to my new uploads for Charles-Amable Lenoir, so thanks again for showing me the nicer templates to use. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin,

I belive that I am not the uploader. Geagea (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I informed the original uploader on his en.wp talkpage too. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Files uploaded (EVD-tennis*)


You are porbably right. I did not verified the source, however at , page 82, they state the origin of the first file: File:Jeu de paume.jpg, as well as File:EVD-tenis-007.jpg (File:Tennis costyme1881.jpg) and File:EVD-tenis-010.jpg (File:Dorothea Douglass.jpg). Feel free to delete these copied files.

I will also correct the information of File:EVD-tenis-011.jpg [8] and File:EVD-tenis-016.jpg. I will check with the authors of the PDF on the origin of File:EVD-tenis-020.jpg.

WMCO (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look tomorrow. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

I went to the Singapore cyberpioneer site. I acknowledge those images were published there.

WRT to these edits [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] -- your edit summary said: "not pd-afghanistan, not first published in afghanistan".

But the text of this tag says "work of Afghanistan", not "first published in Afghanistan". Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Files on Commons must be public domain in the country of origin and the U.S. The country of origin is not the country of creation but the place of first publication or the creators home e.g. if unpublished. If Picasso goes to Afghanistan and paint a painting this painting will not be public domain world wide just because it was painted in Afghanistan. If the Singapore Military went to Afghanistan and creates photographs this photographs are not public domain world wide, neither in Singapore nor in the U.S. Maybe they are public domain in Afghanistan, maybe because that country doesnt have copyrights, but that doesnt matter here. Your template says This work is in the public domain in the United States - thats wrong. The work was published in the (Berne) Union, so it is protected in the Union. PD-Afghanistan can only apply to works first published in Afghanistan and not simultaneously published elsewhere. Any conclusion from 'created in Afghanistan' is meaningless. --Martin H. (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin, can you help me with this user: [14] [15] Please, see its contributions and his way to speak (of course, if you understand spanish) Greetings.--Futbolero (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the images. --Martin H. (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me.

It tried variously without having understood the rule well up to now. It has troubled variously you between those. It reflects on it now. I should have respected oneself a little more though there was not every user who noted my act either. The point of having done it bad admits and promises that not to have been done any longer though doesn't understand whether to transmit my sincerity to you well in unskilled English. --Letsshareit (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Im only interested in this project and not in my relationship with you. So no need to ask me for forgiving, ask the project to forgive. maybe you can convince others that you are a good contributor, im not convinced - but im only a small wheel in this project. see COM:AN/U. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

British passport photograph

Hello Martin. Thanks for the fixes on those paintings I'd uploaded from Thomas Moran. Also, I was wondering about British passports. I have a passport photograph I'd like to use of Bryher, otherwise known as Annie Winifred Ellerman.[16] The photograph is undated. I assume that as an official photograph of the British government it is not subject to copyright, but I am unclear on how to mark it so it passes muster. Please let me know at your convenience. Thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Works by the UK government are subject to crown copyright. See COM:L#United Kingdom. However, I see no reason why this was created by any government, so not crown but ordinary copyright. Also I see no author but also no date or publication - so imo no clue for any pd reason. --Martin H. (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your message-warning, these photos (in black and white) are not really scanned, I took them with my digital camera (I still don't have a scanner), the source is a work of my father collection of old separated photos from newspapers dating from (1970 > 1974), however he didn't mention days, months or page numbers (except for one photo). If I have any such information, I will not be so avaricious to report it on my uploads. I am certain these medias are under Public Domain in Tunisia, and I think reporting the year of publication is enough (they are so old). Anyway, I am at your proposal for any further informations. Regards --Habib.mhenni (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucracy.. rrr... :) I'll ask the author to send the OTRS permission.--George Mel (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

License review

Hello Martin, I applied for Commons:License review/requests, But the period of two days over, and now what will happen? Truu (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Martin H.,

für mich bilden die eingetragenen Begriffe von „Bildung“ bis „Bildungshaus Salmünster“ im Gegensatz zu „Salmünster“ in diesem Kontext einen hierarchischen Kategorienbaum. Beurteilst du das anders? Warum bitte? Gruß, -- Siric (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) Das Kategoriensystem ist auf Englisch. (2) die Beispielhaften Kategorien "Bildung" und "Bildungshaus Salmünster" sind bereits COM:OVERCAT. Bilder werden nur in die oberste Kategorie einsortiert, nicht in den gesammten Baum. --Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Images - copyright violation

Hi Martin, please accept my apologize for the copyright violations. I cannot read english very well so I have some problem to find the right way uploading files. I'm italian and I run also the websites of Pier Gonella and Perseo Miranda, so I have their permission to upload their images. If I send to the skan of their written permission is enought or I have to write something particular? I declare that all I'm saying is the true, if you can help it would be great. Thanks a lot for all July 7th 2010 Demetrio99

If you only have permission to upload someone else work you shouldnt upload it as own work (Commons:Upload/it: È interamente opera mia). Second, once you uploade something with correct information on author and source, you should follow the instructions in COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin ...

I have the same language problem sorry for the mistake ... I'm still in the learning period have a lot to do


--علم بالقلم (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Metro2033 wiki.jpg

Sorry, looks like you had already deleted the file before I pressed Report copyright violation. Can you delete the useless page? Thanks. –Tryphon 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done :) --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC) copyright violation

Please don't delete and return our photo!

Mr Martin H, We already got Copyright of all fotos from FBI music. Please don't delete our all photos. AP FL.jpg AP LD.jpg AP NA1.jpg AP FKB.jpg AP FZPNA.jpg AP NAN.jpg AP BAL.jpg AP FKPK.jpg AP NAM3.jpg

And also please return these photos. These photos were already uploaded before and before. That time these photos already were recognized by Wikicommons. Of course we already got Copyright of all fotos from FBI music and uploaded. Why did you delete now? It's VERY strange.

Panaiotov1.jpg Panaiotov2.jpg Panaiotov3.jpg Panaiotov4.jpg Panaiotov5.jpg



fürs abarbeiten meines Katfehlers :) Ich wollte es eigentlich Stück für Stück machen, aber so ist ja auch gut! Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While deleting

I came across a flickr washed image from this user and saw you had warned them about such things a year ago. I've a feeling this one might also be washed (maybe some of the other offerings) but would like another opinion? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to take a closer look. For the images I mentioned the flickr washing was obvious, see File:Oka kit nev.jpg, and the flickr account, obviously not a collection of self-created photos. For the account you mention this is different and a search for the mentioned image [17] brings no result that says different. The Pug Father looks like a good flickr account. --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where the file come from

I got an email from you asking where this file File:DuChun20100124.jpg comes from.

This picture was taken by my friend Guangjuan Li in China. I got her permission to submitted to wikipedia. She can not upload it directly from China. So she sent to me the original and I cropped it and uploaded to wiki.

I asked her to send an email to

Her email address is if you need to contact her.

Please let me know if you have more questions or suggestions,



Larissa Riquelme

Hi, Martin!

LarissaRiquelme01.jpg is a resized picture I have provided into Wiki, with requested and approved permission by Sergio Auad. I have already sent related e-mail to yesterday but the answer was not provided. What can be made about? Thanks.

EgidiofcCpa? 13:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS approval will take some time, if OTRS receives the permission the image will be tagged by an OTRS vollunteer. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. I understand this. Thanks. [By the way: will it be necessary the picture recharging by me, or such vollunteer will do that?] Another question: as I had requested my username change at all over the Wikimedia (well, almost all: here, not yet...), can you help me about this? How can I request my username change at WikiCommons? Thanks. EgidiofcCpa? 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, Martin! About username change, done. But I thank you for all. BeremizCpa? 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hello, Martin! What about the OTRS approval in this case(LarissaRiquelme01.jpg as charged by me, with given permission by, and related e-mail to on 2010.07.10)? You have said "The OTRS approval will take some time"..., but the time has come, does not it? BeremizCpa? 13:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Im not an OTRS volunteer and cant help you. COM:OTRSN is maybe your place. --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another copyvio image by Wisdomtoothless

Hi. I saw you deleted this user's other copyvio image so I thought you may want to delete File:Ragan Fox 1449fr.jpg as well because it is a copyvio from here: [18]. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I have a licensing problem?

Hello again, Martin. I'm concerned about the red-bordered box in the "Licensing" section of File:Flag-Bilboard-Forward_with_CCF_1944.jpg that I uploaded. Is it a problem? -Jwkozak91 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You indicated a license, so dont know why the problem tag appeared. However, I cant realy help you, the source isnt verifiable for an unknowing viewer. If possible provide an archival number "R-XYYYY-Z" from that archives finding aids, at best provide a link directly to the archive, at least provide your imidiate source from which you got the author and date information. --Martin H. (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding deletion

Hi Martin

You have deleted one of the files i uploaded.

"File:Police Look out notice - Kerala professor.JPG" ‎ (Copyright violation: derivative of others work, photo of photo or publication)

It is in public domain. It is the photo of a public notice issued. Does it come under Copy violation?

I have uploaded that in EN wiki under fair use license as it is very much required for the article.

Keralath (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is under copyright and not free enough for Commons (free to reuse by anyone, anywhere for any purpose including commercial reuse). Fair use might be ok on en.wp, not on Commons (see Commons:Fair use). --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


yeah, yeah, my wrong ---hax0r (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Image transfer

i don't know how to use CommonsHelper, sorry.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Res: Bloquear

Ok, vou prestar mais atenção. Eu sou novato. Uma dúvida, eu posso pegar imagens da wikicommons e fazer animações em gif delas para uso na wikipedia.

grato Diovanimangia (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A .gif animation of several photographs would be a Commons:Collages, so if the files are freely licensed and the licenses are compatible you can do this. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrol / delete bug

Good morning:

There is a nuisance bug in the page patrol system. If you delete a new page that has not yet been marked as patrolled, no problem. But if you move it (as at Usuário Discussão:Eloylaurino/Arquivo de mensagens, it remains in the unpatrolled log and as far as I know the only way to get it out is to recreate it, mark it patrolled, and then delete it. Not a big deal -- I run across it about once a week as I patrol new galleries. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello, You left a message on my wall to inform me about violation issues i've made. I don't really understand, what's wrong. I've ever indicated the source, the owner and i've also put the license (the owner who has died about 70 years) to the picture. Can you give me an explanation what is wrong about? Thank you. Benutzer:Joe Thein

Wenn du sagst, der Autor ist vor 70 Jahren gestorben - 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Autoren ist die Schutzfrist im Urheberrechts - dann muss der Autor auch 70 Jahre tot sein. Es ist reichlich Sinnlos die richtige Angabe, dass Heinrich Hoffmann der Autor ist mit der Angabe zu verbinden, der Autor sei vor mehr als 70 Jahren gestorben. Simples nachrechnen sagt: Nein, dem ist nicht so. Die Bilder sind weder gemeinfrei noch vom Urheber (bzw. dessen Erben) frei lizenziert, sie haben in Wikimedia Projekten nichts zu suchen. --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nehmen wir mal das Beispiel von dem Bild Oskar Körner, das ich hochgeladen habe. Dieses Bild ist 1922 entstanden, also vor 88 Jahren. Und ich frag mich natürlich ganz klar nebenbei, wieso andere Webseiten, wie z.B die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek oder das Historische Lexikon Bayern diese Bilder verwenden dürfen/können. Ich find die Vorgehensweise mit der Bilder/Artikel einfach so gelöscht werden, einfach schade. Die Qualität der Beiträge, nimmt damit echt ab. Benutzer:Joe Thein

Bilder in Wikimedia Projekten müssen frei sein. Frei nicht nur für Informationszwecke sondern für jeden Zweck, einschließlich kommerzieller Zwecke. Dafür müssen Bilder entweder gemeinfrei sein (70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Autoren) oder vom Rechteinhaber unter eine freie Lizenz gestellt werden. Siehe Commons:Lizenzen und ließ dir bitte die Bildtutorials durch. --Martin H. (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


I was wondering why the photo taken by myself was just deleted "File:Tosboxfront.JPG" ‎ (Copyright violation: derivative of non-free product packaging) Is is because I didnt list the correct permission or can I not upload a photo taken by me of a cereal box? My intent is to add it to a page about his cereal. How would I be able to do this?

Fortunate4now (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The box is a protected work, making a photo of it is a derivative work. To upload it you need the copyright holders witten permission to the free licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin. Per the users request, they would like an additional CheckUser to review my findings. Please see here. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Magicfd3 is uploading copyvios

I took a look at some of Magicfd3's recent uploads, and they're all pulled from the website. I've been tagging them as I find them here. I don't know how Commons handles sanctions against users, but I will note that his en.wikipedia account has been indefinitely blocked for creating copyright violations, resulting from the use of these images in articles there. C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All images was deleted as copyright violations already. See user log. --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Can you please delete the only image on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewendy (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give a reason for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File revert questioned

Guten Tag Martin H, could you give me a reason why my newer version of is reverted? It's captured by myself and I feel it's much better. Unsonique (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Kindepuisbrazza.jpg: Please dont overwrite files, upload your work under a different filename and dont remove someone else work. Additional you uploaded the photo but not corrected the image description, so the image description said, that a photo that in fact you created was created by someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, got it, thanx. Unsonique (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please mark as patrolled

Hi Martin H.,
Thank you for helping fight vandalism on Commons. However, I would like to ask you to mark the bad edit as patrolled (see also COM:EDITPATROL). The will remove the edit from the unpatrolled edits queue and reduce our backlog, and thus prevents double work. See also Commons:Counter Vandalism Unit. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Pasión por la flor.jpg

Hi Martin. Can you see this one: File:Pasión por la flor.jpg. Not own work. ALBERTO MONTOREANO - The painters web site. Modrem artist so it can not be PD-Art. I believe it speedy. (the only file uploaded by the uploader. Geagea (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah, im try send requerst mail to permision under CC-atribution. please do not delete image... ---hax0r (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

jo, thath im know. beacusue im send request for licence "CC Atribution" - that include any use, not? ---hax0r (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Finnish war photos

These are all Finnish army war photos taken 1944 and publiclly spread. also according to Finnish law photos are only copyright protected in an period of 50 years mening these are not protected by this since 1994.Posse72 (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC) All picture could be fund in the book "Viisi sodan vuotta: Suomi toisen maailmansodan myrskyissä" from 1958

File:Is-2.1.JPG, File:Destroyed Soviet tank in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala July 1944.jpg, File:4406TaisteluosastoKuhlmeynStukia.jpg, File:Destroyed IS-152.jpg, File:Is-2.22.JPG, File:Is-2.4.JPG, File:Is-2.23.JPG, File:Panzerfausts in position.jpg, File:4407KannasKPmiesVuosalmella.jpg

From other FInnish war photos: Public domain This photograph is in the public domain, because either 50 years has elapsed from the year of creation or the photograph was first published before 1966. The §49a of the Finnish copyright law of 2005 specifies that photographs not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created. The 50 years from creation protection period came into force in 1991. Before that the protection period was 25 years from the year of first publication according to the §16 of the law of protection of photographs of 1961. Material already released to public domain according to the 1961 law remains in public domain, and therefore all photographs (but not photographic works of art) released before 1966 are in the public domain. See Commons:Licensing#Finland for details.'

So pls remove the warnings from these photos that you imposed.

Much text, but have you read at least the warnings?? [..]is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information[..]. So remove your false claims that you are the photographer and add correct sources and authors, Reliable sources that confirm the date of creation and especially the authorship so that the contry of origin is Finland and not e.g. Germany and a german photographer (regarding the air-to-air Kuhlmey photo). --Martin H. (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the information should be added (and false claims removed), but those should be largely irrelevant for the copyright status: if the files were taken by Finns on Finnish territory, then Finnish law should be applied and the photos PD regardless of who the photographer is. You do not have to know the architect of the pyramids either.
The "when" and "where" questions are relevant, but usually answered for those pictures. I do not know how the "where" thing applies though, as some of the pictures are taken where the border was changed, on then fighted over territory (but I think no one in Finland bothers to check the Russian law for those Finnish photos, even the ones taken deep inside the USSR).
--LPfi (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
For Commons it is required that the photo is public domain in the country of origin, the country of origin is not determinated by the location of creation but by first publication or the home country of the photographer. So you are right, if this photo were taken by Finns (on Finnish territory, dont think thats so important) they are public domain, this however requires a verifiable source, e.g., as we have for many other files, a book or a official military website or an archive confirming that this was created by e.g. Finnish military photographers. The uploader unfounded changed the sources now to something that would fit the requirement (he not removed the wrong author), evidence that this information is indeed correct is missing. Without this evidence the file not have much - I say: not have any - value for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


I took this image which is from the CIA:

Added a red dot and "Majdal Shams" in bigger letters.

There are several other images edited based on the same CIA image: [19][20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Majdal.png fixed. --Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete my picture

Hello Martin, I did upload the wrong image, you can delete please. File:Madonna @ Berlinale.JPG This image is from flickr. Truu (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin the images from this album are accepted on Commons? Album Truu (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No, that are photos of album covers. The other image that you wanted to upload, the berlinale image, was fine. --Martin H. (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Martin, there is a problem with the file PICT0510.JPG and I think you can help me. On 15 January 2007 a new version, with an image Rorainópolis city, was uploaded and this file was included in all articles of the city. On 11 May 2010, GeorgHH reverted to the old revision, of Largo di Torre Argentina (different places). Now, the problem is that the wrong image appears on articles of the city. I didn't understand the reason of the reversion, the image of the tower isn't used in any wiki and the file is duplicated (see File:PICT0510 - Largo di Torre Argentina.jpg). Can it be reverted? Thanks. ThiagoRuiz (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The revert was ok, the file was overwritten. A sollution is to delete the oldest and newest version of the file as a duplicate and keep the middle version and update the file description. But updating the file description is not possible becaue the log not contains a source and also not a license. So the middle version, the Rorainópolis image, is lost. The only sollution would be if the original uploader uploads it again under a different filename with all information. --Martin H. (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
So I'll remove the file of the articles, because there isn't any other image of the city. Thank you. ThiagoRuiz (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, searched flickr and other sources already but found nothing. Please ask the original uploader on pt.wp if you can, maybe he will notify the edit and become active to answer and confirm the obvious (own work) and specify a license. Then we can restore the image. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I know him on, but he's inactive for a long time. I sent him a message and now we can only wait. Clin ThiagoRuiz (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, SallesNeto BR uploaded the file again, now with source and license. Also, I've already put the image back in the articles. =D ThiagoRuiz (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, so I will delete the PICT0510.JPG as a duplicate of the File:PICT0510 - Largo di Torre Argentina.jpg image to end the confusion with this two images. --Martin H. (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin, Sorry You didn't liked my contribution in the anarchist poster, I admit my mistake. As long that poster wasn't signed I presume that I used the anonymous template. --Coentor (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gloria Brame photo

Hi, Martin. I just added "own" to my tags and hope I got it right. I tried uploading this photo and one more but am not very conversant with Wiki codes. Let me know if I need to do something more.

best, Gloria G. Brame July 18 2010 21:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Own work means, that it is your own work, a photo that you created yourself. If this is correct everything is ok, however, for an image of a person who appears inside the image and claims authorship the same time I always have some doubt. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Yes, I now see that the original uploader has had these issues before. I'm fairly new to Wikimedia though I've been on Wikipedia over four years. Delete the image if need be.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Im Sorry, the question was not for you, you only retouched the file, but the original uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite OK. Cheers--Phyllis1753 (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Issue.

I uploaded an image of Lucy Hale and you claim it was copyrighted but it wasn't . I did the background checks and everything before I uploaded it. You deleted it but you don't delete half of the other images that are copyrighted or inappropriate. I will upload it again and if you take it down, i will contact the photographer and make him contact you if need be. I even filled out the upload form correctly. --Darknewmoon July 19,2010 11:14 PM EST

Have you read Commons:First steps and do you basically understand what this project is about? (A tip: free content, media files that anyone can reuse anytime, anywhere for any purpose including money making purpose by the copyright holders wish. So in fact you not have to ask the copyright holder AFTER your upload but far BEFORE your upload if he agrees to license his work as free content.) --Martin H. (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And No, you not filled out the upload form correctly, you not gave a an author, nor a source, nor a license. --Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I did give an author, a source, and a license. The image was from Flickr and the author was stated in the description and I gave the license that was stated on the page that had a list of licenses. -- Darknewmoon 11:24 EST, July 19, 2010
I did give an author, a source, and a license. The image was from Flickr and the author was stated

in the description and I gave the license that was stated on the page that had a list of licenses -- Darknewmoon 11:24 EST, July 19, 2010

(1) No, you not gave any of this. You can still see that no information was given in your upload log. A filled upload log looks like this.
(2) You have obviously no idea of free content. The file on flickr [21] is not licensed, there is no license that you can give here! It is all rights reserved. This means: you are not allowed to reuse that image anywhere, for no purpose in no media, do 'not copy this image! Thats the opposite of what we need here (Learn and repeat: anytime, any media, any purpose including money making purposes!). --Martin H. (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird bot messages

Good morning Martin, could you please help me with this? I've already licensed it under sharealike 3 but the bot insists on tagging it for deletion. I could remove the copyright notice, but I don't know if I should do that. Regards, --Darwinius (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont know, the bot not takes the valid {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, cant help you with that. --Martin H. (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least it didn't tagged it for deletion again. Thanks, --Darwin (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why you pursue my works?

With hardness worthy respect, you put all my photos on removal. A situation such: in each photo my father or the grandfather is represented. Photos are stored in my family archive. At various times, probably, tens copies of a photo which can be have been made and to this day are stored in different families. In my opinion this really public domain. How in this case correctly to specify the author, a source, the licence and a category? Please assist.

What makes File:Chernenko MELZ.JPG your own work (Author= Sartang) and what makes you believe, that it is free? Owning something does not give you the copyright, the copyright belongs to the original author - you dont know that person? Well, thats unlucky and forbids you to upload the image because you not have the authors written permission that anyone can reuse the work anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial reuse. But thats required here. The image is not public domain, or can you find a valid reason for public domain in Commons:Licensing? If you dont know the author, dont know the source, and obviously an image is not free you should not upload it in the first place! See the decision tree in Commons:First steps/License selection. And I dont "prusue" your work, its on my watchlist and you insist on simply removing the tag without removing the problems. --Martin H. (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for a prompt reply.

You are married? You have wedding photos? You ordered the photographer and paid to it the fee for these photos. These are your photos or not? You should ask permissions the photographer on their publication? You went to school? You have school photos? You should ask the permission all schoolmates?

I do not wish you to offend, but I wish to ask you to help me all to make correctly.

Situation simple: your father invites to itself the vip-person. It orders services of the photographer. In thirty years his son wishes to place these photos in Vikipedii.

If I place these photos on Facebook, and then on Vikipedii - it will be a correct source?

If someone asks me to reuse my wedding photo in a calendar with wedding photos I must of course ask the photographer and make a written contract with him covering this reuse in a commercial calendar. Assuming a book will be written about me and Im asked to provide photos and I want to give a wedding photo I maybe must not ask the photographer because the book is about me and, although the book is a commercial publication, it should be ok for documentary purposes. However, the first example is relevant here, files on Commons must be free for ANY purpose and the copyright holder must agree to that.
If my father was subject to a photo taken by someone else 30 years back and I inherited his copy of the photo I canot do anything with this photo. If my father was subject to an newspaper article and I inherited a copy of the newspaper article I also not inherited the copyright on the text. The copyright belongs to someone else, the ownership of the copy does not give me any rights to the image. This situation will not change if you copy something to facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When you pay to the photographer the fee – You buy rights of use of results of its work.

In conformity with the legislation of Russia is is intellectual property created within the limits of the office task. Means that the rights pass to the customer.

I have completely described to you a situation. I show the rights to this image and only court can recognise the return.

I declare that I am not «false author» and that my purpose is not infringement of the rights of nonexistent "author", and granting to public of a photo of statesmen during execution of their official duties.The rights to the given photos have been transferred my father who represented itself as the customer of work of the photographer. I am the heir-at-law of the father and in the right to use the given images at own discretion, including their granting in public property.

I have completely described to you a situation. I show the rights to this image and only court can recognise the return.

I declare that I am not «false author» and that my purpose is not infringement of the rights of nonexistent "author", and granting to public of a photo of statesmen during execution of their official duties.The given photos have been transferred my father who represented itself as the customer of work of the photographer. I am the heir-at-law of the father and in the right to use the given images at own discretion, including their granting in public property.

  • Nonexistent author: An author exists. The photo not suddenly and magically appeard somewhere, there must be an photographer.
  • False author: On the file description you claim that you are the photographer (author), you are not the (author)photographer, so that information in the file description is incorrect. I dont like to waste my time with chatting about this simple fact. Correct it.
The customer can enjoy the work for his purposes - but he can not give this right to others! With you upload here you allow ANYONE the right to enjoy the work ANYWHERE (not only in Wikipedia and not only for educational purposes). If I buy a Picasso painting directly from Pablo Picassos legal heirs im NOT allowed to reproduce the painting that I own andgive the reproduction to others allowing them to reuse the reproduction. Well, in your case the creator is unknown - shit happens, you can simply not use the image because you not have a written permission and you not own the intelectual property rights. Read again Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise all importance of legal maintenance of materials presented in Vikipedii. I ask administration Vikipedii to help in the name of the Dear opponent to me correctly to pick up a source, the author and the licence for materials represented by me. «shit happens» I regard expression as inadmissible as the given neologism is not clear for Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekhov's language. In the decision of the given problems I count on an openness, partnership and friendliness from outside more skilled (in questions of administration of materials in Vikipedii) the partner. I hope that our general problem is granting of a trustworthy information for maximum a large attendance. Considering work volume spent by you in Vikipedii, I think that decisions of this points in question is an integral part of this your hobby.

I gave you basic help, especially I pointed you to Commons:First steps/License selection and the descision tree: Did you create the picture yourself? No. Is the rights owner known? No. Result: Do not upload. If the rights owner is known, is he ded for >70 years? No (not possible). did the owner of rights agree? No (you dont even know him). Result: Do not upload. I cant help you more, it is highly appreciated to read instructions and ask questions in the forefield, not afterwards in an attepmt to defend and to protect wrong information. There simply is nothing to defend, you should have never uploaded this picture. If you disagree with my wording or my limited ability to help you should not request it here on my talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you create the picture yourself?

I have a direct bearing to that millions people have access to the information which I am the lawful owner

Is the rights owner known?'

Yes is I. About the return I from you have not heard weighty arguments. I repeat once again: exclusive rights to the image have been got by my father and have passed to me under the right of succession.

Result: To challenge your approach in more competent instance


It seems to me that our discussion has come into deadlocks we do not hear arguments each other. Leave mine «watchlist». Transfer a question to other expert more competent (in my opinion) in questions of copyrights, to less bone (in my opinion) and not inclined to an excessive formalism (in my opinion).

Already late. Tomorrow it is necessary to go for work. Go rest

That sounds like you will only rest once you got an answer that fits your purposes. I disagree with this behaviour, why do you bother me here on my talkpage with long questions and ask here for help if you disagree with the outcome from the very begining no matter what I say??? Copyright transfer in russia requires a written from, you claim exclusive rights - so you must have a written contreact, see en:Copyright_law_of_the_Russian_Federation#Contractual_regulations. You dont know the author? Well, that proofes that you obviously not have it written. Your claim is speculation and not based on evidences, you may read Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons is not concerned about copyright holders not caring. Without the authors permission you are not allowed to license this work and not allowed to upload it here giving it free for any purpose. Keep on asking others, the essence of the answer (do not upload) will be the same. Good bye. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientists have found remains of the Pitekantrop, and Mr. Martin H has addressed in court with fact illegal opening of a tomb without the consent of near relative of the dead. I hope that it is more when I will not meet such amusing person


Category:Stamps of the United States 1991-2000 Category:Stamps of the United States 1971-1977 sind aber für fehlende Gemeinfreiheit erstaunlich gut gefüllt. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

bis 1977 sind ja auch ok, Commons:Stamps#United_States. Die andere Kategorie hat genau eine Briefmarke (kann aber sein das mitlerweile jemand den Rest gelöscht hat der meine Disk beobachtet). --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

change name of picture

Hello Martin, I want to change the name of a picture, how do I do that?

This picture:[22] is describing a picture that is internationally recognized as in Syria (Golan) as in Israel. This is not npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

COM:FAQ#How can I rename/move an image or other media file?. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jaffer_Ali Headshot

Just forwarded this message from photo-owner to wikipedia, I Jaffer Ali grant the use of my image and personal information for Wikipedia. Do I need to do anything else? Thank you Ssjvash228 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use the Commons:Email templates to cover all required information. A permission for Wikipedia only for Wikipedia is a non-allowed restriction on usage, see COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you! Permissions sent. Good luck with Lepetitlord...Ssjvash228 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Do you remember why you deleted this? I received OTRS where the uploader claims {{own}}, but it looks kinda shady--DieBuche (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Flickrwashing und URVs im Paulini Curuenavuli Artikel. Achte auf das "?edited=1" in der flickr-url, dass sieht normalerweise nur der Besitzer des Flickr accounts wenn er das Bild gerade hochgeladen hat. --Martin H. (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Konkreter: Im Artikel en: Paulini Curuenavuli, jetzt ein (lizenzwiedriger) Redirektnicht mehr. Man beachte dass URV-Problem des Benutzers in en.wp, dannach ist er hier auf Commons aufgetaucht. Im gleichen Zuge habe ich ein paar Flickrwashing uploads zu der Band von der Sängerin, oder irgendwie sowas was mit 'Australien such den Superstar' verknüpft ist, abgefangen. Man beachte diesen Edit: Der Mann steht mit leeren Händen da und ist, auch wenn der Name es irgendwie ausdrücken könnte, nichts offizielles sondern ein einfacher Fan der gerne ein Foto hätte aber keins hat. --Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Danke für die info, das Bild wandert dann wohl wieder in die Tonne--DieBuche (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Football players categories

Hi Martin, could you explain to me why do you consider is wrong the categorization by player on the "Players of... " categories? I think the categorization by season you are aplying is compatible with the categorization by name of player, and the last one is useful to find images of people not playing football but being players of their respective teams. Lobo (howl?) 12:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) PD:Sorry for my English

A subcategory adopts the attributes of the parent category. A photo showing a player of Bayern Munich in a match against Chelsea has nothing to do with Real Madrid. The consequence of this categorization is blowing up the category system of soccer clubs with unrelated media files. You can of course add the players gallery to the categories, that will not create false connections.
For the purpose to identify or link former players we have lists on Wikipedia or, here on Commons, you can e.g. create a navigation box in the categories related to seasons, my suggestion, or create a gallery related to a time period or a season with links to the player categories, e.g. Real Madrid in the 1980s or somthing like that. --Martin H. (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Images suspected

Hello Martin, I found these images very suspicious, the license is accepted in the Commons but the album in the flickr has only these images, take a look please. File:NicoleKidmanforOmegaHongKong2010.jpg, File:NicoleKidmanOmega2010inHongKong.jpg, File:NicoleKidmanOmega2010.jpg. Truu (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion was correct, another user placed the images for deletion. Truu (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, done and thx. --Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
File Tienan'men (message in the wrong place)

This message it's for you and not for me, the user changed the pages! look [23]

I already read it on his talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought you had not seen it. Truu (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


As Owner of the copyright, I hereby retrieve the copyright I gave. There is no longer free license for the two last photographs I imported. I ask they be deleted immediatly. Thank you.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

there never was a valid license. Nice joke. --Martin H. (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I retrieved the licencse because you called me a liar, which is an insult. I retrieved the licence because I AM THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT, SO IS MY MOTHER. WE SHALL SELL IT INSTEAD OF GIVING IT FOR FREE TO A STUBBORN GUY.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are liying. The photo is essentially the same as that of Stuart Franklin of Magnum Press, same angle, same shadow, same distance between tanks and street lines. He said: I was hunched down on a balcony on the fifth floor (I think). Three others were also on the balcony: Charlie Cole, a reporter for Actuel in France and one from Vanity Fair. - your uncle is non of these three persons who actually had the chance to take this moment from that position. On your talkpage you used your last comment with an attempt to make me feel bad to have deleted "your photo" - Im not impressed. Here on my talkpage this topic ends exatly here with the documented and proven conclusion that you (1) not yet understood that owning a copy of something does not gives you any rights to reproduce it nor does it give you any intelectual property rights on this copy or (2) lied and intruded Wikipedias Article de qualité with your strange claims maybe to gather other users appreciation. You dont have my appreciation, realy not. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
what hôtel, what house?; my uncle was on a roof along with five people of his delegation
Note: The hotel is described in the source I linked, you may read it. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I removed your commons written inside my comment. I dont want someone writing in my comment if that someone is not even readin the evidences before asking questions. --Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I said I retrieved the licence and the sources of this two photographs . They are not freely usable. Although you're doing your beste to stop me ansewering to you, i insite on the two file being immediatly deleted.

I dont "insist on the files being immediatly deleted" - I requested correction of the source. Given your bad move with the previous upload it is a valid concern. E.g. you can make a photo of the original photo and negative, not a cropped and retouched one, and upload it temporary over your uploads to show what the source material was. And what you did is not "answering" but simply provokation and evading the originary problem (Tank Man). --Martin H. (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. Pibwl (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So you do your best to stop me answering you

What hôtel, What balcony? My uncle was on the roof above withe five people of his delegation. Why can't you take that. And as I said before, i demand that the las two photographs I imported be immediatly deleted : File:Tienn'men 1.JPG ‎, and File:Tienan'men2.JPG. You have no longer the right to publish them.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You even cut that :

I am not talking about Tank man now. The matter is over since I do not care about your appreciation eather. You are talking a lot for no reason at all. I am talking NOW about the two files I have been stupid enough to import in this place . So I retrieve the two files File:Tienn'men 1.JPG‎, File:Tienan'men2.JPG. And YOU will be responsible for that. Because you accused me of giving no source which is not true. You called me a liar several times, you insulted and despised my work. You do not deserve these files. You must delete them immediatly. You have no longer a license to publish them freely, I cancelled the description and the licence--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was note evading anything, I just think you have no real porrf for the Tan Man of my oncle. So you talk talk talk, mister know all. But in fact, you do not KNOW anything more that what has been told to you. the 3 only men etc etc... You know nothing.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • If you want to have something deleted you should follow the deletion guidlines and not provoke me with that stupidity ("You" do not deserve... "You" must delete). Im not impressed, I dont believe you that this photos are validly freely licensed, so deleting them wouldnt be a loss for Commons.
  • The hotel and balcony is described in the source. I wrote a quotation and the source of the quotation is linkd with the word 'said'.

And I removed your comment because it is nothing but a provokation. On my talkpage I decide what the last comment is. And I said you: The image is provenly stolen, if you can not provide clear evidence that it is not you may not chatter here any more. Especially not if you start your comment with "I am not talking about Tank man now". --Martin H. (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) --Martin H. (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should I believe this source, since anyone can source anything according to his mood. Like You do.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What? In what world do you live? --Martin H. (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Adolfo Suarez smoking bw.jpg

You're probably right, the flickr user who licensed that photo probably doesn't hold the rights to it. But does it matter? It was a good photo, and a much needed one (not that either of these are relevant for licensing purposes.) BartBassist (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does matter. Only the copyright holder, noone else, can give permission to a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Images for Pritish Nandy Communications article

Hi Martin, you deleted 3 images that I had uploaded yesterday to Commons for copyright violation. An email with the required permission to use these images has been mailed to When do you think that the images will be posted back on the pages created? Or do I have to upload them again and create another page? How exactly does this work? Shishir58 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If the permission is sufficient the files will be restored. You however said with your uploads that this works are entirely your personal creation and you said that anyone can reuse the posters for any purpose including commercial purposes as long as the name "Shishir58" is named with the image. This might be not ok with the copyright holder and maybe requires a correction of author and source information. If the images are restored you can add them back to the article. --Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I must have selected the wrong option. My first article. I'll make the corrections once the files are restored. Thank you. Shishir58 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, do permissions usually take a while? I had an email sent across about 2 days ago but have received no response yet. Should I wait or have the email re-sent once again? Shishir58 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The system has some backlog I heard, so yes, it may take some time. Dont sent again, if urgent ask at COM:OTRSN. --Martin H. (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Simas 34

Hello Martin, could you check last uploads by User:Simas 34? Most of them can be found at (by different authors), although he alleged to be the author of all of them and that the source is Flickr. Ednei amaral (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your deletion request and I fully agree, that user has some difficulties to separate between "own work" and not own work, most uploads are not own work. --Martin H. (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Do you know if File:Bandeiraatn.png is an official flag? If it is official we can simply remove the wrong source, author and license and add {{PD-BrazilGov}}. We will have an ugly image description then, but nevertheless the file is PD as an drawing (simple reproduction, no copyright for the person who painted it) of a PD symbol - if it is official. --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. I can not confirm it as official. There is no official website, and the National Municipalities Association doesn't list any flag fo this city [24]. This blog say it's official, but it's just a blog.
Could you also check uploads by User:Mauro Schwertzez Fulgoni? Some of them have already been tagged for deletion, but there are 3 of them licensed as PD based on expiration of copyright. But they are dated from 2010, 2006, etc... Ednei amaral (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Also done. --Martin H. (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A propos de l'homme de Tian'anman

Juste pour mémoire, voici quelques exemples d'autres photos de l'homme de Tian'anmen où l'on voit que plusieurs photographes ont saisi cette image presque en même temps. Elle n'est pas seulement l'œuvre de Charlie Cole. Outre Jeff Widener et Stuart Franklin, il y avait des professionnels et des amateurs connus ou anonymes, américain, chinois, anglais, français, belges. Voici par exemple:

C'est juste pour te renseigner. D'ailleurs je parle français là. Je ne sais pas si tu le comprends. --[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Only "Robert Aubert" is a new name here, the other are mentioned in the source I gave you that you obviously not read. It is however remarkable how you switch "O. Aubert/picturetank", an image distributor, to "Robert Aubert" and declare your "Robert" a photographer. You are maybe not very familiar with image credit praxis in press publications, but that does not make you eligible to switch "O" and "R" and adding some gibberish behind the R and giving it some interpretation. If we compare this - thats your "Robert" - and the Tsang photo one will maybe come to the conclusion that it might come from the same position. Note the position of the lamp pole: The position of the bulge above the street line indicates that it is the same position in up/down direction, the position of the pole on the bus shows that it is the same left/right position). One may ask Corbis on the authorship of the image or consult another publication of your "Robert" photo. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Si tu comprends le français, ce sera plus facile de discuter. En effet, j'ai fait une erreur sur O. Aubert au lieu de Robert Aubert. Cela dit, pourquoi as-tu besoin d'utiliser toujours des mots méprisants comme gibberish. Tu fais sans doute très bien ton travail, mais qu'est-ce qui t'empêche d'être courtois? En posant une question sur le bistro, je viens de comprendre comment une archive familiale peut être cédée : il suffit que le propriétaire envoie une lettre pour dire qu'il cède les droits. La propriétaire est ma mère, (mon père est mort il y a quinze jours, mon oncle Dalmet est mort en 2006, mon grand père est mort en janvier 2010), mais elle refuse désormais de céder quoi que ce soit des archives familiales sans être rémunérée. Donc tu vas être tranquille en ce qui me concerne. Désolé de m'être énervé, ça ne valait pas la peine, je regrette. Salut.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wir können die Diskussion auch gerne auf Deutsch fortführen, allerdings ist es mir nicht möglich, deiner Wiederholung etwas zu erwidern, dass nicht wiederum eine Wiederholung meinerseits wäre. Ich hatte dir oben einen Hinweis gegeben wie du beginnen könntest mit einer unmodifizierten, unfokussierten Reproduktion des Ausgangsmaterials die Urheberschaft nachzuweisen ohne eine schriftliche Bestätigung zu benötigen, die, nach allem was ich nun von dir gehört habe, ohne einen unterstützenden Beleg das Papier auf dem sie stände eh nicht wert wäre. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

De Forest

Thank you very much for your help with the uploading of Maurice de Forest Yours Ewan (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, please ask if you need assistance. --Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos

nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartang (talk • contribs)

  • This is a quote from Matthew 7:6 in Latin. "Do not throw your pearls before swine." I guess he's upset we're deleting his uploads. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I know, the sanctum on Commons is Commons:Licensing and the spirit of free content. If you intend to trample this policy under your feet this might be the wrong place for your. --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
childish behaviour maybe isan argument for disqualification too. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Album cover

Hi Martin,
I'm sorry I made some mistakles again. I uploaded a cd cover. I have the permission of the right owner. I uploaded it with otrs pending. I can't understand correctly. How I have to upload it?
Thanks again
1:13 25 july 2010 - Demetrio99

Ok, you uploaded it with {{Музыкальный альбом}} (that template not exists on Commons and will not exist, it is an infobox template from ru.wp), not with {{OTRS pending|...}}. The copy&paste text for OTRS pending is written in the upload form. I will restore the image temporarily, please replace the non existing Музыкальный альбом with the correct OTRS tag and forward your written permission from the rights owner. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


hola amigo gracias por responderme....bueno una pregunta mas y como hago para poder subirlo porque como yo edito en wikipedia y tengo que poner logos de album, caratulas de libros etc. como hago por favor ayudame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidecs (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to understand you with google translation but I dont understand you. --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Month in Switzerland

Hi Martin H., I was wondering why you removed these categories. Was there some discussion about it?  Docu  at 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole category tree is unecesarry, not content related and not of educational value. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When was this discussed?  Docu  at 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When was it planned to introduce that categories, where is the educational value? --Martin H. (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
They are in place for quite a long time (e.g. June was created in 2006) and generally accepted by users. If you feel they should be removed, you can open a discussion at COM:CFD. In the meantime, please refrain from unilateral action and repair what was already done.  Docu  at 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont talk about Category:June, thats a month and a valid topic. I talk about Category:June in Switzerland, thats uneccessary without any value. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Try COM:CFD.  Docu  at 17:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Please hold any further deletions without discussion.  Docu  at 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats tree care and pruning of some unecessary and fruitless meta categorization and not contend based nor naming based, any content categories stay untouched. --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Martin_H._.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29


You've been doing it all over the place, in other countries as well. Why have you been doing it, it's completely unnecessary, and you really should have discussed it first. Categorising by month isn't "unnecessary without any value", it's a useful way of categorising images as the year progresses, but over lots of years. For example, comparing changes over the four seasons Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter in a particular place, is much easier if we categorise by month. Have I missed some discussion somewhere? Arriva436talk/contribs 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seasons are not months. The categories where not used to categorise this feature but just to meta categorise categories by their name and construct an relation between months. Thats not content based but maintenance based. --Martin H. (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I know seasons are not months. But, if I want to say, look at a the winters of England between 2000 and 2010, looking at December in England, January in England, and February in England, will make it much easier to find what you're looking for. It is not purely maintenance based. Also, you haven't answered my question - have you discussed this somewhere before making such large changes? Arriva436talk/contribs 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think they allow to find images per season much better than, e.g. the subcategories of Category:Seasons in Switzerland (from where they are linked). Docu  at 18:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I was using seasons as an example of how categorising by month is useful, and how destroying it all shouldn't be taken lightly. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Create a category for winter comparison. Something like Category:Winter in the United Kingdom with categories like Category:Winter 1946/1947 in Germany which was known as a "Hungerwinter". The category system we talk about here is purely maintenance based. Category:M YYYY in X is a historic based viewed - what happened in place X in Y - collecting a group of historic based categories in one meta category does not hold any 'comparison' or 'observance' of weather phenomena purposes. Maintenance on maintenance categories is done here as well as other people create maintenance categories. --Martin H. (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently we have difference of opinion on their usefulness.  Docu  at 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
We do indeed - which is exactly why it should have been discussed before any action took place. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above. The categoris are an unfruitful arm of the category system, it was never discussed to create such unecessary categories - unecessary from content view and maintencance view (intersections that are still possible due to the month by year tree). This category plague is not old as docu claimed but new, it started in Summer 2009 and infected the UK categories just in March 2010. Dont create unecessary categories and better help cleaup in Special:Categories and Special:WantedCategories instead of defending unecessary categories here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not open a discussion about them and explain your point of view?  Docu  at 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no purpose in waiting 6 months untill finaly someone joins the discussion, makes himself familiar with the topic and starts editing (or skips editing because its to much work). At that time I maybe will have lost interest in this maintenance work too and the mess will remain unresolved. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think it's too much work, why do you delete it?
Besides, it seems odd that you suggest to us to categorize images and than just speedy empty and delete categories.  Docu  at 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to comment, that as the creator of many of the deleted categories, i should have been notified of the deletions. You deleted scores of categories. Evrik (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Verify the contributions of this user. Please, thanks. Fabiano msg 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Isnt that simple screenshots of some comic series? See the part of the watermark in File:Diamante ben 10.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Glans Stimulation.png

Prosfilaes has nominated your closure for review here. Sincerely, Blurpeace 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You got the wrong guy; it was High Contrast's closure. –Tryphon 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Regarding File:Hanabusa_160x240.jpg, I have just received the written permission requested to keep the file up and forwarded it to Would you like me to send it to you, or should I post the statement with file summary? Thanks for your help with this... --Travis.Thurston (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Forward your written permission to OTRS, you said you did this, and an OTRS volunteer will make a note on the file description that permission is stored in the system as soon as the permission is handled. I will mark the file as 'permission pending'. --Martin H. (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
copied to your talkpage too, im going to archive this talkpage now. --Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rutherford crocodile.jpg

I noted your change here -- since we kept it, wouldn't it be better to remove the category?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the category already, in first intention I wanted to add a <noinclude> around it so that the deletion log is not longer categorized but only the subpage, on second view I decided to remove it because nothing to undelete. The link can stay, it belongs to the users comment. --Martin H. (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. You would think that I would be able to read Wiki markup by now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I could see that you have said that that image has an incorrect license. I think that you are wrong. I asked it in the Village pump, and they say me that I can use that license for the photo of a bust; it is possible in Spain (I am spanish).

Are you sure I have to put PD-Self like license if I want to keep the image? I hope that you answer. Luispihormiguero (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You added a tag {{FoP-Spain}} indicating that the photo of the sculpture does not infringe the sculptors copyright because in spain it is allowed to make photos of artwork in public places. You not added an license tag to license your photographic work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that, besides of FoP-Spain, I have to put another license? Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. You made a photo and your photographic work is proteced by your copyright. You must license your photographic work so that Commons and anyone can use it. FoP-Spain is not a license, thats an information tag saying that this photo is a derivative work of an artistic work (sculpture) but that it is not subject to the sculptors copyright because of freedom of panorama in Spain. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhhh... OK, OK, thank you :) Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)