User talk:Martin H./Archive 21

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 January 1, see the archive.

Archive Note

Page was archived on January 1, see the archive. Happy new year! --Martin H. (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Viewing deleted images without admin....

The link you posted in my RfA (Special:Undelete) is not accessible to me. As far as I know from adminship, only admins are even able to pull up that page. Am I missing something, or did you have something different in mind? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I only said that Commons admin is more than having the ability to visit that page. --Martin H. (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so you did. I got tripped up in your prose, my bad. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Roberto Battiti.jpg

Could you restore this image and tag it with {{OTRS received|id=2010123110014377}} please? OTRS permission in process.--Chaser (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored, please add the tag since im not an OTRS member. --Martin H. (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check

Contributions this user. File:Cyndi Lauper Rolling Stone Cover.jpg Copyvio Rolling Stone Magazine. Thanks. Fabiano msg 23:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, flickrwashing by the Lauper sockpuppeteer. --Martin H. (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed the socking suspicion via checkuser and blocked the user. --Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Snyder100816HiResArdesta 341581 7.jpg

If that image is not free, than I don't know what is. I have read the licensing rules. Here is the source of the file:,1607,7-277-57577_57627---,00.html

It's meant for public use or they wouldn't have put it up in the "media center" part of the site. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Published on a website or visible for free does not mean that something is free. See Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. The image will be free if the copyright holder explicitely grants certain freedoms listed on Commons as Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms, the website does not mention anything in this direction. --Martin H. (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


Me prodrias explicar qué tiene de malo traducir la Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits en otro cubículo al español?. --Coronades (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Si no me crees puedes comprobarlo con tus mismos ojos en este traductor y te darás cuenta que lo que puse en la plantilla es exactamente lo mismo que lo que tradujo la página. --Coronades (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Copia del Permiso

Hola Martín. Gracias por la informacion acerca de la necesidad de "Copia del Permiso" del archivo GRANLOG.gif el archivo fue creado por mi, hace unos años para la hoja web de la Grann Logia Central de Colombia y no seria bueno que se borrara. Como soy novato en Wikimedia Commons, solo quiero saber que debo hacer para que el archivo no sea borrado. Donde consigo la copia del permiso, o como puedo crear ese permiso de libre uso. Cordialmente --Amayasantos (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion?

Was there a deletion discussion for Category:Geograph images of buses? If so please post the link.

(I think the category was emptied by other users before you deleted it. A quick search suggests that the category has potential: Special:Search/Geograph_bus )

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a talk at the talkpage, the temorary category was emptied as all files was sorted into approrpriate bus categories and speedy deletion was requested by the user who initiated the temporary collection. --Martin H. (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't recall that it was a temporary category, so thank you kindly for the explanation. It is a shame that talk pages disappear when a page is deleted, but that is probably unavoidable.
(Meanwhile, the batch upload from Geograph appears to be still in progress, so temporary categories such as this may need to be created again.)
--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

License CC-BY-NC-3.0

Hello Martin, I write because I have a question concerning the licensing of some photos. Are not supposed that cc-by-nc is not allowed in Commons?, why there is this category:

Greetings and thanks. --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing, NC licenses are not allowed as the only licenses but they are allowed as long as one license is free. My personal optiono is however, that collecting NC content is not scope of Commons, since categories like Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0 are unecessary and not in support of the Commons aims. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
p.s.: Thanks for the note, I saw that license tags and category beeing missued already, so I removed it (without changing the usability of non-free licenses in combination as pointed out above, thats still allowed on Commons). --Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer Martin. --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File Tagging File:Kerli_3_by_marvah.jpg

The photographer who took the photo agreed to the license on deviantART. See the comment section of the photo on deviantART here, it reads as follows:

Uploader: "Could you pleeeeasseee *begging you* upload this photo at Wikimedia Commons? Right now there's a hideous photo of Kerli and i don't think it's making her justice at all... i'm begging you with all of my heart, pleeasseeee..."
Photographer: "i have no idea how to do that nor i have a good wifi but please go ahead and do it yourself just do not forget to credit Maria Vahuri lolol"
Uploader: "Thank you so much for your permision :D. I've uploaded the photo here ([link]) and i need one more thing from you - tell me if you're okay with this license ([link]). :D"
Photographer: "Yes :) all good, thank You :)"

It is clearly stated that the photographer had reviewed the file located on the Commons and agreed with the license. Scarce (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The first answer is a license grant to upload on Wikimedia with attribution. That license reqirement was fulfilled, she confirms this. The uploader however not selected a license "with attribution for Wikimedia only" but a license "for anyone". A license grant for anyone and any purpose was never requested and not given. You cant read the confirmation as a confirmation for something that she was never asked for. She was not informed that there is a biiiiiig difference in what the uploader asked for and what he did, and that what she sees (Wikimedia uses here image with the requested attribution) is not what the page realy says (anyone can reuse her image for money making purposes with attribution). --Martin H. (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask the photographer in better detail. Scarce (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Oye tu por qué te empeñas en estropear mi trabajo?. Por qué te empeñas en borrar lo que subo proveniente de la biblioteca Luis Angel Arango? Ya he explicado una cantidad de veces, pero veo que todavía no entiendes, que LA FOTO LA TOME DEL SITIO WEB DE LA BIBLIOTECA LUIS ANGEL ARANGO, perteneciente a la red de bibliotecas del Banco de la República. El Banco de la República de Colombia es una entidad legal y titular de las bibliotecas y sus contenidos. Para obtener más información, consulte la Ley 23 de 1982, el artículo 29 sobre el Derecho de Autor, modificada por la Ley 44 de 1993, artículo 2: "En todos los casos en que una obra literaria, científica o artística tenga por titular una persona jurídica o un organismo oficial o cualquier institución de derecho público del gobierno, el plazo de protección se considera que cincuenta (50) años a partir de la fecha de publicación".

Si quieres puedes buscar la imágen en la página web de la biblioteca y buscar la imáen por tu cuenta y verás que allí aparece. Si todavia no me quieres creer puedes abrir link que anexo a continuacion y leer lo que allí dice [1]

Si tienes algo que decirme déjalo en mi página de discusión, lo miraré a la mayor brevedad posible. Gracias --Coronades (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The copyright holder is the painter (= persona natural) unless you can provide evidence that copyrigth has been transfered. See the deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you still do not understand, I'll explain it easier: The Government of Colombia in 1954 commissioned an artist either, paint a picture of Gen. Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, that picture when his mandate was transferred to the bank the Republic and more specifically to the Library Luis Angel Arango. The owner of copyright therefore is the Luis Angel Arango Library.
I notice you have not read the template nor the links to the laws of Copyrigt in Colombia that appends --Coronades (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
now if you understand what I mean? --Coronades (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read it. "in 1954 commissioned an artist" - reference? "was transferred to the bank" - reference? --Martin H. (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Look Martin H, in commons there are a lot of photos and works loaded from the website of the Luis Angel Arango Library and you're the only user that puts problem this. If they bother you so much the contributions from this source, you have not considered issuing a request to erase those images well as you did with my contributions?. Otherwise you would be committing an injustice, even an persecution against my contributions and me. I have lost patience with you. Where do you want to I find such references? have spent many years. You try get the references if you can, is almost impossible. Leave me alone, I'm not bothering you for your I bother me --Coronades (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Halllo Martin H. Ist verwirrend auf dem ersten Blick; ich weiß. Doch ich beschäftige mich schon ein paar Tage mit den ollen Kategorien - und weiß i.d.R., was ich tue. Hoffe ich zumindest. Gruß, --BlackIceNRW (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In erster Linie ist das COM:OVERCAT. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
So könnte das gesehen werden, muss es aber nicht. Die Bundesländer sind in dieser Kategorie bis zur Gegenwart einheitlich durchgelistet. Und es wäre sachlich falsch, allein die westlichen Bundesländer in dieser Kategorie zu listen. Zudem ergibt sich so der Vorteil, dass leicht etwas gefunden werden kann, wenn Bilder einsortiert werden sollen. Ähnlich gehen wir im kleineren Rahmen ja auch mithin bei den Städten vor. So gibt es z.B. Listen, in denen sämtliche Straßen gelistet werden. Gleichzeitig aber auch - in derselben Liste - eine Unterteilung z.B. nach Stadtbezirken. Dies hat wiederum den Vorteil, dass jemand die richtige Kategorie findet - auch wenn er nicht weiß, in welchem Stadtbezirk sich die Straße befindet. Und hier, glaube ich, ist es ähnlich: Die beiden großen Kategorien "German Democratic Republic" und "West Germany" können leicht übersehen werden. Und so landen zahlreiche Bilder in dieser Hauptkategorie, die ich und andere dann wieder zeitaufwändig entfernen müssen. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

Hi. An es-admin has notified me about a disruptive user who is uploading unfree images. Basically User:Felipe Cediel uploads an image that he admits to copyvio, but then all of a sudden he "finds" free images in a gallery, all uploaded on the same day by the same user (speaks same language too) yesterday: User:Fernando Vélez M.. They don't look free. I'm not sure if a checkuser applies here or how I should handle this... Thanks in advance. --ZooFari 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is probably the same user. They share an IP subnet and have the same user agent. Probable sockpuppet. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 01:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked also on es.wp, Ill do so here too and just nuke the uploads, it will not make sense to wait for them beeing deleted in >7 days. --Martin H. (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

Do not accuse me of vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In my eyes that is vandalism and I repeat: It is carelesness, an editing behaviour against the Commons aims and, since the information is available, prima facie a possible copyright infringement. This is my opinion and its not required that I keep it unspoken. The only argument to ignor this worst-case behaviour is you enormous number of good edits and good search findings that you have on the other side. Seeing the good edits helps a little bit to get over the bad edits and all the trouble and all the arbitrary 'unknown' claims. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not infringe on any copyright there. And my removal of your unjustified tag was not vandalism. Stop your accusations and attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not the first time that you claimed something unknown/anonymous and that you based your finding on... absolutely nothing. Guesses based on your personal feeling or impression or on an fixed idea to turn Commons in something that it not is, arbitrarily against the COM:PRP and the educational nature of this project. Thats not an accusation or attack, since it is based on a whole lot of edits by you. And you probably know yourself that your unknown/anonymous claims are almost always unfounded or even untrue but that they most likely will hold the time because nobody will ever find out. That is however not what we do here on Wikimedia Commons, and in my eyes this is vandalism. You may add the information that something is unknown/anonymous if this is true and if you can cover this by a source, but you should not enact yourself based on nothing or your own inability to find out an author. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Consider yourself warned. If you continue making your habitual unfounded accusations of copyfraud, copyright infringement, or vandalism against me or anybody else, I will report you to the user problems board. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Do so, a better idea would be to stop this sort of edits. Add sources where you know them, thats great and highly appreciated, stop adding fictional or falsified information where you not know enough or not know anything. Thanks in advance. --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Sonny Liston

It says "own work" on the source section. What other source is still needed for this picture? --Soppakanuuna (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is based on a photo with the background removed. The required source information is the original photo, the photograoher and the original photos copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I think that you should delete this photo, because of the reasons you have mentioned, without further discussion. I didn't know that this picture was deleted for copyright reasons. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my reasoning was missleading. Not this picture but pictures of the same person with the same rational. So i meant that we had images of this kind already. --Martin H. (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Klaust' mir so einfach meine Arbeit?

Da klickt man auf "löschen", was kommt? Internal Error - Martin H.! Klickt man auf "sperren", weil man genau weiß, dass es ein "Widerholungstäter" ist, was kommt? "Allready blocked" - runterscrollen... Martin H.!
Mensch, du bist zu schnell für mich. ;) Gute Arbeit. :) abf «Cabale!» 07:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ich bemühe mich. Merk dir den Typ aber mal, seine Baerbietugnen, Blider mit flacshen Qulellikns, sind egintilch immer die gielhcen. --Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Ja, da hast du recht, und das schöne, wo du ihm indefinite gegeben hast (ich "Softie" hätte ichm wahrscheinlich wieder 2 Tage vorerst gegeben), kann man ja auch schön und egal wann die Nachfolge-Accounts ohne viel Warnung wegsperren. ;) abf «Cabale!» 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(: Wiedergänger (Wiedergänger, wusste nicht dass das so eine passende Bedeutung hat), gleich ins Auge gefallen. Wenn du einen siehst und nicht sicher bist kannst du gerne auch bescheid geben, ich checke ihn dann. --Martin H. (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Why did you put on file license tag?--Tonn222 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Alfred Hugenberg.jpg

Hallo Martin, erstmal ein gutes neues Jahr. Sollen wir o.g. Bild per speedy durchziehen oder eher eine DR aufmachen? Aus dem verlinkten externen Eintrag geht für mich nicht eindeutig hervor, ob das Bild wirklich von Hoffmann geschossen wurde. Oder sind definitiv alle Bilder im Hoffmann-Archiv von Hoffmann selbst? --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitiv nicht, ich habe auch schon Bilder gefunden bei denen über andere Quellen nachweisbar war, dass sie nicht von Hoffmann waren, solange dieser Nachweis aber nicht erbracht ist - und die Bildbeschreibung ist dabei mit einer Sammlung an Lizenzbausteinen und falschem Urheber nicht hilfreich - gehe ich davon aus, dass es stimmt. --Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, die Sache mit Scherl ist geklärt, das ist nicht der Photograph, sondern ein Verlag. Da das Bild ziemlich in Nutzung ist, würde ich gerne eine Substitution per badname gegen File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2005-0621-500, Reichsminister Alfred Hugenberg.jpg vornehmen, um die Projektlinks nicht zu zerbröseln. Ist zwar nicht wirklich badname/dupe, aber so gehts wohl am reibungslosesten. --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sehr guter Vorschlag. Das Bild ist sehr ähnlich, wenn nicht (gleiche Krawatte) sogar vom gleichen Aufnahmetag. --Martin H. (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

P. Schnorr

Hallo Martin, du hattest bei manchen dieser Bilder die Signatur "P. Schnorr" gesehen. Inzwischen hat jemand herausgefunden, dass der Mensch Peter Schnorr heißt, gestorben 1912. Diese Bilder sind also gemeinfrei und können wiederhergestellt werden. Magst du nachsehen, welche das waren? Sollte ich für die betreffenden Dateien dann einen offiziellen Wiederherstellungsantrag stellen oder könntest du das auf dem kurzen Dienstweg einfach erledigen? --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ich habe die unter User_talk:Wistula#File:MN.2C_Illustrationen.2C_3.JPG f. (SLA's, #43 im Inhaltsvz.) durchgeschaut, die Bilder mit Schnorr-Signatur (2) sind nicht gelöscht worden. Die anderen hatten dannach scheinbar noch eine Lösch-Diskussion. Meinen Beitrag hätte ich unter den folgenden Eintrag setzen sollen da beide Bilder in dem zweiten Posting vom 17:13, 7 December 2010 zu diesen Illustrationen gelistet sind. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ach so, dann sind da nicht freie Bilder mitgelöscht worden. Danke. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please undelete

File:En Derin.jpg as OTRS has come in. fetchcomms 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

From whom? An established Wikipedia user created an flickr account and uploaded one image, he then imported the image to Commons claiming his flickr pseudonym the author. He did the same with
File:En Derin.jpg is an attempt to flickrwash. Any permission from "Turco85" or flickr user "cavitcag888" are entirely wrong, they are (he is) not the copyright holder. The same applies to the other deleted contributions uploaded with tricky flickrwashing and the sockpuppet uploads which are directly stolen without any malicious flickr tricks. And I not even checked his whole uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The permission for En Derin.jpg has come in from an address of an official website, not any Flickr user. Sorry for not being clear earlier, fetchcomms 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, 'll undelete the image, bt please correct all the information according to the ticket. --Martin H. (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Info is corrected now, etc. fetchcomms 01:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Hey, do you know if an image with just this information can be uploaded to commons? [2], what is the license I should use? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no information about the copyright status at all. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Its a portrait and it was taken in the 1920s, isn't that public domain? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Was published in what country or was photographed by whom from what country, under what countries jurisdiction is to decide if the image is PD in that country of origin... what is the country of origin. No answers on that page. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Javad Nekounam.jpg

Could you please close this deletion discussion? The image keeps being re-added at en-wiki by socks of you-know-who. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

copyright question

HI again, you've been of great help in the past with copyright questions. I wonder if I might trouble you to look at another one? I was going to upload a copy of the 1969-1970 Phillips Exeter Academy 'E Photo Address Book.' It's a small pamphlet-sized paperbound booklet which was used to show the photographs of students and their home addresses and dormitories. (And, some say, was the model for Facebook.) The cover itself only has the title of the booklet, with a calendar printed on the back. As the cover does not show students' photographs and only consists of lettering, I assume it's not under copyright. If it is, would you kindly let me know? Thanks. I'd like to upload it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll go ahead and upload it, and have you take a look. I'm pretty certain that as it's only typeface with no graphics that it cannot be under copyright. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Upload is File:E Photo Address Book Phillips Exeter Academy.jpg. I hope I tagged it all correctly. Thank you again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin H.

die Genhemigung habe uch nicht. Ich bin aber ein Angestellter des DBB´s und der BBL und wir sind für die Vermarktung der Bilder einverstanden. Die Homepage der Beko BBL veröffentlicht diese Bilder auch.

Gruß Wiki-Pro

Die Beko-Website zeigt einen eindeutigen (C)-Vermerk. Wenn der DBB der Rechteinhaber ist, kann auch nur er eine Genehmigung erteilen. Davon ganz abgesehen gehst du sogar ein arbeitsrechtliches Risiko ein, wenn du hier geschütztes Material deines Arbeitsgebers unter einer freien Lizenz hochlädst. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ich hab ihn für 3 h gesperrt, weil er einfach weiter hochgeladen hat. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tommy Joe Ratliff picture file

I'm new to uploading to WIKI. I'm tryiing to re-upload a file that was previously deleted at my request. How do I do that? It was not a copyright violation as it is a photograph I took. Thanks.

In the upload form there is an "other version" field. That filed is intended to fill in previous publications of the image if the image has been published elsewhere already. I found the image on the internet with a very different author and copyright status, the "other versions" did not mention any publication so I stay with serious doubt in the reliability of your photographer claim. --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Arab Islamic Republic and photo AIR.jpg

Привет, приятель!

Тебе там делать больше нечего? Оставь фотографию "AIR.jpg" в покое.

From Russia with love!

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AIR.jpg, пожалуйста. --Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bitte wiederherstellen

Die zwei Grafiken File:Wales1807-1953.gif‎, File:Wales1953-1959.gif‎ wurden von mir mit falscher Lizenz hochgeladen, daraufhin wurde ein Löschantrag gestellt. Die Lizenz wurde korrigiert, der Löschantrga aber dabei nicht abgeschlossen. Ein unaufmerksamer Admin hat die Flaggen dann trotzdem gelöscht. Kannst du sie wiederherstellen?--Antemister (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Getan, sieht so aus als ob du das Problem bereits behoben hast. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Da war alles in Ordnung, aber der Löschadmin hat halt nicht aufgepasst--Antemister (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I upload a image from a live person to ilustrate a article in Wikipedia?

Can you give some advices because like you saw in my talk page I was warned more than one time, but this is only because I don't know how to proceed to upload images, hope that you can help me.

You have to search for free images. Free means free content, see Commons:Licensing. Thats images that anyone can reuse anywhere, worldwide also outside Wikipedia, anytime for any purpose including commercial reuse and modification. This free reuse requires the copyright holders written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)



I received the message a couple of days ago requesting me to provide proof of permission to post the file:


It belongs to the Father Thomas J. Quinlan and I will be seeing him on Monday to get his permission in writing. He is a close friend and we are collaborating on a book. I am not a Wikipedia expert and I read the information about commons permission and I hope I am doing this correctly.

I drafted a letter as follows and plan on asking Father Quinlan to sign it on Monday. How do I then get it to you? Can I attach a photocopy of the page? Do I need to ask him to send an e-mail message? he is 82 years old and not very skilled with the computer. What do you suggest?

Thank you,


(letter removed). Thats ok, you have to remove the word "WORK" from your letter, thats a placeholder word. The copyright holders permission must then go to Wikimedia OTRS (see instructions there), not to my talkpage please. You can attach a scanned document, yes. --Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Martin,
ich habe deinen Freund gerade unbeschränkt gesperrt. ;) Du kannst ja auch ein Auge drauf werfen, wie sich das entwickelt. Ich hoffe, das findet deine Zustimmung. Grüße, abf «Cabale!» 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Da ich ihm auf die disc geschrieben habe ist die eh auf meiner Beobachtungsliste. Die neuen Uploads habe ich gleich gelöscht, das sind Fotos von Fotos oder Magazinen, oder Fotos des eigenen Monitors wie z.B. File:Taça olimpica flu.jpg. pt:Fluminense Football Club beobachte ich nun auch. --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Tagging File:Mikhailov_V_P.jpg

См. мою стр. обсуждения, где Вы оставили сообщение. 13243546A (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


I am confused. The law says 70 years for any copyright term, so why is still the 50 years come into play? Unless we need to do a situation like we did for the Russian copyright templates. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only argue with the template, the template says 1951 and the category text is only a copy of that template text. If you think the template is wrong: Commons talk:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I had the template changed too with according to the law. I do see the following provision:

"4. It shall be established that as from the day on which this Law enters into force, the terms of copyright protection, stipulated in Article 28 of this Law and parts 1 and 2 of Article 44 of this Law, shall apply in all cases where the 50-year period of copyright validity after the author’s death or the period of validity of related rights has not expired prior to the date of entry into force of this Law.

5. It shall be established that this Law shall apply to performances and phonograms created or first published prior to the day on which this Law enters into force, if, as of that day, 50 years have not elapsed since their first recording or publication."

in the law itself. I am going to try and make a few templates and bring it up to the licensing page soon. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi, can you tell me if this license is allowed in commons : CC BY NC SA, I found an other image : here. Regards — Habib M'HENNI [¿tell me?] 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, NC (= no commercial use) is not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks — Habib M'HENNI

[¿tell me?] 00:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User Mapa12139878 please unblock me Martin H — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mapa12139878 was not blocked, but now it is, enough copyright violations, source faking, etc toke place in the past, dont ask to have sockpuppets unblocked. --Martin H. (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably new sockpuppet of Ademário Neto

User:Ademário Neto, User:Ademario neto, and now User:Acreana is uploading files "by Ademario neto"[3]. Summary is translated into English as "New version by Ademario neto". He has uploaded a completelly different image as if it was just a "new version" of first one. He didn't indicated new sources, and didn't show licenses for new images. I don't know how to revert this edition, can you help me? Ednei amaral (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, Acreana = Ademario neto. I will check the uploads from flickr (look ok, attribution is missing sometimes) and delete anything that is Own work or does not have a source. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Martin H., falls es dir überhaupt sinnvoll erscheint und machbar ist, könntest du mal prüfen, ob Simas 34 (talk · contribs) und Luna123 (talk · contribs) Sockenpuppen sind? Die Dateinamen der Uploads ähneln sich verdächtig. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicht machbar, Simas 34 letzte Bearbeitung liegt zulange zurück. --Martin H. (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranya Youssef

the image was not copyrighted by any body , it is like a gift from the actress to her fans and redistribution with commercial propose after modifying is allowed

Bullshit. Its an extract from a film or television series, the copyright belongs to the producing company or person - not the actress. The image is not free for commercial purposes by the copyright holders permission. Read Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
ok i will make some contact and will present the image license soon

Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Purple automobiles in Poland

Please delete following categorys and subcategorys:

-- 21:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Excised that country/color combination now fully and moved the images one level up in the category tree. The main purpose was an unecessary obscuring of e.g. Category:Red trucks. By can think of a separation by manufacturer or so, but not by country, thats just unecessary. However, given that the people who categorize car types make it so extremly complicated that no common visitor will ever find a photo of a red truck if they have finished, it would be much better if Category:Red trucks stays a 'most specific category' trucks with the attribute red and will not be separated in any way. So to say a 'tag' for red trucks. Thats however a reminder for the future here, nothing more. --Martin H. (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

More categorys:

-- 06:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, most of that was left intentionally. The separation of car models by color maybe is something different or I not exactly now, so I not removed it for the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Malak Koura

you have marked Malak_Koura.jpg as a flicker laundering thte with not right because i am the up loader to flicker and i have all the right to upload this picture any where , i represent the actress in the photo , and this photo is used in her official face book profile and web site and it is allowed to use it any where . thank you for advance

re Indafoto

Hi. Ok I see now what you meant. It just passed by my attention that the uploader originally named Indafoto as author. Thanks for the reminder, I corrected the data for both photos. --Teemeah (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to upload an image

Hi Martin,

I am attempting to upload an image that I am the copyright holder of. It was taken down today, and I'm not sure why. Can you please help me in getting this image up on it's wikipedia page?

Thanks, Pete.

Category:Buses by color by country and its subcategories

I noticed, you emptied and removed Category:Buses by color by country and its subcategories. However, I noticed no {{Cfd}} about this category and even Category talk:Buses by color is empty. The deletion log contains only the text "empty category" and no real reason and no link to some previous discussion. Only through detective investigation I can discover some hidden discussion about one category with only 4 brief comments (3 of them for deletion, one of them by an unregistered user without edit history) and that some (other?) unregistered user with no edit history asked you for removing a set of other categories.

Please respect that such decisions about many categories should by properly discussed, i. e.

  • all touched categories should be tagged as Cfd
  • all creators of touched categoies should be invited for discuss at their discussion pages
  • the deletion log have to contain the real reason or link to the previous discussion and decision, not only a delusive reason like "empty"

I'm not delighted with insular accidentally combined half-empty categories like Yellow underpasses, but I haven't an incisive opinion how much these bus categories by color and country were usefull. Though I'm sure that the way of removing them was illegitimate and hasty. Btw., in some countries, the color of something can have some specific meaning or connotation and such country categories can have some foundation. E. g., in the communistic Czechoslovakia, all city buses were red and all regional and intercity buses were blue - "red buses" were operated by city companies, "blue" buses with the state holding "ČSAD". Maybe that within-country categorization "by color" isn't the best way but 3 short opinions within a discussion about one remotely related category isn't enough for such decision. --ŠJů (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there is a consensus that the combination of color and country is useless - or will a red bus look not red in another country? The category was created to obscure the content of buses by color. It is not only not the best way to handle a growing category of e.g. category:White buses but it is the worst way to separate this color category with something meaningles. Creating such a category tree and intrude the whole color category tree with it will require some comments too, not only the removal of this bad category tree. One editor decided to create it, a few followed him, a few editors decided to remove it again, non of this is illegitimate. Aditionally: There is no problem with a big category:White buses, its the most specific category to find a white bus. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That was not a consensus but your personal opinion which was supported only by High Contrast in the discussion about Purple automobiles in Poland (the queer anonymous user without any other edit or upload can be hardly taken into account and the other deleted categories weren't properly discussed). The categories was created in a standard and legitimate way. There exist many categories which I consider as unnecessary and some other as useful, and many categories which I consider as useful and some other as useless. That's why there exists some standard procedure how to discuss categories wanted by something to be deleted. I described three steps of this procedure you had omitted. I hope, you should be able to admit your failure and to start to respect rules and pertinency in such acts. --ŠJů (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Btw., do you mean, that politicians from one country look different than politicians from another country? It's a reason to remove all categories of politicians by country? Such categories obscure the main category of "politicians"! Of course, red buses in one country look different from red buses in another country because in one country there are some operator(s) which use(s) red buses and in the other country another one(s). In Austria, typical yellow buses are operated by the state Postbus company, in the Czech Republic are yellow buses typical first of all for the private long-distance lines of Student Agency operator. Etc. As well as can be reasonably to separate Czech and Austrian politicians, it can be reasonably to separate green buses of Hungarian and English operators. Maybe, it can be judicious to remove these categories, but surely not without a standard discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Then sort the buses of one operator to a category of that operator and you have a meaningful separatoion, such a separation did not exist and if it exist I did not touch it. Create a category for buses by the Austrian state Postbus company if you want. The category tree was plain useless and it was my work as an editor to remove the unecessary category tree and give the files a path back into something more usefull. This editorial choice was made the same way as two other users decided to create an (almost empty with no more then 2 files per category) category skeleton without any discussion. Do you think only creating a useless category tree is an allowed way to edit the wiki? Turning it back requires a global discussion and not only 3 or 4 peoples consensus? You are wrong. The category tree was established by 2 or 3 users, not by a global comunity. Of course it can be very reasonable to separate politicians from the Czech Republic into a category of politicians from the Czech Republic with big noses and those with small noses, the use of such a separation is however ~0. This argumentation is pointy the same way your argumentation is. --Martin H. (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not just operators, there are many different potential reasons behind these colours. The issue has nothing at all, not one single thing, in common with cars. Even if it were just for operators, we have hundreds of operator categories for just the UK, a non-expert has absolutely no chance of being able to find for example the 2 operators responsible for the 3 different shades of green that were used in the 1970s on the exact same model of traditional 'red london buses'. And one of those operators also used the same three shades in their whole history too, just to complicate things. And an example of every single one of these combinations can be pictured on preserved buses today in any decent sized vintage vehicle rally. If non subject-expert photographers simply dump their images in 'green buses', and this covers every country in the world, then as someone knowledgable of the subject, I certainly won't ever find them to properly categorise them, and they themselves are not likely to wade through it to try and find similar images to do it themselves. Frankly, if you are going to assert something is 'plain useless' and not allow anyone else to comment before you delete it, you should at least know something about the subject first. The point here is that the community was not even given a chance to even discuss this - you decided it for yourself. The categories were far from fully populated to their full potential when you deleted them, so that's pretty irrelevant. Ultra7 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And again, create a category for the operator. Green buses in xy will neither help to sort this thing out, this is an argumentation from the wrong side. The only purpose of this category was to split up one big category, Category:Green buses into up to 200 smaller by country categories using a separator, countries, that not enable any use to find a green bus. If you think it might be interesting to find an specific colored model by an specific operator you may simply create a category for this specific attributes but not obscure a whole category tree with something meaningless in the first place. That specific operator category will be a subcategory of Category:Buses in the United Kingdom, so the categorization will be fine and you will still find a bus by its country, this was not changed by my categorization. You may have noted for example that I did not tuch the london bus category, it still exists! And it still is subcategorized by country. You may also note that ŠJůs argument with 'politicians by country' is plain nonsense since the corresponding categories of buses by countries and buses by color still exist, I not even considered to edit them. Only an uncessary category intersection between this two was excised carefully, the images are still represented in both branches of the category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And for the second time, it's not just operators. I could create at least 30 different UK specific 'green bus' categories based on the actual reason for the colour. Multiply that by every country, and you soon end up with a useless top level 'green bus' category that nobody is ever going to use to try and identify their particular 'green bus'. And nobody is going to search through the hundreds of UK operator categories for green buses either - and categorising operators by colour by country really is getting into the realms of OCAT. The utility of a simple 'UK green bus' category would be that non-expert people would at least have a chance of identifying what they likely only know is a green bus that once operated in London, and thus looking in a 'green buses in the UK' category, or even a 'green buses in London' category, they might have a chance of identifying it. And the utility of pretending all London buses are red is dubious at best - they are not actually all red, and by not having a red london bus branch, and by pretending the whole world is the best top level for non-red buses, only makes it more impossible to find those few non-red London buses. And again, this is all besides the point, the point of the user above is that you completely failed to follow the established deletion processes and thus you never gave anyone the chance to even have this discussion. Ultra7 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your london bus argument, I just thought the same a few moments ago. The information is however preserved as it was, it was not my decision to categorize it as it now is. To the point: That is not true. I checked a lot of histories: 80-90% of all edits to that what I would call a skeleton category tree - an almost empty category tree with only a frew categories populated in order to introduce a new category scheme - were performed by one editor and that editor was informed. If he not participate this will be a silent agreement to the request. No one must agree to create a category tree and also not anyone on this project must agree to its removal, otherwise it will be impossible to thin out such unecessary blains of the category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is normal tbh. Inclduing me, that's two users here in addition to the creator who already who would have liked the opportunity to comment had they known. On UK cats at least, I can think of at least two other users who also would have liked to comment. All of us clearly have subject specific knowledge that would have been relevant. The fact only one person created it is irrelevant, others were using it - and that is the silent consensus you are supposed to respect by using the proper process. The idea that this tree was useless is completely subjective, and pretty dubious if the only logic was to compare it to cars. Ultra7 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Start a discussion on the creation. Or better search for something meaningful to separate, e.g. the specific operator, then thir models etc and so on, not blindly combine attributes based on the country, if you follow your logic in Category:Buses in the United Kingdom: Why is 'by country' the only accepted separator? Isnt it a matrix structur? Why dont we create an intersection of "by Year of photographing by use", "by Type by use", "by Year of registration by use", "by Manufacturer by use", "by... and so on? Because at some point you have to make a decision of what is meaningful. A by country categorization is not always the best separation. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is pointless. I've already said how many colour by reason categories that could be created just for the UK. Multiply that for the world and as a top level colour cat, it would become ridiculously crowded - the very thing you are supposedly trying to avoid. The only sensible intermediate category to that would be a colour by country branch to bridge simple colour cats and complex colour/reason cats, not least because 'what country was I in when I took this photo' is something even the most unknowledgable person is going to know. This was not an either/or decision either, there was nothing stopping you copying them across into catch all colour cats, and retaining the country sub-division as a meta-branch. But no, colour by country by operator is, and always will be, an example of the matrix like over-categorisation you mention above. Clearly you cannot concieve in any way how this simple two way intersection would be of any use though, but more importantly, it doesn't seem to me you really care now you've removed it. I'm not going to start a discussion to get consensus to create a category system that was deleted out of process. Who ever heard of such a thing? If I do create it, I'll just do it. And as the creator, at least it appears I'll get a warning before it is removed. Ultra7 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If the bad effect of the category will be the same as it was I reserve myself the right to contribute to this field the same way. I'll just do it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's the whole point - you have decide this is 'bad' on some pretty flawed understanding of the field of buses, and you don't seem to have the capacity or the will to appreciate how you could be wrong even after you've been told by others who do. Just to illustrate how simplistic it would be for example to pretend that 'colour by country' is 'useless', but 'country by colour by operator' would be great, here is a non-exhaustive list of some green buses you might find in the UK over history, and more often than not, preserved too:
  • NBC green buses (all the same colour, NBC Green, UK wide)
  • Staffordshire council contract buses (bespoke green)
  • South Yorkshire/NBC partnership buses (not NBC green)
  • Green Line (London Transport) buses (London Transport dark green)
  • Green Line (NBC) buses (NBC Green)
  • Green Line (Arriva) buses (bespoke green)
  • London Transport (Country) buses (London Transport dark green)
  • London Country Bus Services buses (London Transport dark green)
  • London Country Bus Services buses (NBC green)

And not a single one of those reasons for being green, are going to be uniquely identified by a single operator category. As you can probably see by the names, most actually are horrendously innterlinked through history, and will have different logos/markings even though they share a common colour, such that there are multiple different levels of categorisation here that could exist on a simple colour strand, but none of which will be at any simple level like 'green UK buses'. There are similar complications for other colours in the UK too - and all of these are purely, UK specific issues, which have nothing to do with other countries, and there's clearly no reason to group them as if they did have anything in common. If I did create a single category for Arriva Green Line buses, that is actually three levels down in the UK operator tree, a tree that already contains hundreds of operators. If I did this for every UK green type, and then simply categorised those in 'green buses', then it's pretty obvious that that category is going to quite quickly contain more sub-categories than if it was just subdivided by country first. And even in the cases where the green colour is simply tied to an operator - it's not guaranteed that they use that for all their buses, and it's also not guaranteed that they used that colour throughout their history, even though on basic oeprator categorisation, they are all treated the same. Ultra7 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Its very difficutl to find this categories. What of them did I edit? --Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of them don't exist yet, the ones that do are not currently subdivided fully - Green Line for example is at Category:Green Line Coaches, but that currently includes the three different greens they have used all together. The above are examples of the lowest level categories you think people should be creating, and then placing in simply 'green buses', or 'uk buses by colour by reason', just so we don't have to have a a colour by country branch. Ultra7 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of the by country categorization is not limited, I accentuate this again because you are most interested in UK buses and not in other countries, you will still find your UK buses in the same way you found them before. Having a populated category for the color is better than having an obscured category tree, obscured by a meaningless attribute. Once an category intersection tool is installed in mediawiki this will become more obvious as it already is at the moment. You will not be able to add Category:Green Line Coaches to green buses in the UK because that category shows green line buses, not green buses. So you will have to add the green buses from Category:Green Line Coaches into green buses from the UK individually and assuming the prospected growth of Wikimedia Commons sooner or later the result will be exactly the same, a very big category separated from the big category where I would locate it, Category:Green buses, by a meaningless 'by country'. So it only moves the problem, it only obscures the content and it closes the path for a more intelligent solution e.g. to separate the category by size/type of busses or another criterion that people might really search for, not a criterion that they can access from other, more meaningful combinations with 'by country' already. The separation by country looks like "We always do it by country because we dont know of any better sollution, so lets not think long, lets do it" - thas not an intelligent sollution, its a makeshift, and not even one that improves the use of Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Look, it's quite simple - grouping these by country is not done simply because it's always been done that way, it's done because there is a very real reason why it would be useful for someone wanting to identify an image that they only know is a green bus from the UK. I don't care about me being able to find these images, I already know the various reasons why they might green in the first place. And because I know that, I can categorically tell you that your idea that using another route would be easier, is frankly not true in the slightest. If I had an image of a green bus from another country, I would not even attempt to find it in any other tree than by a country category, because I would have absolutely no idea about anything else, just like someone not from the UK would have a hope in hell of understanding why some Green Line coaches are green and some aren't, and why there are three different colours of Green Line buses. And by the way, the category intersection tools we already do have like CatScan2, can quite easily cope with searching for green buses deeper than one level. Ultra7 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And for the fiftieth time - the issue is not whether it is needed or not, it's the fact you chose to delete it having already decided it was not, without bothering to get anyone else's opinion who know the subject. Ultra7 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I too would have appreciated the opportunity to discuss this. That brief discussion comparing it to cars was simplictic at best, there are many country specific aspects about colours of buses that are completely irrelevant to cars, that many people might be using as a search point. Ultra7 (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

Almju. (talk) 16:47 25 de Enero de 2011

¿Eres gilipollas? ¿Que significa que los himnos no son míos? No son míos, ni tuyos, ni de nadie. ¿A caso no sabes lo que es el dominio público? ¡Vamos no me jodas! ¿Por que España si tiene su himno? ¿Se lo borras también ha quién lo a subido? Con gentuza como tu no avanza el mundo.

You better stop uploading copyright violations before complainting. Besides the blatant copyvios stolen from newspaper websites you copied e.g. the recording from (evidence: the klick at the begining, exactly the same spectrogram). Thats copyright violation, it is prefered if you turn back to good contributing. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

what license?

Hi Mr Martin. I want upload some pictures from ? I think you said at past uploader must use {{GFDL|migration=not-eligible}} license for this website? Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats correct but not because I say it but because it is stated in the website terms. Not-eligible for migration comes because files that you upload now are uploaded after the migration date, see Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force#Images_affected. --Martin H. (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Una pregunta, como puedo incluir material que no es libre en un wikiarticulo?, aclarando el origen de la licencia?

You can only upload contenido libre here. See Commons:Sobre las licencias including Commons:Sobre las licencias#Lista de control. --Martin H. (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Intento usar una ya utilizada de la versión del mismo articulo publicada en inglés, pero...

Ah ya entendí, pero hay imagen una similar en el artículo que intento utilizar para incluirla en la versión en español, que está también en la wikimedia commons, pero al utilizarla, no aparece la imagen, según dice, solamente las uso libre, y como dice, la imagen publicada en el artículo de la versión en inglés deque tiene la licencia para ser utilizada parte del artículo en inglés, no me permite utilizarla para la versión del mismo artículo en su versión en español, que puedo hacer?

Artículo en Español:ícula) Artículo en inglés donde se encuentra la imagen que quiero utilizar siguiendo las instrucciones de licencia: --Shinobilanterncorps (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia en inglés: fair use. Wikimedia Commons; no acepta material con derechos de autor. --Martin H. (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Files from my mother (File:TinereteBatrînete.jpg and File:IOautoportret.jpg)

Please don't delete my mother drawings (File:IOautoportret.jpg & File:TinereteBatrînete.jpg) who belongs to me; Thank you,-- 09:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you are the uploader, Spiridon MANOLIU (talk · contribs), then why did you put your own name in the author field of File:TinereteBatrînete.jpg? Anyway, as your mother was a professional artist, we do need a separate permission sent to OTRS in which you have to confirm that you are the only inheritor of you mothers paintings. That is because your mother (resp. her heirs) still holds the copyright for this paintings until the year 2077. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bilder suchen

Hi, ich hab mal angefangen im Web zu suchen, wo eigentlich meine Fotos außerhalb von wp gelandet sind, hier: Mit der google & bing-Bildersuche ist das aber recht mühsam. Haste nicht noch einen Tipp/eine URL? Mit Tineye zu suchen, bringt fast überhaupt nichts (oder ich suche verkehrt??). Gruss Mutter Erde 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(Anmerkung: Folgende Google links beinhalten uU pornografisches Material) Ich kenne deine Bilder nicht, daher schwer. Du meinst wahrscheinlich selbst erstellte Fotos? ist natürlich die erste Wahl, du wirst deine selbstgeknipsten Bilder sicher schnell finden, da sind bestimmt viele Wikipedia mirrors dabei (, Ansonsten kannst du nach einzelnen Bildern über die Bildgröße suchen, im obigen Beispiel ist File:Deauxma-Mutter Erde fec.jpg einer der Treffer, den findest du auch mit der Sucheingabe Deauxama imagesize:1004x1199 (zugegeben, du findest es auch wenn du einfach Deauxama eingibst aber das muss ja nicht immer so sein). Bilder die nicht in der Originalgröße und/oder ohne Namensnennung verwendet werden sind schwierig zu finden. Hilfreich ist bei Google noch die Farbsuche, das Deauxama-Bild hat viele Braunanteile, also entsprechende google suche bringt dann noch schnell einen blog und ein russisches Porno-Wiki zutage, und noch mehr Treffer auf den folgenden Seiten. Bei nicht so spezifischen Bildern wie Personen ist es sicher um einiges schwieriger, auch ist im Beispiel des Deauxama-Bildes die Farbsuche sehr gut, was sie nicht immer ist. --Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Martin, herzlichen Dank für deine Hinweise. Super :-)
PS: ist schon kess. Man sollte meinen, Oberst Ghadaffi und seine Truppe hätten einige westliche Umgangsformen übernommen. Aber die Mutti wird einfach verschwiegen. Peinlich peinlich :-). Grüsse aus Berlin, ME 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Zumal anzunehmen ist, dass die Webseite aus dem Haus veröffentlicht wird, und dann kann man nicht mal kurz vor die Tür gehen und sein eigenes Foto machen ;) --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From El Presidente de Cuba

First of all I want say I'm sorry for the low level of my english (its not my native language). And now I want ask you: why you blocked me? I just posting a screenshots of free software to help people, who have made it and inform people about this product. And I have permission from the developer and the site's administration to do it. So I'll be very grateful if you show me a point of rules that I broke

First it is not a sollution to simply create a second account after the first was blocked. Use the first accounts talkpage. Second this is not free software. Call of Warhammer is a MOD (a modified version) of Medieval II: Total War. The programmer of Call of Warhammer can not release the combination of the MOD and the original game under any free license, he can only release the code of the MOD under a free license. Therefore the programmer can not grant anyone the permission to reuse screenshots of the MOD because the original game Medieval II: Total War is proprietary software and not published under a free license and because making a screenshot of the MOD will not be possible without running the original game. Alternatively the developer of the original game has to agree to release the individual screenshots of the MOD under a free license. You created a screenshot of non-free software which is not ok to upload here. Screenshots like those beeing used in en:Medieval II: Total War are maybe ok under fair use also on the Russian Wikipedia, but they are not ok on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
About the second account: fully agree, but I can not understand why the logo designers and logo of the site was removed (despite the resolution of developers and administrators).
About screenshots: I tried to upload the screenshots not from the original game, but from modifications, which has been done because the developers themselves have opened the original game code, making it publicly available for general use.
Regarding the logos: Maybe, but arent this logos using the logo of the game and screenshots? Regarding the screenshots: This project is free content, free content is free to reuse by anyone, worldwide for any purpose including commercial purposes. If a game developer allows fans to mod the game this will not allow the fans to exploit sell the game. Or? The permission to mod is a very limited permission for a special purpose, it is not a free content permission. --Martin H. (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The logos does not contain screenshots of the original game as well as modifications. One of the logos is based on the work and drawings of fans, the other - image of a monument of culture, heritage of the people (the monument to Bohdan Khmelnytsky in Kiev center). Regarding the screenshots of mod: yes I think you're right, apparently I need more attentively read rules about licensing. I will not ask to unlock my account, because I broke some of the rules, but the reduction time of blocking - it would be fair compromise.

The block is short and will expire soon. I mean of course the first account. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


I requested CopaRio52.gif author to send the permission to Commons. He sent it, but the warning message is still there. Could you verify if there's something wrong with it?

Thank you.

Viperamon (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

An OTRS volunteer will handle the permission and fix the file. --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin H.,
kannst du, falls es nicht zu viel Arbeit macht, die mögliche "Verwandtschaft" von Chankumbah (talk · contribs) und Lix (talk · contribs) prüfen. Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sehe ich keinen Anlass für. Ich kann auch nur spekulieren, aber das Verhalten ist unterschiedlich auf File:Mulanje.jpg und Chankumbah ist eher ein Vandalismus-Account. Die Bearbeitungen von Lix sind schon merkwürdig, aber warhscheinlich hat er einfach nur Emailbenachrichtigung aktiviert und einige komische Bearbeitungen gabs da ja schon in der Vergangenheit. --Martin H. (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi! Probably all Vankod uploads are copyright violations.--Oleola (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuked, all the PFC Chernomorets Burgas player photos. Only upload not deletd is FC Ravda logo, IMO too simple for copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Egypt vs Algeria 2-0.jpg

the image is licensed under cc-by-2.0, as the included template said. see what's the problem? --Akkakk (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My reason for nomination was: REUTERS/Amr. Abdallah Dalsh (EGYPT SPORT SOCCER) - flickrvio, flickr user is not the author. --Martin H. (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I don't know what the blocking policy is here on Commons but User:Mario1011 has done nothing but upload copyrighted images of himself over and over again. He's doing the same on English Wikipedia as well as constantly recreating an article about himself. So I wondered if it might be appropriate to block him so he can't keep uploading these images. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


I will indicate Free License for this File:Bleu turquin.jpg because F Dabost send me the photo and I think it's no copyrighted  : but how indicate the license now? For this photo File:AgionOrosSerafim-14.jpg the author photograph say me yes you have the permission to take one of my pictures of theses but I have not conserve the letter of permission( Kiss radio)  ? -- 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See the instructions in the information I gave at the uploaders talkapge. The copyright holder must agree to a free license - note that a permission for use in Wikipedia will not be enough, the license must allow anyone to reuse the image. The license the copyright holder selected has to be added to the file description using a copyright tag. The permission should be forwarded to COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


É que eu queria uma imagem para o artigo da Karina Ferrari na Wikipedia. Só que eu não encontro livre! msg 16:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Critérios_para_inclusão#Deve encontrar-se sob uma licença livre ou no domínio público, there is NO pt:Wikipedia:Conteúdo restrito on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Carson cistulli02.jpg

Added Permission: "Part of the Collection 'Ourmedia': 'Ourmedia's vision is to bring personal media to millions of users' desktops through playlists, video jukeboxes, visual albums, and built-in media libraries. The repositories will contain thousands of media items that can be freely shared. '" I imagine that this means we can use this here? If not please excuse me in advance, --Molly81 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree with that for various reasons:
  • 1) If I browse that collection I see a lot of content published under unfree Creative Commons licenses, e.g. [4] [5], etc. Apparently the whole collection is not free to copy in our definition of free, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms
  • 2) A Creative Commons license cc-by-sa is not indicated for this item in the collection, there is no referece regarding copyrights while many other items in the collection have information on Copyrights
  • 3) The "collection" appears to do nothing different but mirroring websites including mirroring falsely licensed content from websites. If the image is under a free license at it will be under a free license available elsewhere.
--Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Martin, I must have misunderstood, I'll remove the image immediately. --Molly81 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Only use category redirects where necessary

Your thoughts may be helpful at Commons_talk:Only_use_category_redirects_where_necessary#Changes needed to turn this into a guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I was dying from suspense.[6] Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Users Juniorpetjua and Fontela01 ‎

Could you please take a look at uploaded images by these users? Users claimed their images are their "own work", but I have tagged part of them as copyvio or nominated them for deletion. In both cases, some images dont't have details, and - when they have - there are several different configuration (such as different cameras). Thanks, Ednei amaral (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua (Nordeste uploads) has all uploads deleted already by Dferg. For Fontela01 (talk · contribs) (Sao Paulo state uploads) I think you catched the bad contributions already, I see no clear evidence for the other images and wont delete them, the configuration differs but it looks explainable. If you think different please start a deletion request, doubt is an allowed reason to start a discussion. If you found something tag it for speedy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Caterina Murino 2009.jpg

Hallo Martin, und danke für den Hinweis zu der Flickr-Schwarzliste! Ich hatte schon ein bisschen Zweifel gehabt aber könnte dieses Bild nirgendwo anders finden, aber jetzt weiss ich es! :-) Vonvon (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Naja, eine Schwarzliste ist es nicht, aber eine Sammlung fragwürdiger Accounts. Bei diesem Beispiel ist die Sache allerdings sehr eindeutig. --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

William Soule photos

I noticed you put William Soule photos on Commons. I am new here and I cannot create an account for some reason. I want to put the mirror image of this image in commons. Can you help me? 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean, whats an mirror image? Do you have a different version of one of the Soule photos? Or do you mean an image that also exists on Wikipedia? --Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to put this [7] link in. I want it to be the mirror image (feet pointing to your right, not left). My wikipedia talk page is here[8]. 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I will not mirror it, but I can upload if of course, but Ill take it from LIFE or another source. --Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there rules about mirroring photos I can read somewhere? Sorry I can't sign properly because I can't get an account open. 23:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Mirroring is bad, make a photo of yourself and mirror it. The image will be on File:William S. Soule - Lone Bear (Tarlow).jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thnx. Much appreciated. 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Darf ich dich als deutschsprachigen Admin auf diesen Löschantrag besonders hinweisen. Auf [9] ist die Sache inzwischen auch von WP:URF-Stammgästen klar beurteilt worden. Nur ein paar User sind noch auf Mission (in der ganzen Geschichte). --Martina Nolte (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Amanda Bearse in the Fright Night.jpg

Hello! Martin H, I took the picture from my cellphone, Tom Holland, altor has rights over the film, but the picture was me who did, but that's okay, but I do not know what to do with images in Comm coper, in the case of Sonic Rush Adventure and Ami Foster, I even understand, but these images was I who did it, but everything. Cinceramente, I guess, Comm there's nothing I can do, but okay, I appreciate the message and thanks.

Johnes Gonçalves (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Making a photo of your television screen is a derivative work of the screen (an it is not de minimis in this case). You can not upload photos of television screens on Commons as long as the television content is not published under a free license by the broadcaster. Of course it was you who did the photo, but your photo is not free of third party rights. See Commons:First steps/License selection: Not free of third party rights = do not upload. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Hallo! It's not my graphics! Vandal changed a file to another. Restored its image, it is my own work, so the license is OK

K, didnt checked that carefully. Thanks for reverting the vandal. --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Noch ne Copyright-Frage

Hallo. Ich bin mir gar nicht sicher, ob Du überhaupt der richtige Ansprechpartner bist, aber vieleicht kannst Du mir sagen, an wen ich mich wenden kann?

Es geht um eine Webseite, die ein Foto der Wikimedia benutzt, ohne die entspr. Copyright-Bemerkungen. Gibt es irgendwo einen vorformulierten Brief, den ich als Autor dieses Fotos an den Editor der Website schreiben kann, ohne mich dabei gleich in die Nesseln zu setzen?

Danke für deine Zeit. --hdamm (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Es gibt deutsche Brief- und Emailvorlagen, Commons:Emailvorlagen#Lizenzverstöße, englische habe ich nicht gefunden. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Klasse, danke. Das ist doch schon mal nen Anfang. --hdamm (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by user Jordanson from english wiki

Most if not all photos uploaded by him are copyright violations. Look at his log[10]. Some was transferred to commons, but I doubt that was made by him like [11], [12] or stadiums all with shoted by different cameras [13],[14], [15], [16].

I found evidences that [17] and [18] was not made by him. Also found evidences for about 15 photos on English wikipedia.--Oleola (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:WilliamBoydThumbnail.png

Hello Martin; was the thumbnail version, File:WilliamBoydThumbnail.png, of File:WilliamBoyd.png deleted because of redundancy? Is my thumbnail non-conformant to specifications or recommendations? Can the Wikimedia software create a thumbnail automatically? Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the software can generate thumbnails in any size. See en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin H., du hattest am 2009-07-18 migration=not-eligible bei File:Flammrohr nach 15000h.jpg hinzugefügt. Das habe ich nun auf |migration=relicense geändert - es sind doch alle Punkte erfüllt, oder nicht? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Richtig. Scheint so als bin ich durch die uploads des benutzers gegangen und habe neben den zu neuen Uploads auch alte uploads ans not-eligible markiert, bei File:Heißgasklappe aus Oxidverbund.jpg hatte ich mich noch selber revertiert, bei Flammrohr nach 15000h.jpg hab ich scheinbar übersehen. --Martin H. (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Alles klar. Danke für die Erklärung. Bist du alle alten durchgegangen, dass dort auch überall wo gfdl steht cc steht (also vermutl. Relizenziert wurde) oder ist das noch zu tun? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Habs nochmal gecheckt jetzt, geht ja recht schnell über die Gallery --Martin H. (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

Manchmal ist Commons schon zum verücktwerden. Danke für deine Unterstützung. --Isderion (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lost Files

Hi again Mr Martin. I uploade three pictures that I found they deleted now.(Mansour_Sattary_1.jpg-Mansour_Sattary_2.jpg-Mansour_Sattary_3.jpg)

by this edit, user:ABF mentioned in category:Media missing permission as of 15 May 2010. but I cant find this page to undrestand reason of delete. so, I confused.

you are just people that can help me. please check reason of deletion these pictures. thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting yet. please help me.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Cant help you. For e.g. File:Mansour Sattary 2.jpg: That file does not appear at the given source (visible also in the log. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload that picture again with exact source and license of sajed?[20] If you allow me, I upload and then show you to check it. do you agree?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Scheibenwischerverkauf in Apan fcm.jpg

Hallo Martin!

Ich hätt's ja selber gemacht, weiß aber offensichtlich nicht, wie's geht: Der Kollege A7N8X hat nochmal eine stärker komprimierte Version des Bildes hochgeladen und dabei etliche Details vernichtet. Das ist nach meiner Meinung eine Verschlechterung des Fotos. Ich wollte seinen Upload rückgängig machen, so wie Du schon zuvor. Wie macht man das? Muss ich das Bild wirklich neu hochladen oder geht das auch einfacher, mit Zurücksetzen oder so?

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Keine Verbesserung, sehe ich auch so. Die Straße sieht aus wie grauer Brei. Unten auf der seite findet sich ein Abschnitt File history (de: Dateiversionen), dort sind links platziert zum Revert (de: Zurücksetzen), einfach auf den revert-Knopf drücken auf den du zurücksetzen möchtes, also die älteste Version von dir. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Super; hat geklappt. Vielen Dank. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

distorted image

Hi Martin, not sure whom to ask, so I thought I'd try you. I've uploaded a new version of a file File:Henry Sewell, ca 1872.jpg (much higher res; cropped) and it looks fine on Commons, and it also looks fine of the DYK nomination page. Two articles that had been using the previous version of the file show this image distorted (stretched vertically): Henry Sewell and Sewell Ministry. At first I thought it's a caching issue, but I've had a look at those pages through another browser and the same problem exists. Any idea what the problem could be? Schwede66 07:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The server cache, the image thumbnail is in the server cache, the new size is different from the old and the file is distorted. If you purge the cache it will be shown correctly. --Martin H. (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That worked a treat - thank you. Just for my understanding - server cache means that everybody gets to see the distorted image until somebody clears the cache. Correct? Schwede66 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That describes it well, so yes. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

in response to question about Rutger_Beke_2011.jpg and Axel_Zeebroek_2011.jpg

I have received two messages on my Tgeysels account on Wikipedia Commons page related to two images I posted, Rutger_Beke_2011 and Axel_Zeebroek_2011 asking for licensing information. I am the marketing manager of the Uplace Pro Triathlon Team, of which Rutger Beke and Axel Zeebroek (the two athletes depicted in the pictures). The Uplace Pro Triathlon Team owns all copyrights to these images and I am authorized to post these images on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgeysels (talk • contribs)

Ok, the OTRS team will deal with this. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Please, restore or do not delete this photo (22:51, on January, 15th 2011 Martin H. (| the contribution) has removed Discussion «File:ХайлоВА.jpg» and *8206; (Missing essential information: source and/or license: No source since 4 December 2010) (global usage; delinker log)). This photo of my relative from a house picture album also belongs it to really senior lieutenant Khajlo Vasily Aleksandrovichu. Ок? Yours faithfully, Sheds Vladimir Alekseevich.

COM:EI, Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin!

Ich stelle fest, dass du im Rahmen dieser Löschdiskussion auch erleben musstest, dass Jcb gerne Löschdiskussionen mit "keep" quitiert, ohne den abgegebenen Argumenten zu folgen und/oder eine ausführliche Begründung zu geben, warum er sich für ein bestimmtes Resultat entschieden hat. Ich hatte in zwei weiteren Löschdiskussionen dasselbe Vergnügen, aber ohne Erfolg darauf, dass er Verständnis zeigt. Was kann man hier tun? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ich kann in diesem Fall eine Behalten-Entscheidung aus unbedeutenden Formalgründen nicht aktzeptieren, Jcb stellt Formalgründe ("uploader was not informed") über die Projektrichtlinien. Vielleicht ist das aber auch eher ein Problem des Lösch-Prozesses und kein Problem von oder mit Jcb. Ich hab aber keine Lust zB auf Commons talk:Deletion policy Metadiskussionen darüber zu führen, wahrscheinlich wäre das aber etwas was man tun könnte. Da ich keinen Zweifel an der Richtigkeit meiner Einschätzung - prozessuale Fragen sind nachrangig, können zwar zu einer Verschiebung der Diskussion bzw. deren Entscheidung führen, nicht aber zu einer Ablehnung der Diskussion - habe, bleibe ich in diesem Fall dabei, die Dikussion offenzuhalten bis jemand mit Sachverstand sich zutraut die Argumente zusammenzuziehen. Auch wenn das vielleicht erst in einem Jahr passiert. Eine Diskussion über diese Frage wäre vielleicht hilfreich und könnte man machen, aber wie schon gesagt find ich solche Dikussionen häufig einfach als zu sinnlos oder auch anstrengend, z.B. sprachlich. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Es worths ... anstatt Tötung eines Löschantrag ohne gültige Rechtsansprüche oder basierend auf persönlichen Meinungen .....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo of William Boyd (pathologist); was Request for deletion.


This morning I was told that the photo of pathologist William Boyd was made by Yousuf Karsh. Please delete WilliamBoyd.png. I'll ask the copyright holder for permission.

Thanks, ... Peter E. peasthope at shaw dot ca ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Karsh representative will allow the photo of William Boyd (pathologist) to appear on Wikimedia Commons at a resolution of 72 dpi [sic]. That will be approximately 415 pixels by 310 pixels. She instructs that I transfer the image to Wikimedia and then notify her to send permission. Her two messages to me follow. Have you any correction or objection? Reply directly to peasthope at shaw dot ca if you wish. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Easthope,

I represent the Estate for licensing. I'm OK with the Creative Commons license to which you refer, for this subject. Please make your scan as low-resolution as possible. You will need me to email permission - when you've uploaded your scan to Wikimedia send me the file name for reference.

Best wishes, J.G.
Karsh Representative, North America
Peter, I try to keep things 72 dpi at about 400 or 500 pixels.
Hope that's helpful!

J. G. Karsh Representative, North America

Upload your file with an appropriate description. Use the "Its from somewhere else" upload form. Tag it as OTRS pending in the "Permission" field as instructed in that upload form. The COM:OTRS team will deal with the permission. --Martin H. (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, After I gave the OTRS pending tag in the Permissions field the interface persisted that a license be chosen. I don't know which license the Karsh estate will choose. After puzzling some, I finally just chose "I don't know what the license is". Perhaps that could be the default case when the "OTRS pending" tag is present. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback but im not familiar with doing changes to the interface. Quoting the above, I'm OK with the Creative Commons license your license will be one of the Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've become a resource for me ...

when I have a doubtful image. Your fault for being knowledgeable and helpful. I uploaded to this image. If you think my rationale why it is PD holds, I will move it across to Commons. Many thanks for your continuing help ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the coin is ineligible. --Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martin H.

I saw your that you deleted the image and found out what I did was wrong. As you had said, I cropped the image from a random Youtube video and I Flickrwashed it. After I read you message, I feel embarrassed for what I have done and would like to say sorry. Daffy123

I appreciate if you not do it again. Thats all. If you want you can remove the message, but keep it in mind. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Mr Martin. I need your help. please help me. user:eusebius want to block me more and more. He bilieves I want be bad guy in commons. I bilieve I have mistakes in problem. but I also uploaded so many good pictures too. but now I want be a good user. but he insist tell aothers I am every time dangerous for commons. but this is fault. I upload so many pictures in week that may a sysop have doubt about a few of them. I agree and ready to answer their questions and if I couldnt satisfied them, they delete that (those) pictures. but eusebius dont let me to show myself and when saw I began upload pictures, request to block me immediately.[21] and some guys dont know me, staing in line to block me!!! unfortunatly I have any friend here. I request you please help me:you can cjeck every week my uploaded and if some pictures have problem say me. and I did bad work you can block me.

please dont ignore this request and help me. I believe eusebius cant jadje about me fair. but my experiment say me you do. please introduce youself at that topic.

I will show you my good efforts.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at super-usagi's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Hola, sorprendentemente he visto que has borrado todas mis imagenes de un articulo sobre la banda Mercurio que hice, lo cual es totalmente absurdo por que esas fotos son de mi propiedad, la primera la de arriba la tomé yo con mi camara en el 97 cuando visitaron las instalaciones del periodico en Barranquilla, el logo ORM es hecho por mi, y las fotos del club tambien, la foto donde estan los 5 fueron tomadas por mi amigo rodrigo y esa pagina que pones la tomó de su facebook, osea ellos toman nuestras fotos y tu nos señalas de copiarlos! necesito una respuesta por que no creo que esto funcione asi de borrar por que sí.


Defne Joy Foster pic

Hi again Martin. For, I saw that you slightly corrected my upload info and I thought it would be a good idea to send the OTRS confirmation to your attention, which I did. I have one small worry. The copyright holder, the school through their press officer, sent me the CC template through his gmail account. I can ask them to send back a confirmation through the official school address if that becomes an issue. Regards. User:Cretanforever

I only used a template that brings your indication that an email was sent into the OTRS process so that it will be more easy for the OTRS team to find the image. Confirming or reading the permission is not my business. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)



I just uploaded some pictures to the pages of 2 friends of mine, Candido Costa and Octavian Chihaia; It were public pictures, some of them posted right by them. I even asked them to take a look on the pages and tell me if it's ok to put those pictures and they agreed. They were also content of my work. And now, after a few hours, i see that all my pictures have been deleted, i don't think is fair, i worked hard to understand the uploading process and i want those pictures back. Is very easy just to delete what someone else worked on. Please, can you help me? Thank you!



Hallo Martin, könntest du event. mal prüfen ob Caminodesantiago (talk · contribs) Verwandtschaft zu Sagues (talk · contribs) aufweist, da ersterer File:Iglesiadegazolaz.JPG und File:Entradaalaiglesiadegazolaz.JPG mit gefälschten Flickrvios (Jahre nach Commons-Upload auf Flickr hochgeladen) speedy-getaggt hat, wenige Tage nachdem der ursprüngliche Uploader die Löschung mit "It's my photo and I don't want it to be anymore on wikipedia" verlangt hatte, die abgelehnt wurde. --Túrelio (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Es gibt immer wieder Neues zu entdecken hier, so einen Fall hatte ich noch nicht. Ich schau mal. --Martin H. (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Aus rein technischer Sicht 100% zusammengehörend. Allerdings nicht nur die Beiden. Ich habe Fünf Benutzer in zwei Dreiergruppen gefunden, wobei Gazolaz in beiden Gruppen sitzt und damit die Verbindung herstellt die mich zur Schlußfolgerung '100%' führt. Die Gruppen sind Sagues (talk · contribs), Wdavid07 (talk · contribs), Gazolaz (talk · contribs) sowie Gazolaz (talk · contribs), Caminodesantiago (talk · contribs), Cendeadecizur (talk · contribs). --Martin H. (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Danke für die Mühe. Jetzt müssen wir mal überlegen, was wir mit denen machen. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Schwieriger und äußerst merkwürdiger Fall. File:Retabloiglesiagazolaz.jpg hat diverse Änderungen erfahren. Entsprechend der Versionsgeschichte:

Ich würds zusammenfassen als Bild aus dem Internet mit unbekanntem Urheber, 2x versucht einem 'seriösen' Flickraccount zuzuordnen wobei beide Flickr accounts dem Datum zufolge Flickrwashing-Accounts sind. Mit dieser Erkenntniss würde ich alle Uploads von den Benutzern Gazolaz (talk · contribs), Caminodesantiago (talk · contribs), Cendeadecizur (talk · contribs) ablehnen. Fehlen noch Sagues (talk · contribs) und Wdavid07 (talk · contribs). Zweiterer hat keine Beiträge, scheint eher aus einem Umbenennungswunsch zu resultieren. Ersterer, Sagues, ist uns ja mit File:Church portal of the church Nuestra Señora de la Purificación - Gazólaz.jpg und dem gefälschten Flickrvio aufgefallen (wobei das Bild von Flickr nun wieder verschwunden ist...), Sagues ist ebenfalls nicht vertrauenswürdig. Womit der Fall etwas hart aber vertretbar gelöst wäre. Ich würde alles Löschen und werde es auch machen, wenn du nichts einzuwenden hast. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nichts dagegen einzuwenden. Danke für die Detektivarbeit. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Burn Notice cast with Coby Bell.jpg

Hy! You've deleted the picture, I had uploaded yesterday. I don't think that the picture had a copyright on it, because this was the original photo, which i've photoshopped and gave Coby Bell to the pic.

So i don't understand why did you deleted this picture. Yours faithfully -- Barricade Breaker (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing something does not remove the original copyright. You also have a copyright - for all edits you made to the image - but you not have a copyright on the material that you editd, and that material is unfree. Therefore you can not upload it here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Images of Andrea Minguzzi on Commons

Before deleting any images of Andrea Minguzzi on Commons, please take a look on this page: Italian Fijlkam federation let Wikipedia to use his images for free. --Mirandolese (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1) This cant apply to photographs of the press that they not creatd 2) a permission to use in Wikipedia is not sufficient 3) as far as I know such a permission is/was required under Italian Wikipedia fair use regulations, it:WP:EDP and the list of allowed non-free licenses it:Wikipedia:Copyright_immagini#Autorizzate_solo_per_Wikipedia, to use a non-free image under fair use, but fair use is not what Commons collects. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin. Can I upload images of the gallery of this band? They release the photos with Creative Commons license.-Progenie of the great apocalypse (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can not see the website, all links on that website lead me to some kind of advertisements from You see a list of acceptable Creative Commons licenses in Commons:Copyright_tags#Free_Creative_Commons_licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Martin, can you delete this version file? The second that i uploaded is right. Thankful. --Vitor Mazuco Msg 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted both, the website is not under cc-by-sa but under cc-by-nc-sa. Non-commercial. --Martin H. (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither the logo, is a just text sample? --Vitor Mazuco Msg 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Logo (WebCite in blue letters on light blue background) is a text logo, but the whole text on the page is too much. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Medieval reproductions of ancient documents

Hi Marin,

I have a question regarding medieval reproductions of ancient documents. Are these considered public domain?

For example, I am confused about the 1542 reproduction of the ancient Notitia Dignitatum. It is available at Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, who seems to added copyright to it?! Or is it just to the digital copy?! I downloaded the PDF version and on the 1st page it says: "The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB) owns the copyright for all web documents, in particular for all images. Any further use of the web documents is subject to the approval of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and/or the author. External links to the offer of the BSB are expressly welcome. However, it is illegal to copy whole pages or complete articles or parts of articles without prior authorisation. Some individual materials may be copied for non-commercial educational purposes, provided that the authorship of the author(s) or of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek is indicated unambiguously. Unless provided otherwise by the copyright law, it is illegal and may be prosecuted as a punishable offence to use copyrighted articles and representations of the data stored on the servers of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, in particular by copying or disseminating them, without the prior written approval of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. It is in particular illegal to store or process any data in data systems without the approval of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek."

Does Commons qualify to these requirements?

Thanks a lot and best regards --Codrin.B (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The copyright claim can only apply to the digitalization. The only exception on Wikimedia Commons where the copyright is ignored is copyright claims on reproductions of public domain 2D artwork. That goes for photographs of paintings, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and for scans of public domain documents, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. I uploaded for example Category:Fuggerorum et Fuggerarum imagines from BSB. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Martin, neben der von Dir getaggten Axt hat der User noch eine Reihe weiterer Kunstreproduktionen hochgeladen und fälschlich mit „own work“ deklariert, obwohl er in en:User:Claesnycander/Evert Lundquist und jetzt auch in sv:Evert Lundquist (wohl zutreffend) behauptet, dass die Bilder von Evert Lundquist sind. Dazu kommen noch alte Fotos, deren Urheber vielleicht schon 50 oder 70 Jahre tot sind, aber mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht der Hochlader. Blöd ist nur, dass es für solche Fälle keine Textbausteine gibt, oder? -- Hämbörger (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hat sich erledigt, ich habe die Lösung ein paar Beiträge höher gefunden. -- Hämbörger (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Die Autorenfelder sind alle falsch ausgefüllt, durch den Artikel ist es korrigierbar - sofern die Bilder denn frei sind, was ich bezweifele. Das Axt-Bild ist mehr als Beispiel bzw. Testballon gedacht, je nachdem ob Informationen vom Uploader geflossen wären hätte ich dann auch den Weg eingeschlagen den du jetzt gegangen bist mit der Löschdiskussion. Ist aber der richtige Weg. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

reducing the quality?

What is your definition of quality? Have the watermark image is not synonymous with quality! To have. jpg artifacts is not synonymous with quality! To have. jpg instead of linear prograssivo is not synonymous with quality! To have. jpeg is not as heavy synonymous with quality! Have images that represent dirty is not synonymous with quality!

I can make the watermark disappear, render progressive images, reduce the weight and reduce artifacts, this is because there are now programs that let you enhance images.--A7N8X (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you remove all characteristics and details of surfaces from an image and replace it with a grey this will be a quality loss. Compare [22] and [23], you claimed that you cleaned out a watermark and improved the compression. There was no watermark. Of course it is quicker now to load but the street is a grey, unnaturally looking pixel mash. In fact you destroyed the visible appareance of the street. Thats bad image editing and not an improvement at all. --Martin H. (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It is called Cagiva_LE_900ie or asphalt? The description of the image about the bike or the soil? However, if that is the problem, simply reduce the power of the filter graph!--A7N8X (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dont filter at all, the editing is not required and not an improvement. --Martin H. (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to filter anything, even if the changes are not required explicitly not mean they are not required or bring improvements!--A7N8X (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Kim Myung Min photo

hi there! for your info, i personally took that photo. i also supplied the news article (article) to hancinema. you can check with them if you wish. can you please re-up the photo? or do you need more proof? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piano lady08 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You should upload a real photo, not such a thumbnail that anyone can download from the internet. The image was published already with a different author and copyright claim. The upload form asks you to indicate for previous publication, you not did this, and to provide written permission. See Commons:Permission. --Martin H. 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

U.K. copyright question

Hello Martin, I have a question on U.K. copyright. I wanted to upload this photograph of a house in Nottinghamshire, taken by an anonymous person. It appears to be a postcard. (It's the topmost photo of the two.) [24] According to the caption, this is Flintham Hall in the 1920s. It doesn't say 1920 per se. Is such a photograph acceptable on Commons? Wanted to check before uploading, thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The postcard is not described as 'unknown' at the source and I dont know the backside of the postcard, often the author and publisher information is written on the backside of postcards. So I would not upload it under {{PD-UK-unknown}} because reasonable enquiry on the authorship will obviously require to at least check the postcards backside. --Martin H. 14:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, Martin. I will not upload. Best, MarmadukePercy 15:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

something strange is happening

Thanks for your note about images - something seems to have happened to my profile. I don't seem to be getting the proforma when I upload images, and the hotcat funtionality seems to have turned itself off. Have you got anyidea what's happened? Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Scripts are down, nothing is working at the moment (including all gadgets, including the interface - note that we have "Random page" instead of the usual "Random file" at the left side) and I dont know why. --Martin H. 15:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, so it's not just me. Thanks for that! Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. How do you mark a file for deletion? db-g7 doesn't seem to do what I'm expecting. Pdfpdf 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, its a real mess. I think you are expirienced enough to fix it yourself, so I hope its ok that I leave you with the problem. Other people may need more assitance. db-g7 is user request? The appropriate tag in file namespace will be {{speedy|uploader request, wrong file uploaded by accident}} or something like that. --Martin H. 15:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, is it OK if I leave fixing stuff until things are behaving themselves again? Pdfpdf 15:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The file description now exists and it is empty. The information must be added by hand by someone, it will not fix itself. --Martin H. 15:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Will do. Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wozniak photo copyright


I noticed that you deleted the Wozniak2010.jpg photo I uploaded. I have permission from the original photographer Arturo Velazquez to use the photo here as I am a colleague of his at Tennis Canada and he took the photo for my purposes. I also have a personal request from Aleksandra Wozniak, the tennis player herself to update the photo on her wiki page since she has changed sponsors. I am Aleksandra's press agent and I can't seem to get past Wikipedia copyright laws to get a photo uploaded, can you please assist me.

Thank you, Melissa Boyd

This photo

Hello, Martin. Could you tell me if this photo can be uploaded here? Thanks. Victor Kbça (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. The image at source is licensed under a license that does not allow for commercial reuse or modifications, thats not compatible with Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks saviour...Child is growing from slips ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for information about this image! --Gampe (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sobre las imagenes

Hola Martin podrias explicarme como argumentar la licencia --Brandtol (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Permission for File:TTCC1621.jpg

<email removed>

Not here. See Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Sehr geehrter Martin H,

ich habe mit dem obengenannten Bild fast nichts zu tun. Ich habe nur das Bild etwas heller gemacht und nichts geändert. Wenden Sie sich an den Urheber der Datei. Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC) PS. Der eigentliche Urheber war Adam92.

wenden Sie sich = wende dich ;) Entferne die Notiz von deiner Diskussionsseite. Das Script, dass ich zur Erstellung des Löschantrags verwendet habe, informiert automatisch alle Bearbeiter der Datei. --Martin H. (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

'stupid wikilawerying'

Could you please stop to express your emotions against collegues this way? I don't care that you fail time after time to spell 'wikilawyering', but I do care that your lack of knowledge about the procedures leads to personal attacks towards a collegue. I do my best to do my job as good as possible. You can always ask questions or leave comments at my talk page. Please try to deal with your collegues in a constructive way. Jcb (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider what your closure (and the closure before) did:
  • Nothing was resolved but only more work was created.
  • The outcome violates a very, very basic requirment that any user should know (see the red text in Special:Upload).
  • The files have been thrown out of all processes without any chance that anyone will ever fix them, the deletion of the copyright tag with the template deletion notice obscured the problems of this files. Unfree files stay untagged without any warning tag, without any information about the copyright status on Commons. And more, to bring this files back into the processes you demand others to do work...?!
I reserve my right to protest against this, apply commensense, closing a template deletion this way cant be the correct procedure, no matter the law requires all files listed or anyone on the planet beeing informed. Fix such problems, not just go over them because some processes have not been followed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg already told you 2 February that the files will need a separate nomination. You responded to that messages, so you were aware of that. Jcb (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, maybe you not understand it right. That is not my request! I dont feel beholden to take any position in the deletion request or to inform anyone and im not interested in the outcome of that request in any way. If someone removes deletion warnings and problem tags from 100 files and let them exist without any copyright tag, in clear violation of COM:L, I feel reponsible to revert such actions and bring this files back into a process. If you think a user must be informed: inform them! If you think a file requires individual listing: list it individually. But dont remove problems without taking care if the problem will be dealt with in future. --Martin H. (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb is closing the deletions from his point of view, it must be changed to commons point of view, as an admin he should be a model and proper explanation should be provided for keeping or deleting the files, many of his DR closures re-started in such way, For an instance see this.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Уважаемый у Вас есть претензии к моим фотографиям? Вы не могли бы объяснить суть своих требований, увы я новичок в проекте викисклад и не могу разобраться в сути Ваших действий против меня.Hazar (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:First steps. Are you allowed to upload images that you copied from the internt as "Это полностью моя собственная работа"? No, you are not allowed to do this. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Скажите пожалуйста а что вы мне ответите если я вам докажу что большинство этих фотографий я сделал сам лично держа фотоаппарат в своих руках. Откуда у вас появились такие убеждения о том что я что то у кого своровал. У меня проблемы с иностранным языком а также проблемы с пониманием принципов работы данного сайта. Может Вы мне поможете разместить мои фотографии здесь должным образом? Hazar (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please dont delete my photos, deleted by you photos is mine, please help me right download them into wikimedia. Excuse me, my english is very bad Hazar (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Dona Maria I of Portugal held at Queluz.jpg

It is hardly false, I extracted it from another picture I just do not know how to say that. Help! Picture Perfect Prince (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You extracted it from another picture AND you added the author information 'unknown'. Thats wrong, the painting is not from an unknown artist. If you dont know the painter and if you not have a reliable source confirming that the painter is unknown you should not write anything into the author field. --Martin H. (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Copyfraud

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Ligabo's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Alejandro Maristany y Guasch 1915.jpg

About this picture Alejandro Maristany y Guasch 1915.jpg I think you can remove the {{no source since|month=February|day=16|year=2011}} template, as the source is the uploader private collection. The work is now in the public domain. See If the "intellectual property" of the work isn't owned by anybody, or it is a collective work where individual authors are not identifiable, this work would be on public domain after 80 years since the date of publication.. Thanks, --DPC (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It must have come to his "personal collection" in some way. Scanning something from a book or a newspaper (or building up a personal collection of images copied from the internet) does not allow you to claim your "personal collection" the source. It does not allow for any verification about the authorship, the uploader should provide where it is from, if it was not him who created the photo then he got the photo from somewhere, this means the photo was published and this publication is required, also per your above: "80 years since the date of publication" (not creation). --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
All right, let me check with the uploader. --DPC (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Do so. Im watching the file page, so if a source was added I will see it, also if help is required the talk page of the file can be used. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin. I was wondering if you or another administrator here could please give some guidance to editor DIREKTOR. He has been repeatedly warned, as you can see on his talk page, not to simply override existing files, but to create other versions. In the case of File:Col James H Young 1899.jpg, DIREKTOR simply overwrote the existing file, as well as giving an insufficient edit summary. The new file isn't nearly as good as the old one, in my opinion. Thank you. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert him. Ask someone else. Im already too angry about his bad editings and about him converting historic albumen prints in ugly greyscale images based on his personal taste but thereby manipulating the integetrity of the works. --Martin H. (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, that's the problem. He apparently has little or no regard for the images. I'll revert him, thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I had the same problem with him, and according to his talk page, the others has the same issue.--Ex13 (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I had noticed others seem to be having problems with him as well. I've left him messages on his talk page, the proverbial shot over the bow. Hopefully he'll learn how to edit here.... MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Martin, you might want to note that editor DIREKTOR has now blanked his talk page, rather than respond to the many queries left there. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem imo. he reacted to the last notifications and removing them means he read them. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

syrejazz uploads

dear Martin

Please do not delete any of my uploads. Syrejazz is my pseudonym at Wiki. I DO own ALL the rights to what I upload to my pages (KAADA, KAADA/PATTON and CLOROFORM)

I will add more text as I go along making my three pages better.

thanks and best, John Kaada - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrejazz (talk • contribs)

JarlaxleArtemis ?

Guarda che ti sbagli io non sono "JarlaxleArtemis". E non sono nessun altro. Il mio indirizzo IP è statico ed è italiano ( Ma anche senza queste precisazioni, credo che il mio operato su Commons dovrebbe essere sufficientemente illustrativo.
[Look, you're wrong I am not "JarlaxleArtemis". And there is no one else. [25] [26] My IP addresses is static and is Italian ( But even without these clarifications, I believe that my work on the Commons should be sufficiently illustrative.]
--Ligabo (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My friend why u delete my pictures

Dear friend i kindly ask you nopt to delete the files that i upload here. Resently you deleted one of my files here and you really made me upset. I have put all the sources and mentioned where it was published first and i have also stated if it is under any copy right law or not.

Kindly dont make my precious work that i am doing for all the wikipedias into futile work. Please consider that i am really working hard in uploading some precius work here and in return i get such a negative response from your side.

--Khangul (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You claim things as "open source" or "free content" without any evidence that the copyright holder agreed to it. Something is published and visible for free has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with something beeing free content or open source. Dont abuse the words "free content". You take images from (web)sources published in the United States or the UK and claim that they are published in Afghanistan. What's this!? If something was published in the U.S. or UL it is under U.S. or UK copyright. The country of origin is the country of first publication, not some vagualy related country. The country of origin matters here. --Martin H. (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey mister listen if i pick a camer and take a picture of someplace or myself who is the holder of the copyright to that picture? No one except me right? This is what is the case people whome i know and they are well known Afghan writers or any other important personalities and they send me pictures to publish them in wikipedia i only publish it wikimedia commons because it could be accessed by any wikipedia otherwise no use in publishing it here i can simply publish it in Pashto wikipedia where this absurd statements are just ignored. If i upload a picture in facebook its me who is the owner of that picture not the united states or any other country, if it had been the case then nobody will just give the right of their pictures to the united states. You should also note that in Afghanistan we dont have this law, or if they have recently made it then no body cares about it even those who make the law. Now please dont stick to some pictures and be stubborn in deleting them. just let me upload the pictures or otherwise i will not at all. by the way how many written notes should i show you that this picture belongs to this and that friend of mine who has it. and you cant prove it either that all the pictures published in wikimedia commons is not under any kind of restrictions. Think if there are over 25 million pictures and everyone prvide you with a proof that its their own work or their ownership who will read all these pages i dont think you would even look at it.

Now please be serious and dont bother people by putting their uploads in the dust bin.

--Khangul (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. The copyright holder is the creator. You are not the creator as you explained already. Therefore you need to provide written permission from the copyright holders, not "to publish them in wikipedia" but to piublish anywhere in the world, by anyone (not only you, not only Wikipedia) for any purpose including money making purposes. If something is first published in the U.S. source it is protected under U.S. copyright, the copyright belongs to the copyright holder. It is not you who can claim that something is without restrictions. Provide written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Images are out of order

Hi. I corrected and updated some images which have a numerical sequence in their name Popular Science Monthly Volume 20 when the new software update was taking place, and they are out of numerical sequence order. The bad sequence forced the corrected images to the end of the page, and I can't get them into their proper order without help. Can someone clear the Commons internal cache perhaps (???) so that I can see what's still missing?

Furthermore, the transfer/upload process is also adversely affected ever since the software update. The form on which I rely on IS THIS, and I am having transfer problems as well. Many thanks. Ineuw talk page on 03:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable U.S. Forest Service uploads

Hello. I was looking through U.S. Forest Service and other USDA photos and noticed your old concern at User talk:Stickpen#US Forest Service photos. I agree that there are many questionable uploads from the wildflowers area of that web site. Was there further discussion elsewhere? I am wondering why they were not deleted. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 06:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion ended there, no further effort was undertaken to separate the bad from the good uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lorca in white1.jpg

Martin, why do you delete "Lorca in white" Lorca in white1.jpg it has same parameters as first image File:Lorca (1914).jpg on Wiki page Lorca? Category:Poets, 70 years copyright, source URL:, Lepota!

Because I mass deleted (nuked) your recent uploads because of all this stolen photos you uploaded with false author claims. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Why you had what delete the image??? That image had a true description... I'd written the true description saying what the creator of that image is me, me, and the creator of the program was Kwyshell. FlipsHack (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
See the deletion reason at File:MidpX-run-a-game.jpg, the screenshot contains large amounts of unfree software. --Martin H. (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete pictures

I'm not really a wikipedian so I must ask you a favour. Could you please (if you can) delete ALL the "Tatiana Pavlova.jpg" pictures that I uploaded? And so with the file history. I'll provide to do a better work now that I know how it works.

Thank you.

See Commons:Deletion policy, I see no reason for this request. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

From Spiridon MANOLIU...

Provide written permission as requested please. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I photographied or/and scanned the original paintings or drawings of my mother, and some pictures from my family's archives. I just had send this message to <>:

Je soussigné Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (<> et <>) fils unique et unique héritier de Ioana Olteș (<>) confirme par la présente être l'unique et exclusif titulaire des œuvres publiées aux adresses suivantes:

Par ailleurs, je soussigné Spiridon Ion Cepleanu collaborant à Commons comme Spiridon MANOLIU <>) confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'ensemble des cartes, photos, images et schémas que j'ai créées et introduites dans Commons comme Spiridon MANOLIU. Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence <Œuvre personnelle libre de droits (domaine public)>.

Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but y compris commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.

Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.

Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.

Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

COM:OTRS, not me. --Martin H. (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


You deleted the file Zeitgeist_Moving_Forward.jpg. I do not see any difference in this file and other logos (Category:Logos_of_companies): File:Google_Logo.svg, File:Xango.svg, File:Twitter_logo.svg.

Please explain to me the reason for removal. --Klip game (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

1st, a poster is not a logo, so your comparison is bad. 2nd, some logos are too simple for copyright because they only consist of text - isnt that also explained in File:Google Logo.svg?? ("his image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality[...]"). 3rd, your poster is creative enough and faaaar above the threshold. Fair use posters are not allowed on Commons, see Commons:image casebook. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
p.s., in case you mixed that up, File:Zeitgeist Moving Forward.jpg was not your upload, it was a movie poster uploaded by Diatarveden (talk · contribs). --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I mixed up the names. My file has a name File:Zeitgeistmovingforward.png --Klip game (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for converting images of math formulas that uploaded by User:Mojgannasiri to TeX, now you can delete all of them. also in this cases, you can notify me by mail or #wikipedia-fa, I know working in RTL wikis is a bit hard, i can help if you want (also in arwiki or hewiki). thanks again.−ebraminiotalk 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You saw my edit in fa.wp ;) ? Yeah, RTL is realy difficult. --Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of picture of Brazilian General Edgar Facó with president Getúlio Vargas.

I have just found that this pícture, which I had posted, was removed by you on November 2010. As far as I knew, it was regularly posted on Wiki Commons. Please enlighten me!

--Betty VH (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The file not had source information. --Martin H. (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Laszlo Pelsoczy's Passport photo .jpg

Forrás (source): From László Pelsőczy's private ownership Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martin,

This picture of XY is a passport picture that was taken in the '70s. As far as I know, this is public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. Please advise how to fill in the meta data promptly. Thank you. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

consists entirely of information that is common property refers to Commons:Licensing#Simple design, thats not the case with this photo. --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This picture has no original authorship, as far as I know. This is a simple snapshot. Pictures like these appear to be public domain in the Hungarian Wikipedia, I don't understand the problem. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
On Commons it is said that the file will be public domain if seventy years have passed since 1 January of the year following the year in which the author died. Therefore the photo is not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Passport pictures have a special case: the author of these picture are NOT professional, trained photographers but simple shop assistants who take hundreds of pictures like these a day. Therefore they don't have authorship. This is the policy that is followed on our Wikipedia. Should be fine on Commons as well. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

then upload it to Wikipedia... --Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the policy that talks about passport pictures. Thank you.

Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gesperrter User Amazing.O hat noch veröffentlichte und nicht angebrachte Bilder


ich habe gesehen, das Sie Amazing.O gesperrt haben, jedoch konnte er vorher ein schreckliches Bild von Brandy Norwood einstellen und genau dieses möchten ich und die fans jetzt Löschen/Ersetzen lassen. File:Brandy Norwood.jpg Description Singer Brandy Norwood in September 16, 2010. | Source http://www. flickr. com/photos/greginhollywood/5001940583/ Brandy | Author ... (1.551×2.149 (1.687.423 Bytes)) - 18:44, 7. Dez. 2010

Es wäre sehr nett, das Photo ist wirklich nicht schön und WikiPedia sollte sowas nicht zulassen :( Brandy würde es ärgern, wenn Sie das sieht.

Hier ist eines Ihrer Privat-Photos:

Vielen Dank!

- cZ

Das Bild File:Brandy Norwood.jpg ist vom Urheber unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht worden. Das "private" Bild von ist kein privates Bild sondern ein Pressebild und steht unter keiner freien Lizenz. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I also copied one from that user concering Maria Sharapova at the Australian Open. Best knowIG

Found that already, thanks for the note. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

== File source is not properly indicated: File:Sporting_Club_Tenerife.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sporting_Club_Tenerife.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Sporting_Club_Tenerife.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Martin H. (talk) ==

Hola. Tenia entendido que en España una imagén pasaba al dominio público al cumplirse 70 años de que fue tomada. ¿estoy equivocado? en tal caso lo siento. Un saludo. --Elimedina (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, 70 años desde el muerte del photographo (si es concido). --Túrelio (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)



You've recently deleted three image links on the french wikipedia page of

Though I can understand you removed the photos of the campus, available on the internet, I don't understand why you removed the logo of our school ( This logo is exactly the one that is used on the english wikipedia page ( and is the official logo of our school. If I made a mistake uploading it, could you tell me what license I should use in order to put it back on the french page ?

Thank you

You can not upload it to this project, Wikimedia Commons, because non-free fair use, as on the English Wikipedia, is not allowed on this project. This project is only for free content files. --Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User Faeldf

Please, can you take a look at his uploads? Several copies. I haven't found source for File:Tv-brasilia1.jpg, but I suspected it's not his "own work" as several other files he alledged it's "own work". Ednei amaral (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Are you stalking me? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure not, just checked my watchlist and found a file deleted, checked the history of that file and left the page Special:Undelete/File:Gertjan_van_der_Linden.jpg with klicking on your contribs which again lead me to the file that I then nominated for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So indeed, "clicking on my contributions". You are following me around. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh please... I dont care if it is you or anyone else, if it was not you who edited that file I would not have klicked on your contributions. --Martin H. (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

das hatte nix mit "stalking" zu tun

Hehe, jetzt hast du aber gegen die neue bot policy verstossen, du Böser. --Túrelio (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wusste ich nicht, dass du zu dem Bild was angefragt hast, wenn du es noch brauchst stell es wieder her. Der Benutzer User_talk:Marina99 - dessen Benutzerdisk auf meiner Watchlist ist wodurch ich darauf gekommen bin. Ich möchte ausschließen, dass der Benutzer eine Freigabe hat. Er kopiert willkürlich von Flickr von verschiedenen Accounts. Offensichtlich liegt dort keine Freigabe vor sondern einfach nur völlige Ahnungslosigkeit. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Sorry i'm a neophyte the file mimi parent came from archive canada and the others from Lieux de culte québec. Can you help me...thank you

See your talkpage --Martin H. (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

copyright file wj11021225947.jpg

Martin, The file you deleted, is from our own photographer. We have the right at ADO Den Haag to use this photo for the page of Dmitry Bulykin.

Didnt know that. You not said it. With your upload you only said that you are the photographer yourself and that you license the image under a free license with the only requirement that you are attributed. If you upload you should use the appropriate upload form (its someone else work from somewhere else) and provide the correct information. Then a permission should be forwared to COM:OTRS. But if the copyright holder only gave the permission/license "[...]to use this photo for the page of" this will not be enough. The copyright holder must agree that anyone, not only you and not only Wikipedia, can reuse the image anywhere, anytime for any purpose inclduding commercial reuse. To upload something to Wikipedia the copyright holder must waive all (economic)rights, not moral rights, except the right to be attributed and sharealike/copyleft requirements. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Excursions in Taiwan

Hi Martin H.
Thanks for moving the gallery to the right place. I've planned already to move it, but I didn't know how. Can you explain me that?
btw: I'm busy to correct the wrong filenames.This should by finished by the end of today. --Lord Koxinga (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Funktioniert genau wie in de:Hilfe:Artikel verschieben. Commons:Galerien sind das Pendant zu Artikeln in der Wikipedia, innerhalb und zwischen den Namensräume Gallerie, Benutzer, Commons können Seiten verschoben werden, wenn nötig. In anderen Namenräumen (Kategorien) ist das nicht möglich, oder (Datei) bedarf einer besonderen Berechtigung zum Verschieben/Umbenennen. --Martin H. (talk)
Hallo Martin H.
Danke für den Tip. Da gibts noch etwa zwei oder drei andere Galerien (oder Teile davon) von mir, die verschoben werden müssen. Ich werde mich dann mal drum kümmern.
Zuerst bring ich die Bilder in dieser Galerie mal in Ordnung (Text; Kategorien; Species, soweit ich dazu fähig bin).
Herzliche Grüsse --Lord Koxinga (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Navbar im Bereich Quedlinburg

Hallo Martin. Du hast wie in Category:Quedlinburg in the 1980s eine Navbar oben angelegt. Die Navbar ist an sich zwar interessant, aber irgendwie sind die Themengebiete dort viel zu weit weg. Wen interessieren da US-amerikanische Städte? Desweiteren schau bitte nach, du hast da Rechtschreibfehler drin "Quednlinburg in the 20th century" - da ist ein "n" zu viel drin. Es wäre gut, wenn du nicht zu schnell alles anlegst, die Kategorisierung ist noch nicht abgeschlossen und muss an einigen Stellen noch nachgearbeitet werden. Letztendlich aber: die Navbar find ich unangebracht, da viel zu weit weg vom Thema. --Quedel (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Die Navibar und der Kategorienbaum sind aus anderen Stadtkategorien kopiert, nichts weiter. Wie die Kategorien am Ende aussehen ist mir eigentlich egal, da der Kategorienbaum Inhalt hat, kann und sollte er erstellt werden. --Martin H. (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wird ja auch erstellt, nur erstmal den Bedarf genau anschauen, da fehlen noch ca. 200 Dateien, die in den nächsten Stunden heute und morgen noch bearbeitet werden müssen. Nur find ich amerikanisches Geschehen und Großstadtgeschehen sonstwo auf der Welt zusammenhangslos in der Navbar im Vergleich zu Quedlinburg. --Quedel (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Die Vorlage gibt da leider nicht viel Spielraum, ich finde sie sinnvoll wegen der unteren Zeile, der Verlinkung anderer Dekaden innerhalb des Ortes und der Einheitlichkeit zuliebe habe ich sie in vielen anderen Städten die ich datiert habe so übernommen. Man könnte dein Ziel (nahgelegene Orte verlinken und nicht aufdringlich) erreichen mit {{places by decade|Quedlinburg|1980|partof8=Saxony-Anhalt|partof9=Germany|collapsed=collapsed}}, ich gehe dabe von der heutigen räumlichen Ordnung aus. Dafür müsste entsprechen Template:Facts/Germany (partof9) eine Vorlage Template:Facts/Saxony-Anhalt erstellt werden, wenn ich das aus der Vorlagendokumentation richtig verstehe. --Martin H. (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oder man macht sich dezent wie in Category:1990 in Wuppertal. Wobei da eher schon die Großstadt-Vergleiche angebracht wären. --Quedel (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Äpfel und Birnen, Category:Wuppertal in the 1990s benutzt auch die Dekadenkategorie. --18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, mein Fehler. Aber trotzdem find ich eine Navigationsleiste, die einen 28.000-Seelen-Ort mit Millionenstädten weltweit vergleicht, nicht logisch. --Quedel (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Die Vorlage bietet die Möglichkeit es anders zu machen, ich habe aber noch nirgends ein Beispiel gesehen um es zu kopieren. Daher kann ich dir nicht wirklich helfen. --Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mimi Parent photos

i have the article (paper) (la presse montréal samedi 28 mars 2009) Photo tiré du catalogue du musée des beaux-art de québec disponible aux archives du canada. Lafrenière have nothing to do whith my aunt. I made a mistake with the uplaod wizard. Obiviously i'm not the author, if you can correct my mistake, it would be appreciate. Thank you..

Re:Thelema Abbey

Yes, you're completely right, in fact, as for the last picture I've uploaded, I've linked the main page of the website. Soon I'll change the other urls too. --Bonkers (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Public domain (US)

You've proposed to delete File:Francis Joseph & Otto.JPG, but this is in the public domain in the US, having been published prior to 1923. Since Wikimedia is based in the US, what matters is US copyright law, not that of the country of origin. See Wikipedia:Public_domain.EthanL (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you realize that your link goes to :en and that its header says "This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline."? Here on Commons, uploaded media have to be free in the US and in the country of origin. This image should never have been moved to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I got the link from the license section of the image in question. I guess I was naive to assume that Commons would link to policy pages which are valid on Commons. Also, it was moved by a bot and confirmed by a person back in 2008. Can it be moved back to Wikipedia?EthanL (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
im going to archive this page, see the deletion discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For this we have deletion discussions. --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Images by Eduvivas

I think are all copyvios Special:Contributions/Eduvivas. Alakasam (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ALADI and this maps.... sockpuppet of Juanediaz (talk · contribs). Im doing some editing at the moment but I will care soon. --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your immediate response. You're Very valuable. Alakasam (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I nuked the uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)