User talk:Materialscientist

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

Contents

Help with block![edit]

Hi @Materialscientist: You recently blocked this shared IP address in the English Wikipedia. I have nothing against it but I have an account using this IP address sometimes called TheQ Editor and I can't log in due to vandalism in this IP address. Please help me. Thanks, 216.126.81.248 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is odd, and you should be able to edit from that IP when logged in. Any other hints like what does wikisoftware tell you when you can't edit? Materialscientist (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Я не в тему, но кажется, он говорит что не может войти в учётную запись, так как ип адрес, с которого он пытается войти - заблокирован.--Spillik (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

File:PaF5geometry.PNG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:PaF5geometry.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Mabschaaf (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Leon Cooper with wife in 1972.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Leon Cooper with wife in 1972.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Timmietovenaar (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Wikipedia-karlbarth01.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia-karlbarth01.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Wikipedia-karlbarth01.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jfhutson (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Rick Wayne photo[edit]

Hi. The image accompanying the entry of former bodybuilder Rick Wayne is not of him. I don't know who is the athlete in the picture but it is certainly not the 'Rick Wayne' associated with the corresponding information.

No need to reply.

Thank you

Publishing of photos[edit]

Hi.

Are you able to help me with something? I uploaded several WWII photos using Template:PD-Yugoslavia which says that photographs or a work of applied art is in PD if published before January 1, 1966. One user marked them for deletion because I presented "No evidence of authorship or publishing within timeframes specified in the PD licence". I have to admit that I don't quite understand how are photographs published. I.e. every WWII era book is published during WWII. Isn't that automatically the case with WWII era photographs? If not, how are photographs published? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of information is the most common problem with licensing old photos. If I were you I would look for authoritative sources, which state the author of the photo (anon. or someone) and when it was taken/published. "Publication" could be any distribution (in print, on a postcard) or presentation to the public (like photo exhibition). Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try to do as you advised. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Melanie Klein[edit]

And Carl Gustav Jung? --Viejo sabio (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

?? Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Me refiero a si es posible subir a Commons imágenes de calidad de Carl Gustav Jung, del mismo modo que lo ha hecho con Melanie Klein. De Jung no tenemos lamentablente ni una sola imagen de perfil que sea decente. De todos modos, muchas gracias por su labor con Klein. Un cordial saludo. --Viejo sabio (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I refer if it is possible to raise to Commons Carl Gustav Jung's qualit images, in the same way that has done it with Melanie Klein. Of Jung we have lamentablente not even an alone image of profile that is decent. Anyhow, thank you very much for his labor with Klein. A cordial greeting.--Viejo sabio (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please use the correct license[edit]

You recently uploaded a file, File:Friction stir processing.png, with the license template {{cc-by}}. Please be aware that cc-by no longer redirects to Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 because of the high number of cases where that was the wrong license. In the case of File:Friction stir processing.png, the correct license was Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, which is not the same as 1.0 (otherwise why would they spend time and money updating the license). I have fixed the file for you this time. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed the license change only later and didn't bother to change. Thanks for fixing and explaining. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Luigina Bissoli.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Stefan4 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Anahit Mekhitarian as Anoush[edit]

Regarding your edits to File:Anahit Mekhitarian.jpg (here) and File:Anahit Mekhitarian as Anoush.jpg (here): Why should pictures of the title role in an opera by Armen Tigranian (or Tigranyan) not belong in Category:Armen Tigranyan? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They belong in a subcategory (which I haven't figured out because I've got carried away). Main category should directly reflect the subject, I believe. That actress is not even a relative of his, and, given the meager graphical information on him on Commons, her presence there is misleading :). Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Kurt gödel.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Betty Robinson.jpg[edit]

I humbly deliver it to you; a new file for you to clean-up, noise reduction etc. Thanks in advance! Trijnsteltalk 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done what I could. Rare image, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Nude by Iosif Iser 1971 Romanian card.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nude by Iosif Iser 1971 Romanian card.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Andrei S. Talk 08:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ștefan Popescu 1972 Romanian stamp.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ștefan Popescu 1972 Romanian stamp.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Andrei S. Talk 08:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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


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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, —Andrei S. Talk 08:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav stamps[edit]

Hi, Materialscientist. I can't find anything about the Yugoslav stamps being copyright-free in the Yugoslav copyright act,[1] and these stamps are not free in at least some, probably all, of the successor countries. I'm thinking of nominating them for deletion. In addition, like {{PD-YugoslaviaGov}}, also {{PD-Yugoslavia}} can't stand on its own, as the dates of copyright expiration differ among the successor countries. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
See e.g. File:Anton Janša 1973 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg (depicting a beehiver from Slovenia). Presuming that all these stamps were published in Belgrade (a source for this presumption would be welcome), at the very least, the licensing is incomplete: besides the PD-Yugoslavia tag there should also be the {{PD-because|stamps in Serbia-Montenegro are in the public domain. See: [[Commons:{{PD-because|commons:Template:PD-SCGGov]]}} tag/explanation. In addition, it is unclear whether a usage of a drawing by B. Jakac (see the lower left corner) on a stamp makes this drawing free / I mean, one can't crop the stamp to solely the drawing and reuse the drawing as they like without violating the copyrights of Jakac. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right about templates. I use double templates in my later uploads and will retag earlier ones. Yes, printed in Belgrade, nowadays Serbia, a source for that is coming. Drawing and stamp of that drawing are not the same images for several reasons - stamps are always of lower quality and contain intrinsic texture. Stamps are designed, i.e., the image is typically modified (redrawn, color-adjusted, blurred, cropped, etc.) and some content is added. Designer's name can be found in proper stamp catalogs (sometimes printed on the stamp). Thus even if the painting is in PD, its stamp is not necessarily so. Yes, cropping a stamp is legal, and the stamp authorities settle copyrights with the authors, because governments (supposedly) don't cheat. Have a look here and note the copyright sign on Disney's stamps of 1986 - those are not PD. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't agree. It is irrelevant here if "lower quality and contain intrinsic texture", because the original artist still keeps the copyright and such minor changes do not make this a new work. I concur that the copyrights have been settled with the author, but only to publish the drawing on the stamp, not to then also make it PD (after Serbia published a new act). What's the legal basis for the claim that all stamps are in the public domain in Serbia anyway? The Template:PD-SerbiaGov states that "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions" are in the public domain, but the drawing does not qualify as such. An analogous case would probably be third-party materials used by the US government in their official publications. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Your latest comment basically says that stamps reproducing copyrighted work are derivative works that are not allowed on Commons, no matter if stamps in general are in PD. I'll think about a good answer to that. Anyway, if you believe you are right on that then the issue would affect a large percentage of all recent stamps on Commons; it would be irrelevant to Yugoslavia and stamp copyright templates; it would require a Commons-wide RFC. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Imagine that someone placed an artwork in a public place in a country with FOP for artworks. We don't know details how did it get there, same as we don't know how an artwork got on a stamp, coin, or a banknote - such details (agreements between the author and authorities) are normally not available to public, and we don't need to know them. All we need to know is that an artwork got into a permanent display in public, or became part of a government work in a form of stamp, coin, banknote, etc., and we may copy it. We may learn (through press, for example) that the artwork was placed there illegally, and we'd take down our images. Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
We have at least one source (the paragraph about Section 105) stating that not all stamps are in the public domain, though they have been created by an official body. It's therefore not true that we're not interested in the contract. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, those book pages are not available for viewing in my country. Materialscientist (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The text states: "Section 105 simply says works of the U.S. government are not copyrightable. However, government works created by an independent contractor may indeed be copyrightable by that contractor depending on the wording of the contract. Postage stamps, although created by the U.S. Postal Service, are indeed copyrightable". Similar is stated here. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This is well known on Commons. Copyright laws in US are unique in terms of Federal/Non-Federal Government works. Materialscientist (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
According to de:Amtliches Werk, the predominating view in Germany is that if private copyrighted images are used in official publications, they can't be cropped out of such official context. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Germany is known for not accepting some copyright regulations of other countries (US for example), i.e. an image which is in PD in its country of origin (say, in US) is not necessarily in PD in Germany. For this reason not every image with a valid Commons license may be added to de.wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that if stamps reproducing copyrighted work are not free for Commons in the US and Germany, why should we assume that they're free in Serbia? All our files must be free in the source country. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why they are not free in the US (we are not talking about US stamps anyway). Being free in Germany is irrelevant, though cropping is a weak argument - we host a large library of Carl Van Vechten (from the Library of Congress), who forbade cropping of his photos. Materialscientist (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The US law and the German law exclude private copyrighted images used in official publications from the public domain. Why should we assume that they're free in Serbia? --Eleassar (t/p) 07:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any clear support for this statement, either in the US or in the German copyright law. Besides, we can't apply US or German law to other countries. If an image originated outside US, and is in PD there, it will normally be in PD in US. Materialscientist (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I don't see any clear support of the statement that private copyrighted images used in official publications are in the public domain in these two countries or in Serbia, rather vice versa. In the case of unclear copyright status we delete images, and the burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned, your doubt is irrelevant to Yugoslavia; it concerns nearly all Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates (maybe with a few exceptions). You can always start a request for comment on this. Materialscientist (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant to Yugoslavia too. Anyway, I also think a wider discussion would be in place here. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:ErjavecFran-foto Pogorelc.jpg[edit]

Hi again. I've reverted File:ErjavecFran-foto Pogorelc.jpg to the original version as these are not exact duplicates or scaled-down versions (see Commons:Overwriting existing files). Feel welcome to reupload them under different filenames. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Please post something here in the future when you revert my uploads - would be appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Marco Marulo 1903 Ljetopis društva hrvatskih književnika za 1900-1903.png[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why you deleted this file. No request was made... Regards, Yann (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Edmund Oscar von Lippmann.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Juan Leon Mera.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Stefan4 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mihovil Logar 2009 Serbian stamp.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Mihovil Logar 2009 Serbian stamp.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Milićević (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Chromolithograph duplicates[edit]

Hi, I noticed your merge of two images at File:William Broadbent Vanity Fair 30 October 1902.jpg. Lithograph prints can vary quite significantly in terms of colour and reproduction techniques. The version from the Wellcome is likely to be an extremely good scan of an archive deposit of an original print, while the previous version might have been taken from a different copy of the magazine. Both have value, especially as the colouring is quite different between the versions. I think it would be good practice to keep different (historic) reproductions of a lithograph on Commons as prints taken at different times may well be added together in some way in the future, giving us potentially better quality outputs than one version could.

I do have a full set of original hi-res images from the Wellcome (pulled from their archive rather than the website) and checking my hard-disk copy shows V0000775 is available with the border at 2100x3400 pixels. The plan is that WMF Ops are due to upload all 100,000 images from a hard-disk copy in the next few weeks, avoiding doing these over the internet.

Anyway, would you please consider un-merging these versions? I'll look at manually uploading the version I have over the specific Wellcome scan as the colour of the version I have appears slightly different and I think it probably would be better with the original border and legend.

Update I have pushed the file out to my Flickr account at https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5568/15143015056_042ae7ed05_o.jpg. Looking between the images appears to show that it is not colouring that has changed but lighting, possibly when the image was cropped. -- (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, but consider this - you're basically copying the Wellcome database to Commons without identifying images - I often found that your uploads should be added to imageless articles right away, but nobody did that. Part of my activity is to add images to articles (not just to Commons) from the Wellcome database. This work would be easier if those images were already hosted on Commons, but not if only a small part of them was here (I have to look up in both sources, and often fix the robotic data on date/author/etc. Also, nearly all images do need cropping before adding to articles). Materialscientist (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Photograph of Chandrika Kumaratunga[edit]

Please Delete the New Version of this page as it is Copyvio,Thanks.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandrika_Kumaratunga.jpg --MediaJet talk 06:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for you quick response Smile--MediaJet talk 06:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored image of Whitlock[edit]

Materialscientist, thanks for your upload of a new version of the image of Elizabeth Whitlock at File:Harvard Theatre Collection - Elizabeth Whitlock TCS 45.jpg. Because the file name and data regarding sourcing, etc. is very specific to a certain collection, it would make sense to keep the correct version connected with that file name. The version you uploaded would make a great independent upload reflecting its origins from the National Portrait Gallery. I hope you agree. And thank you! --Rob at Houghton (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Olga Tudorache 2014 Romania stamp.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Olga Tudorache 2014 Romania stamp.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Andrei S. Talk 05:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FoP-Russia undeletions[edit]

Hi. I think it is wrong approach to leave the file version with DR template deleted. Instead, I would restore all versions and then remove the DR template from the file and put {{FoP-Russia}} therein. See also: User:A.Savin/How to undelete Russian FoP cases. Thanks anyway, --A.Savin 08:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I don't have any experience with FoP undeletion. Uspehov. Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Colin Gregory 1932.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Colin Gregory 1932.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Wolbo (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:William Faulkner 1949.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:William Faulkner 1949.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

INeverCry 00:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Deadly hands of Kung Fu[edit]

Hi, I noticed your upload of File:Deadly hands of kung fu 1975.jpg as I have just uploaded File:Deadly hands of kung fu. (vol. 1), no. 17 Wellcome L0071807.jpg. However I think this must be a copyright error. Can you think of a rationale as to why there would not be copyright on this comic? -- (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

An agreement with Neal Adams? Materialscientist (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Faulkner[edit]

I think, once the levels and contrast are properly adjusted, the slightly-coloured version will look better, but I'm putting it into my restoration queue, so when I'm done, it should be as good as I can get it, and (hopefully) featured, which'll get Faulkner a much-needed day on Wikipedia's mainpage. I think the key is getting as good of distinction between head and wall as possible.Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus enhancing the hand, and flattening contrast on the wall. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Edited to add: I'll start by cleaning up the dust, but once the basic stuff is done I'll probably start by playing with curves, and dodge/burn as necessary after that. Don't like overdoing tweaks, but we do need a good, usable image at the end of it, so I think a little bit is justified, if needed.
By the way, the Library of Congress actually have a LOT of Faulkner images. All the free ones are from the same shoot, but if you search William Faulkner, and find something better, let me know. This one's the highest-resolution, but there's a few good 12-meg greyscale files, which should be enough to get us quite a good image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:ShineeChile.jpg[edit]

Can you close this DR as a keep or delete by determining if this image is the flickr account owner's own work? Someone stated that there are many such images like this in the flickr account owner's photostream but other images are also derivatives so I don't know what is the situation here. Please keep or delete this image...if you can. Thank You and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I find it strange that the uploader suddenly appears and uploads an image from a potentially problematic flickr account--if Admin Zelenko is correct--after 2 years but he remembers to remove a previous copyvio notice. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Please decide to keep or delete this image...as a Commons Admin if you can. If you can't, please place this discussion at COM:AN so that someone else can deal with it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Upon a brief look this is a matter of faith, not knowledge of policies; I have no time for a detailed analysis of that flickr account at the moment, sorry. Materialscientist (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank You, Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:권민아 직캠.jpg[edit]

FYI.  revimsg 12:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Margrethe II of Denmark 1966.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Margrethe II of Denmark 1966.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Princess Benedikte of Denmark with prince Richard.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Princess Benedikte of Denmark with prince Richard.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hi Materialscientist, I would like to delete some versions of this file. Indeed, the two first versions (the ones before the 6th November) do not respect the licenses. I used incompatible licenses to create this picture. The two last versions should be ok regarding to the license. So, as you are admin here, you could probably the copyvio versions. Thank you in advance. Pamputt (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a copyright violation - if you mean those little icons inside the image, I don't think they can be copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean the little icons. For example I used that one that is licensed under GPL. And the GPL license seems to be not compatible with the CC by-sa one. Same thing for this file which is published under Apache license which seems to be not compatible with the CC by-sa one... Pamputt (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali Akhtar Gandro 2013-12-04 23-11.jpg[edit]

Hi, please review your closure of that DR. "In use anywhere" is not a valid reason for keeping such files.    FDMS  4    12:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The account is abandoned, thus deleted, but disagree otherwise. Materialscientist (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have nominated the file for deletion if the uploader made, say, at least two mainspace contributions on Wikipedia. It was a self-promotion SPA, which is why I have nominated the file for deletion.    FDMS  4    22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

File:5th-April-News-Borstal.jpg[edit]

Thank you for checking on File:5th-April-News-Borstal.jpg and the other files uploaded by 519Clarke. I am wondering if this user and 519Clarke are one and the same. The subject matter and licensing is pretty much the same. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

From en.wiki CU scan I'd say they are very closely related, perhaps editing from same office. Can't tell if they are same person. Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Do you think the files uploaded by BiertonCorrespondent qualify as "own work"? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have an OTRS permission email to clear suspicions. Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. Should the files be tagged with {{OTRS needed}} or just left as is? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if 519Clarke reads his talk page, but File:Mr-Clarke-and-Maisie.jpg was uploaded today as own work. Part of this one appears be a screen capture taken from File:Borstal Boy Opera News Pt 1.webm uploaded by BiertonCorrespondent. If it's better for me to post this at the Village Pump, please let me know. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kerameikos, Ancient Graveyard, Athens, Greece (4452214630).jpg[edit]

Your deletion is not acceptable. You delete, because Texts in museums are copyrighted by the museum itself - interesting, that here is no text that could be copyrighted. This image shows a permanent part of the exhebition. There is no valid cause for a deletion. If you don't know about rights and things - you shuld no do this job. Resore the image please imedeatly. A speedy deletion never ever was correct here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kopi Luwak-01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kopi Luwak-01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Josve05a (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Self portrait of Paulus Moreelse with additional artwork.jpg[edit]

This was used in one of the humourous description pages we use to explain policy, further, no actual valid copyright issues exist with it; it was nominated purely out of a lack of humour. Please undelete. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recall the image was unused (do you have a permanent use for this image?). We shouldn't flood Commons with graffiti. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Galadriel Stineman[edit]

Hi,
Can you review this pic to see is it okay to upload it into commons.? The Herald 14:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not Ok, the license says "All rights reserved". Materialscientist (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion glitch?[edit]

Hi there. I may have missed something, or it's just something weird in bot edit texts, but I don't get it: you deleted File:Ernest Rutherford (Nobel).png because it was an unused low-res version of itself (?), and so unused that it has to be removed from the galleries where it is used [2]? I don't know the pic, I'm not saying you didn't have a good reason for deleting the picture (I guess it was a dupe anyway), I'm just saying something in the process makes it a bit difficult to understand for the reader :-) Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a low-res copy of File:Ernest Rutherford (Nobel).jpg (same filename, different extension). I've replaced it globally, but forgot about local use. Fixed now. Materialscientist (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks then. See you around, --Eusebius (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:George VI of UK 1947.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:George VI of UK 1947.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

András Hegedüs[edit]

Hello! I've realized that you uploaded some photographs from Dutch National Archives, including Hungarian politicians János Kádár and Ernő Gerő. Do you think you could upload photo of András Hegedüs (middle) to Commons? He was Prime Minister of Hungary from 1955 to 1956. I am blocked from editing English Wiki, so I cannot put the photo to th appropriate article. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This photo is not from Anefo, but from Spaarnestad, their license is not compatible with Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I provided wrong link (I dont know how). That's what I meant: Hegedüs --Norden1990 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Done in File:András Hegedüs 1956.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Materialscientist - I'd like to inform you that User:Norden1990 (despite shamelessly pretending to be a correct guy who doesn't want to evade his indefinite block and requests your assistance for adding a picture of András Hegedüs to en.wp) is constantly making illegal edits on English Wikipedia.

A blatant IP sock is 178.164.220.190, who edited András Hegedüs just a few hours after you. He removed the file HegedusAndras.jpg, which (what a coincidence!) had been uploaded by Norden1990 himself.

On List of Prime Ministers of Hungary, the same IP replaced the coat of arms of Hungary with the file File:András_Hegedüs_1956_(crop).jpg (which had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Norden1990 in the same day). In this case he had no reservation to "put the photo to th appropriate article" because of his block. Interestingly, the very same replacement (File:András_Hegedüs_1956_(crop).jpg instead of the coat of arms) was done by Norden1990 himself to the Belarusian and the Russian versions of the article List of Prime Ministers of Hungary.

178.164.220.190 also edited the article Mihály Károlyi where Norden1990 had contributed in the past with his main account.

Last but not least, 178.164.220.190 belongs to the typical range 178.164.128.0/17, which was twice blocked in the past by Tiptoety as a result of Norden1990's persistent sockpuppetry.

Below there is a list of recent socks (it is far from being complete, because he is editing on a daily basis and it would be a hard work to add all of them here); a part of them were blocked by admin User:Tiptoety, who has even instated some IP range blocks against him:

62.165.251.0/25 (now range blocked: Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked 62.165.251.0/25 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Block evasion: Norden1990))

  • 62.165.233.113
  • 62.165.251.34
  • 62.165.251.81
  • 63.153.129.194

178.164.128.0/17

  • 178.164.163.103
  • 178.164.163.208
  • 178.164.178.186
  • 178.164.178.190
  • 178.164.178.250
  • 178.164.179.114
  • 178.164.179.75
  • 178.164.179.72
  • 178.164.179.81
  • 178.164.206.136
  • 178.164.210.101
  • 178.164.220.140
  • 178.164.233.141
  • 178.164.233.23

188.143.0.0/17

  • 188.143.0.182
  • 188.143.22.99
  • 188.143.26.214
  • 188.143.26.234
  • 188.143.59.131
  • 188.143.70.185
  • 188.143.70.140
  • 188.143.79.102
  • 188.143.83.165
  • 188.143.83.252

195.38.96.0/20 (now range blocked: 01:10, 2 December 2014 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked 195.38.96.0/20 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Block evasion: Norden1990))

  • 195.38.100.106
  • 195.38.103.123
  • 195.38.108.208
  • 195.38.110.92
  • 195.38.110.107

92.249.130.128/26

  • 92.249.130.146
  • 92.249.130.175

92.249.155.128/25

  • 92.249.155.155
  • 92.249.155.204

92.249.223.0/25

  • 92.249.223.53
  • 92.249.223.89

94.21.0.0/16

  • 94.21.44.60
  • 94.21.62.131
  • 94.21.62.131
  • 94.21.92.243
  • 94.21.148.165
  • 94.21.211.90

77.234.64.0/20

  • 77.234.71.96
  • 77.234.71.144
  • 77.234.75.64

84.236.7.128/27

  • 84.236.7.128
  • 84.236.7.157

84.236.42.0/25

  • 84.236.42.0
  • 84.236.42.94

Other IP socks:

  • 84.236.16.49
  • 84.236.24.16
  • 84.236.101.230

You are a firm administratior, so I am expecting prompt measures against this sockmaster. Since he is socking for 6 months now, maybe a ban from en.wp would could be considered. Iaaasi (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Iaaasi always push his blatant, silly misconceptions without evidence. I'd like to inform you, Materialscientist that this guy, who has 133 confirmed sockpuppets is the dedicated protector of WP rules. How ironic. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Without evidece? The proofs are indisputable. Your sockuppetry is confirmed by admin User:Tiptoety. It is amazing that you keep lying, In defiance of the evidence that support my accusations. You made identical edits on the Belarusian and the Russian and the English Wikipedias (the last one using an IP sock) and you still insist that you are innocent? Iaaasi (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Boooring. Instead you should stop pitiable harassment of innocent editors, administrators and destructive, chauvinist, unsourced edits in Wikipedia. A banned sockmaster refers to the WP rules and accused editors without evidences for years, very interesting :). I can edit French, Russian etc. WPs, so I don't understand what is your problem. Uploaded images myself are visible and avaliable for everyone. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I've already seen your problem; someone upload image of András Hegedüs to the English Wikipedia, at different times. Every IPs, wo edit Hungarian-related articles are supposed to be me? Nonsense, I'm not a superhero to edit in every time dimensions... --Norden1990 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't charge you for editing French, Russian or Belarusian Wikipedia. My concern is that the same edit that you made on the Russian or Belarusian Wikipedias was also miraculously done in the same day by an IP on the English Wikipedia, where you are indef. blocked. Moreover, that IP belongs to a range that was blocked in the past by admin Tiptoety as a result of your persistent socking
As a matter of fact, I am not the only one who noticed your socks. Look what User:Psychonaut was saying about you: "I'm familiar with Norden1990's editing and am aware that he's been socking via unregistered dynamic IPs since his block (though I haven't had time to file any SPIs about this myself). At this time all I can say is that the IPs presented above are from the same ISP as the ones I'm aware of."
Materialscientist knows very well my past so it makes no sense to refer to my ban. Unlike you, I assume my former sockpuppets. I admit my wrong behaviour. Even if the contributions of my last accounts were exclusively constructive, I was told that socking is socking regardless of the intrinsic value of the edits. I decided to stay "outside the court" for 6 months in order to receive the standard unban offer (Wikipedia:Standard offer), but I am expecting administrators to have the same firmness with all sockmasters. I haven't been socking for more than 2 months, and I am going to appeal my ban in April 2015. Iaaasi (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"I haven't been socking for more than 2 months", of course not, indeed.... :) If your appeal will be accepted, then rules do not make much sense as you presently destroy WP since 2009 (harassment of well-intentioned editors, pushing POV-materials, destroying consensual agreement, vandalism, utilization of other editors, nationalist insults and promotion of Nazi ideas). Yes it is a very bad behaviour. If you want to banish me from Commons, Belorussian, Russian, French etc. Wikis, just go ahead. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You are just trying to change the topic under discussion because you feel cornered after I disclosed your socks. I am not the subject of this conversation, so I am not going to start defending myself against your accusations. The only remark that I want to make is that the referred infamous comment was ostensibly posted on several admins' talk pages because I wanted that account to be blocked as soon as possible, hoping that, once blocked, no one will check if it was my sockpuppet or not. Pretending to be simultaneously Nazi, anti-Semitic and homohpbic (3 in 1) was something that ensured an instant block. It was just a strategic move, it is funny that you accuse me of being a neo-Nazi. Iaaasi (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
What an explanation :) "Unlike you, I assume my former sockpuppets", like a murderer, who admits his crimes and apologizes. Do you assume your current sockpuppets too? We, Hungarians (you know, the Bozgors as you once said) have a proverb to your behaviour: "Mindenki a saját háza táján söprögessen." --Norden1990 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I know another proverb: "A mistake already admitted is half forgiven". Not admitting your obvious socks is twice worse than socking. I don't understand why you disown them, because the edits themselves were, like in the case of my recent socks, constructive. The only violation is the evading of your block.
I have no sockpuppet at the moment. But if you have any suspicions, you are free to ask again your friend T. to raise a sockpuppet investigations for you. Iaaasi (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not affect the editing in en.wiki, unlike you. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no connection with Eurocentral. It was an unfortunate misidentification of "even if" with "even though" in that comment, which altered the meaning of my phrase. A SPI investigation confirmed that we are independent users.
But enough about me. Fine, I am the most despicable editor from en.wikipedia. But that does not change the fact that you are a lying sockmaster.Iaaasi (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no facts, only baseless accusations from you. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It is stunning how much you underestimate administrators' capacity to catch your socks. Do you think that they are so credulous to simply believe your perjury, in the face of all proofs? Iaaasi (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

please unblock panderichthys4144[edit]

{{i get it that you dont allow use of several accounts to get unblocked,i had no clue about that! just give me another chance! i promise i will make useful contributions! and how can separating bog body pages from the list be what you call "disruptive editing" or "damage"? and i promise i wont use any more sockpuppets!}}

File:Robert Loggia 1966.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Robert Loggia 1966.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

94.221.80.17 12:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass Deletion[edit]

Hi @Materialscientist: You removed all picture about Mahdi Zein-addin and Chamran and Kaveh and Abshenasan. This pictures are freom Shahidblog and Sajed website that their content are available under GFDL. These images restore now with other user that removed them incorrectly. please restore them because i want use them in my article. I talk about the follow images:

File:Mahdi Zein-addin 2.jpg File:Mahdi Zein-addin 3.jpg File:Mahdi Zein-addin 4.jpg File:Mahdi Zein-addin 5.jpg . . .

ZELZAL (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletions[edit]

Hey, there must be a reason for such a mass deletion! May I know it? Mhhossein (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your deletions[edit]

I restored files per User_talk:-revi&oldid=141986008#Picture_license but you redeleted (without a valid reason). Please explain :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please reply to my question. You reverted my admin action without a valid reason. I like to hear what is wrong with that files, COM:LL? You deleted only a few files, what is with the rest? --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging: @-revi: --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. If the site is for license laundrying, then your deletion can be justified, but if not, then it must be a wheel war. I don't have much to say here... :p — Revi 09:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys, would you please stop stalking my talk? I'm losing my detailed reply because of edit conflicts. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here it comes. @Steinsplitter: In short, I did not revert your action, because I had no idea that you acted at all. I mass deleted uploads by AliAkar and blocked ZELZAL per block evasion by AliAkar. Mass deletion was partial because of a bug in the mass delete gadget. Whether the original block was valid is not a question to me, AliAkar should follow the unblocking procedures. As to deletion, first, there was no link to the source and license. Second, I saw evidence on en.wiki that those blog sites don't own the copyrights. The evidence came from availability of higher-resolution versions of same images elsewhere. I believe the GDFL note on those sites is not sufficient and COM:OTRS must be followed before those images may be hosted on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I deleted the remaining uploads. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. Frankly I have no slightest interest in this whole story and got to the "mass delete" button upon a link from en.wiki. This is one of those marginal cases of "believing to the uploader". I often do, but in this case I think someone scanned someones photos and should provide an email evidence that those photos are "his/her". I strongly doubt we are dealing with the original image provider at any step of this chain (from the hosting website up to Commons). Materialscientist (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass Deletion[edit]

@Materialscientist: Please explain about your mass deletion? you removed all my pictures without reasons ZELZAL (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Sharon Tate 2001 Somalia stamp.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sharon Tate 2001 Somalia stamp.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

94.221.81.114 23:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacqueline Bisset 2001 Somalia stamp.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Jacqueline Bisset 2001 Somalia stamp.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

94.221.81.136 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Gina Lollobrigida 2001 Somalia stamp.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Gina Lollobrigida 2001 Somalia stamp.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

94.221.81.136 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)