User talk:Materialscientist

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

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)