File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3825 stamp (Kremlin Red Star and USSR Arms) coil.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Здравствуйте, уважаемый Сергей. Номер марки брал отсюда. Но теперь вижу, что это никакой не ЦФА. Если у вас каталог под рукой, исправьте, пожалуйста, оплошность. :) Спасибо. Удачи! --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Это хороший каталог, и сканы там хорошие, обычно 300dpi в PNG. Но нумерация сплошная с царской России. Исправлю, когда доберусь до этой серии. Я ж сначала в английском Учебнике составляю каталог, а потом уже с этими каталожными именами марки переименовываю... --Matsievsky (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I hate doing it to editors I know and respect their work but occasional stuff slips by or was uploaded before we were as strict as now. Thanks for understanding. Ww2censor (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
О почтовых карточках и маркированных почтовых карточках[edit]
Здравствуйте, Михаил. Обратил внимание на вашу правку [1] и некоторые другие. Проблема не в том, что изображен Ленин, кто ж с этим спорит, проблема в том, что это другой вид карточек. Вы добавляете файл в категорию для обычных немаркированных карточек или открыток (postcards), тогда как это маркированная почтовая карточка (postal cards). Мне кажется, нужны другие категории., например, Category:Vladimir Lenin on postal cards но ее вы очистили и выставили на удаление. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
А, прошу прощения, Андрей, видимо, получилось разночтение в терминах. А разве именно так различаются postcards и postal cards? Маркированные же, вроде, просто stamped postcards? И чтобы не заморачиваться, я и подумал, что не стоит вводить еще postal cards. Думал, что для postal cards нет верхних категорий. Видно, давно я не просматривал категоризацию на Складе. :) В древние годы были просто postcards. Раз так - надо восстанавливать postal cards. Как это нам лучше сделать? Еще раз извиняюсь. :) С уважением, --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Михаил, спасибо на добром слове. К сожалению, времени на все не хватает, я отсканировал из своей коллекции много карточек и конвертов с ОМ до 1980-го года, но никак не залью на склад. Я не уверен в терминологии в английской филателистической традиции, но знаю, что маркированные почтовые карточки на сайте ИТЦ "Марка" (в английской версии сайта) именовались postal cards. Я ориентировался на этот пример. Если термин неточный — от него конечно нужно отказываться, но видимо переименовывать придётся много категорий, поэтому тут нужен бот. Я не обратил внимания на то, что в категории все ПК оказались маркированные, думал одна — просто открытка. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо, Андрей. Ваши качественные сканы использую уже, например, для иллюстрации статьи Лениниана (филателия). Нужно только проявлять осторожность в массовых заливках, поскольку рисунки на самих конвертах и карточках (в отличие от изображений марок на них) могут быть защищены авторским правом. Тут на Складе периодически проводят "зачистку" подобных файлов. Сайт ИТЦ "Марка" вряд ли может служить эталоном английской терминологии. Лучше смотреть названия и термины в англовике или на специализированных английских филателистических сайтах. Да, работы в случае переименования категорий может быть много. Правда, есть гаджет Cat-a-lot, который включается в настройках. Он позволяет массово переносить файлы из одной категории в другую. Не знаю, есть ли тут на Складе такой бот, который одновременно переименовывает категории и сразу же переносит туда все картинки из предыдущей категории. Это можно спросить у опытных участников, например, у EugeneZelenko и у твоего тезки Butko (ничего, что перешел на ты? :) ). В общем, посмотри, как это лучше сделать. Но сначала надо определиться с терминологией. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Пока к сожалению, не располагаю временем для сканирования, но интересные КПД по теме у меня есть. В 1970 году было особенно много КПД и спецгашений, что-нибудь позднее подберу. С КПД тут такая загвоздка, что сам конверт не является знаком почтовой оплаты, поэтому рисунок на нём защищён копирайтом. Но есть сюжеты (репродукции картин), на которые срок охраны истёк или если сюжет конверта в точности повторяет сюжет марки. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Сделана поправка по трактовке российского копирайта на филателистические выпуски. Так что получается, что всё (марки, конверты, открытки), выпущенное Почтой России и ее советской предшественницей, будет считаться в свободном доступе? --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re your "phot was taken in Turkey, therefore it's a postcard of Turkey", it could be even taken on Mars. :) What matters is what publisher produced it and where. The postcards were printed by the Australians in relation to their army battled in Turkey and against Turkey, and ANZAC was the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps sent to Turkey:
The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) was a First World War army corps of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force. It was formed in Egypt in 1915, and operated during the Battle of Gallipoli. General William Birdwood commanded the corps, which comprised troops from the First Australian Imperial Force and 1st New Zealand Expeditionary Force. The corps disbanded in 1916, following the Allied evacuation of the Gallipoli peninsula and the formation of I Anzac Corps and II Anzac Corps.
So, Turkey never printed and issued these massive postcards.
Thanks for uploading File:Kazan Uyezd stamp.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
Dear Michael, thanks for your kind words, i really appreciate them. Over the years Wikimedia and Wikipedia have grown and have become a more reliable source for philatelic material and its background. This is because a handful of people (among them you) are devoted to improving its quality day by day. If we only had more time! Most information is still closed behind the costly doors of philatelic literature and other unopen sources. I try to open these up and thus make the beauty of philately more available for everyone. Maybe this is the way to preserve our common interest for future generations and also get them interested in it. Of course i like the fact that parts of my own collection are available to me Wherever I May Roam (if there is internet). Best Arno-nl (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're watching, too! :) That was a random occasion that I found the Indonesian covers in an inappropriate Category:Olympic Games on stamps. And they also needed rotation I requested eventually, too. Recent philatelic uploads is a useful tool. I noticed it in the File usage on Commons section of the files and added it on my page. Will have a look at the deletion request. Thank you. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This Australian cover File:Australia airmail01a.jpg has prominent modern stamps that are still in copyright for 50 years from publication. It really should be deleted but you could blur the stamps and the rest would probably not be copyrightable. I was going to nominate it for deletion but thought I would ask you first. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the 4kop is blue instead of green. I never saw it in blue, did you, and is this listed in a catalogue (not Michel)? Thx, Arno-nl (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arno, thanks for uploading more USSR covers. The question I have is who was the sender of the covers carrying the 1963 Precious Stones of the Urals series stamps? Looks like it was one the same person from Moscow (except for this cover). Can you scan the back of these covers, please? Did you buy these covers via eBay? Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome and thanks for your replies. The cover with the blue stamp has nothing on its back. See pic added for the back of the cover with the green 4 kop. 4 kop green backside. See also scan of the back of the small cover with the 6k red franking. 6 kop red backside. I bought these covers bulk in Germany, only minimal description was added. I have seen shades of green of this stamp, from light to dark, but never blue. Arno-nl (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 1966 cover franked with the normal green 4k stamp was sent by someone under the surname Chistyakov. Comparing the handwriting on this cover and on the other one, with the "mutated" blue 4k stamp, we can conclude that Mr. Chistyakov was not the sender of the 1964 cover. However, if we compare the handwriting on the two 1964 covers, we can definitely see that they were sent by one the same person! And this is Mr. O. P. Naumkin! At least, we now know who was the original holder of the "blue mutant". Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you perhaps know if there were essays of these stamps in different colors? Maybe a blue 4k was an essay which color was rejected. The essays may have been sold illegally and gotten into traffic, as happened many times before in stamp history. The blue stamp does not look as if it is changed chemically.Arno-nl (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this stamp does not look like a counterfeit production. But your suggestion sounds quite plausible. However, I am unaware about essays of these stamps in different colors. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arno! I think the only way to claim the discovery of a genuine variety of this stamp is to ask for philatelic expertisation. You can start asking here. When you receive a certificate on that stamp, we could write an article for a philatelic journal to describe this finding. How about this plan? Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I asked my Russian colleagues about this variation case. They suggested that this is likely due to fading and discoloration. They have noticed that some green stamps tend to fade towards blue. So, maybe, there is no point to request the philatelic expertisation. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Digging more in the Soviet/Russian literature, I found few references describing chemically produced forgeries of green stamps transformed into blue ones. This specific case was not mentioned, so I'd better consider the philatelic expertisation. --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Buchsbayev responded: he thinks it is a faded stamp, but he explicitly stated that he is no expert on modern Russia though.Arno-nl (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the fading hypothesis. Then, why was not the green background faded on another stamp used on the cover of the same period? Why is not it faded in this stockbook obviously scanned recently? I would not believe in this selective fading and non-fading. My suggestion is that the stamp in question was subject to a chemical change performed by someone for forgery or just for a joke. It could be even Dr. Oleg Naumkin himself who experimented with the chemical alteration of stamp dyes. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not quite there yet. A friend of mine is a chemist at AKZO. I consulted him. Maybe we in time can get a conclusive answer a. if there is a material that can change a pigment from green to blue, b. what would be the effects of the material on the paper and c. effect on other colors. To be continued.Arno-nl (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arno, the Russian philatelic sources I read told that in the practice of forgery, vinegar was used to change green dye of stamps to blue. But then, we have to answer the questions "b" and "c". Your blue Jasper stamp looks too perfectly to suspect any harsh treatment with the stuff like vinegar. Moreover, do you know that this stamp series of 1963 was varnished after printing? Of course, any varnish could be immediately affected in case of any chemical treatment. Do you see the varnish (lacquer) on these stamps in your possession? Thanks for keeping your interest in this blue Jasper enigma! :) --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have had contact with the chemist. At first glance the color is too equally discolored to have been caused by acid. Normally acid causes stains. He thinks this is typically the result of a poor quality batch ('Monday morning batch'). For root cause analysis several stamps could (destructively) be tested with different acids, alkaline, UV, oxygen etc. etc. The blue stamp on the envelope cannot be easily analyzed without damaging it. Arno-nl (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might not be a treatment with an acid at all. The stamp looks virginally clear. It is a very complicated case. I think that contacting the AEIP could be helpful. They may know much better how a stamp dye may be modified without seeing any obvious signs of change made by a forger.
4 kop blue4 kop light green
Mike, two more covers, one light green and the other blue, no backside marking. This stamp shows a fading green below the stone and above ' CCCP', this just may solve the puzzle.Arno-nl (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Arno! Interestingly, you now possess three variants: green (normal), blue (mutant), and blue with a fading green stripe. All three covers were sent by the same guy, Dr. Oleg Naumkin. All three in 1964. And all three to Dusseldorf. Very interesting! Thank you! --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking to create a category where regular/definitive stamps like the blue jasper can be put, all having the same characteristic, namely having aspects not mentioned in catalogues or philatelic literature. In this way we might create more data as to what could be possible causes/comparable material. Any thoughts on this? Arno-nl (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sigmund Friedl.png 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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Sorry Michael but we don't know where the original image comes from. If you can determine that, if it was published previously and when the author died, then we might be able to keep it. Ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. I just thought that if Friedl died more than 100 years ago, it could be safe to upload his photo on Commons. I thoroughly searched for his images, and this is the only one I have found. No authorship attribution is provided for that photo. If you feel it's safer to delete it, no problem. Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this template {{PD-Austria}} might be of use. You can likely make a claim that satisfies it. However it appears he was buried in Germany, so I'm not sure if German copyright applies. Is there no photo in any of the forgery books? I don't have any. Ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have them, too. But if these are contemporary, aren't they copyrighted? Friedl was cremated in Dresden. That was his last will, and at that time, as far as I understood, the nearest crematorium to Vienna was the one in Dresden because the first Austrian crematorium was opened in Vienna much later, in 1922. The relatives buried his ashes in Vienna after that, I guess. There was no point for his burial in Dresden because his wife, children, mother, sibs and other relatives lived in Vienna. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to publish the entire letter (total 8 pages) which is in a 1944 cover. It might be trivial, on the other hand it could be of historical importance. What to do? Could you -at first glance- check if this is worth it. Thx!Arno-nl (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your fantastic cooperation and uploading of many exciting small pieces of the past centuries. You made it possible to illustrate articles like that. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decipher German notes on WWI postcard Russia[edit]
Mike, can you decipher what is written here in German?
I can't read the other scribbles besides first line second word probably 'Stellung', and last line 'Russland 1917' Thx! Arno-nl (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike- the answer has already been added to the picture: „Unsere Stellung an der Front. Landsturm I. R. 20. Rußland 1917“ ('Our frontline position. Landsturm I. R. 20. Russia 1917 (I.20 – Landsturm-Infanterie-Bataillon Nr.20).Arno-nl (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can claim this is a freely licensed book cover. While your photo is free the book cover is quite a complex design is copyright to Stanley Gibbons for a least 70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your doubt with me. I just thought that if the book covers basically contain the GB map and this is just a display photo taken angularly, not even a scan, it should not violate a copyright. I did not reproduce the book cover design 1:1, did I? But if you think that even such a photo should not be stored on Commons, I don't mind if the file would be deleted. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi Mike! this cover shows evidence of Soviet Clandestine Mail Surveillance. The book by Skipton and Volis just won large gold in Argentina. Thought this might be of interest to you. Arno-nl (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that was a kind of normal practice in the Soviet Union when a foreign correspondence was being censored and after that the authorities marked a damaged envelope in this way. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book of David M. Skipton and Steve Volis (Soviet clandestine mail surveillance 1917-1991) describes this type of postmark as evidence of it. The cover was not damaged, only after being opened by the censors.Arno-nl (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike,
Any help would be much appreciated on identification of the diamond shape purple postmark (or senders handstamp?) on this cover/parcel fragment. Thanks!
Arno-nl (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By 'reproducing' I mean to have a closer look at the handstamp inscription on the original envelope and just write down the actual text. Sometimes just scanning cannot provide a chance to see and understand an inscription. But a closer inspection of an original could be more helpful. --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The address gave us the key. In the Soviet era on this address (number 17 - Gorbunov House) the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (Всесоюзное общество по культурным связям с заграницей) also known as VOKS - Vsesoiuznoe Obshchestvo Kul'turnoi Sviazi s zagranitsei was located. We can safely assume it is (one of?) their cachet, which must be pretty scarce. The addressee is a public library abroad so i can imagine the VOKS sending them propaganda material like their 'Weekly News Bulletin'. At the top the cachet reads 'BOKC', the second line at the bottom reads at right: 'FOREIGN COUNTRIES'. Arno-nl (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Standard Collection catalogs.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
"Die Erben der „Gebrüder Senf“, die Brüder Hans Neubauer-Senf und Gerhard Neubauer, führten ein von dem älteren Bruder Hans geleitetes Briefmarken-Versandgeschäft in Nürtingen/Neckar. Das eigentliche Leipziger Stammgeschäft fiel nach der Wende an den jüngeren damals noch lebenden Bruder Gerhard Neubauer zurück, der es bis 2008 durch einen Angestellten verwalten ließ. Dann wurde das Traditionsgeschäft am Barfußgässchen endgültig geschlossen."
In rough English: The successors of "Gebrüder Senf", the brothers Hans and Gerhard Neubauer had a stamp shipment in Nürtingen. The actual main shop in Leipzig owned Gerhard after 1989. He carried the shop not by himself but by a employe until 2008. After then, the time-honored shop was closed finally."
Now the Barfußgäßchen has nothing but restaurants / taverns. I remember photographing the last shop there which should be the stanp shop. But I did not find the negeative at the first glance. I look in my archives and write you again.
Dear Uwe, many thanks for this information! Yes, I would appreciate if you find your old photograph of the stamp shop on Barfußgäßchen. It would be interesting to locate the new shop (Briefmarken-Versandgeschäft) in Nürtingen/Neckar. However, my Google search does not show anything resembling it. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike, I added your investigation to the description (tweaked it a bit). It really deserves a wikipedia article, the basic ingredients are here already.Arno-nl (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi Mike, I just wanted to show you this USSR 1957-03-27 cover sent from Moscow to Prague, thought you might be interested. Franked with 40kop (Mi. 1932A), according Michel issued on March 30, 1957 - this cover shows that date is incorrect. Never trust your catalogue ;-) .
Arno-nl (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arno, yes, you are right and have a sharp eye. :) Russian sources also give March 30, 1957 as a date of its issue ([4], [5]) or indicate just March (without a particular day). I think March 30 could be an official date of issue, while some stamps might have got into circulation 3 days earlier without proper authorisation. It happens sometimes with newly issued stamps.
By the way, I like this female-type handwriting on the cover. And do you know who was her addressee? Josef Bouček, a Czech screenwriter and play writer. Quite a prominent one, actually, according to IMDb. He is even credited and mentioned several times in Czech Wikipedia, e.g., in the article about the criminal drama film Černá sobota or Black Saturday, almost Black Sabbath. :) --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an old image but the PD-art licence does not apply; that is for painting and such. This is a 3D photo of a utilitarian item that requires the permission of the photographer who may have been the same person who put it on the chat board. The photos are no longer available there, so we can't even check though I am sure you looked at the time. I wonder if this is an object someone can take a new photo of. Do you know where it is located? I won't tag it for deletion until after you reply. Ww2censor (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to locate the photographer (supposedly, the image was scanned from a book) or the object's current place. I would suggest that this clapper was kept in the Österreichisches Post- und Telegraphenmuseum in Vienna. But the museum existed till 1980 and was closed. If you think it would be better to delete it, go ahead. No worries. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry but the copyright status is unclear, so I'll tag it for deletion. Now that you mention it, perhaps it came from a book as there seems to be some pattern but the reflection on the left seems to show it was photographed in-situ. However, I think we really should try to find an image of such an item. Maybe the Prague post museum has one. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
File:US potcard06.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
File:FAC emblem.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
_coil.jpg){kind=link}
_(14646869787).jpg){kind=link}
_coil.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:USSR_PCWCS_№34_Anniversary_of_Lenin_-_CPSU_Congress_sp.cancellation_Moscow_(1).jpg&diff=166335016&oldid=166332409){kind=link}
_(14646869787).jpg){kind=link}
_(14646869787).jpg){kind=link}
