User talk:Polarlys/Archiv4

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



{{MosNews}}. I don't quite understand why you replaced this template with redirect {{Speedydelete}}. It looks quite confusing. Anyway, whatever the reasons were, the website is shut down long ago and this template will hardly be ever used it its original meaning, so there is no reason to squat the name: no edit war whatsoever. SemBubenny (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a request for speedy deletion some years ago. When we delete license templates, we usually redirect them to {{Speedydelete}} to add files which are uploaded using this template to the speedy deletion category. --Polarlys (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Please see File_talk:Rachelhoward.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Final2.jpg

Can you also delete File:Holocausto norte.jpg please? As a duplicate of File:Final2.jpg, it's also a copyvio. --Tryphon (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Alisa images

How could it be that two of four Alisa images were deleted, while all four are under the same license? It is CC-BY, as you can see there and there, so there's no copyright violation. --Beaumain (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The user who added the template for speedy deletion claimed the images to be a copyvio on flickr. Not every image on flickr is done by the person who uploads it and adds a CC-BY license. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Polish crown

Polarlys, I restored File:Polish regalia replica 10212008.jpg which you deleted, and proposed it for deletion here. I did that because the copyvio wasn't confirmed (the original tag was added as {{db-copyvio | describe non-web source here}}). Cheers, Waldir talk 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Please note, that the user uploaded a lot of stuff i could find on various websites. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand -- it just kinda looked bad in the log having the file being speedy deleted as a copyvio without clear indication of such :) Besides, the tag was added with incomplete syntax. Anyway, it has been deleted now. Cheers, Waldir talk 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Captura de José María Paz.jpg


Excuseme,I think there´s an error about deleting File:Captura de José María Paz.jpg . The photograph of the paint is 45 years old (at least) and the paint itself was made since more 70 years old.

What´s the matter then?.

--Roberto Fiadone (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The artist died in 1942, he has to be dead for 70 years (this will be in 2013) to put this image in the public domain. Regards --Polarlys (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, the next time answer in my talk.--Roberto Fiadone (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wikimedia projects, we keep discussions together and don't split them over various talk pages. --Polarlys (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


I hope that it will be accepted. Thanks for your help if some thing not good. Regards. Piero (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where’s the permission? --Polarlys (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:1 Kuna HR 2007.jpg

Hallo Polarlys, würdest Du bitte das Bild löschen. Danke im voraus und Gruß --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Gratulation zum Qualitätsbild "WettinCastleSaale"

Das ist nicht mein Bild. Ich habe es nur transferiert. --Polarlys (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Hallo, nun habe ich dich als meinen fleißigen Löscher ausgeguckt und du sollst bitte die Seite Massenheim (Bad Vilbel) löschen, die ich versehentlich angelegt habe. Es sollte eine Kategorie werden, die gibts inzwischen. Danke.--Peng (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich bin selten hier, andere Admins werden dir zukünftig wohl schneller helfen. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

De-admin policy

Would you mind please reviewing the German translation of Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/Warning message? It needs updating. Also, there is a new page Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/De-admin message. The main policy page Commons:Administrators/De-adminship is also missing a translation. Would you be able to do those, too? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

new: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/De-admin message/de Could you please link it, I am unexperienced with this guideline stuff.
new: Commons:Administratoren/Entzug
updated: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/Warning message/de. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Roman Bar.jpg

Hallo Polarlys, was ist der Grund für diesen Schnelllöschantrag? Für eine Erklärung wäre ich dankbar. Gruß, --AM (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo AlMare! Wesentlicher Bestandteil des Bildes sind Reproduktionen urheberrechtlich geschützter Werke (steht auch im Löschantrag, siehe Commons:Derivative works). Das Bild wird/wurde verwendet, um Artikel zu Sofia Loren zu illustrieren, ein anderer Nutzen ist auch schwer denkbar. --Polarlys (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Meiner Ansicht nach sind die Plakate Beiwerk. --AM (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Beiwerk für was? --Polarlys (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Für die typische Baratmosphäre. Ein Tresen mit einem frisch eingeschenkten Getränk, darunter die Präsentation verschiedener Flaschen und anderer Artikel, eine Topfpflanze als Dekoration, die Andeutung eines Gewölbes, eine typische Bordüre als Teil der Wandgestaltung, und eine Wand vollgehängt mit Bildern, was italienische Restaurants und Bars geradezu auszeichnet. So. Gruß, --AM (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ach bitte. Ein kurzer Blick auf zeigt, dass nicht „die typische Baratmosphäre“ hinreichend Grund für dich war, das Bild einzufügen. --Polarlys (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Eine reine Nebenanwendung, Zufall, ein fotografischer Kollateralschaden sozusagen. ;-) --AM (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh - schon gelöscht. Dann muß ichs wohl in der italienischen Wikipedia hochladen, die sind da nicht so. Schönen Gruß, --AM (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Small Hitler bust.JPG

Do you think that this is a replica of the bust described here, also this larger one by Ferdinand Liebermann? They are very similar, although with the smaller one the pupils are visible. Even if it is by Liebermann and given that he died in 1941 it's still not 70 years after that event anyway, and the fact that it's not in a permanent place would point towards deletion, wouldn't it... Other than that all the information I have is from that visible price tag. A search of the antiques store I saw it in doesn't turn it up. --BrokenSphere 05:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know about the sculptor and didn't see it on the webpage as well. :( --Polarlys (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


I made that picture...why you delete it?

It was copied from here. --Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it also there! What I have to do to simply let it circulate? Please suggest me the right license

Please have a look at Commons:OTRS. --Polarlys (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Beach picture

The beach picture that you deleted and you wrote that we did not know if it was public - that statement in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beach in Italy (302214719).jpg is ludicrous. It was obviously a public beach. As I remember, coordinates were even given, and I think it was the beach of Sanremo, and about as public as Central Park in New York. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This was some kind of amendment statement about our judging on „public places“ in general: we discuss such issues without knowing the location and the circumstances there (is this a private ground, do you have to pay a fee, are there fences, is such an image only possible by using paparazzi technology or from the seaside). You are right, in the special case I didn't check the coordinates (didn't saw them) but I see no reason to overthink my decision. --Polarlys (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course no paparazzi technology was needed. Someone mentioned a "long lens", but that was obviously wrong: the picture was taken downward, from a position right next to the sunbather. You did not check anything (had you even noticed how old the image was?). Now category:Beaches of Liguria is almost devoid of people. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Deiva_Marina-spiaggia.JPG has a lot of people and it actually has the beach as a motive which you can't say of the deleted one, which only was in the category because the author said that is was made their. Or would you have been able to tell the beach without that information? -- Cecil (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Pieter, your accusations don't make you an enjoyable conversational partner. As I said before, we generally have limited information on the circumstances of creation of such images. I did not say that the creator used paparazzi technology here. It's useless to give such absolute statements on how the image was taken. „Position right next to the sunbather“ could also be „position on a hill, 200 m from the subject away“. But I don't state this, since I don't know it. BTW, I see no loss to the category. Every image within this category illustrates Beaches of Liguria much better than a blurry photograph of some nude skin which could be taken everywhere on the world (maybe not Iran) and without any notable composition. --Polarlys (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The position of the camera is obvious from the perspective of the image. Your speculations like „position on a hill, 200 m from the subject away“ do not agree with the photo, just compare the size of the head of the person lying down on the sand with the head the person sitting up. Sorry for not having a more agreable way of saying that your speculations about fenced in beaches in Sanremo or about "paparazzi technology" are nonsense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You don't get it, don't you? I commented our way of discussing „public places“ in general. EOD. --Polarlys (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

La Rochelle- port et tours

Source précisée


J-P bazard

No, we still don’t know why it is PD-old. PD-old means: The author is dead for 70 years now. That’s not very realistic here. It’s moke likely that the postcard is still protected by copyright for some decades (like a lot of your other uploads), please read Commons:Licensing. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Hallo Polarlys, Image:Czern-conf leaders2 big.jpg was deleted by you because I had apparently forgotten to note its licence usw. The picture should be considered public domain, since according to Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights, copyright of an anonymous photograph expires 70 years after its publication.

Also, perhaps you could assist me with another photograph: File:Beylinson.JPG. According to Israeli law, copyright of photographs taken before May 25, 2008 expire 50 years after creation. Since mr. Beylinson died in 1936, this is definitely the case here. Vielen Dank! Aviados (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored them. Please have a look at it. Danke schön :-) --Polarlys (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
todda rabba! ;) Aviados (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Why did you delete File:Pierrecurie.jpg? He died 1906, more than a century ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No source. --Polarlys (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter? If a source had been given, one probably still would not know where that source had gotten it from. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
A proper source always matters. It’s about copyright, further usage and encyclopedic value. Without this information, it’s just the image of an elder man. Everything okay with copyright? We don’t know it, no source. Want to use it for a college work? Impossible, no source. Use it on Wikipedia? No encylopedic character, since we don’t even know if it is an image of some notable person. --Polarlys (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If it was an old man, it cannot have been Curie - he was run over by a horse-drawn carriage in his prime. But he must have looked like Pierre Curie. And all your arguments do not really depend on a source - there are lots of old images here that formally have a source: somebody's website. That is not better than information supplied by an uploader to commons. Here, misidentifications get noticed because so many view the articles where portraits are being used in. If you put it up for a deletion request, probably a "source" will be found. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It was probably taken form this website, and according to this page, the picture comes from the Library of Congress. I couldn't find it on though. –Tryphon 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
We usually request proper sources (in this case: another admin, Herr Kriss, put the template btw), not some geocities homepage or any other place on the web where someone had copied a file he has found somewhere else. For example: archives, libraries, printed books on this person, … I deleted this file by the way (PLEASE don’t source it with this Turkish cookie-cutter website). Feel free to upload it again with a proper source. We have images of Curie I think. BTW, do you know where we stand again? We have around 4000 files in Category:Unknown, 2000 (marked) duplicates to check, open requests for deletion from summer 2008 and every hour there are dozens of new images in Category:Copyright Violation. I don’t approach this task with ease, but it’s impossible to do every uploader’s homework. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It is a part of this portrait, and the AIP Visual Archives do not know anything about it. The face is in this version. This photo is on the cover of Anna Hurwic's 1998 biography - maybe there is some info there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think this is good evidence for {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}: the 1923 publication says that Dujardin did the heliography and that Wittmann printed it, but not a word about the photographer. Could you undelete? I will then supply the details. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The files you linked before are better, the deleted file was just a bigger thumbnail. Good night, --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

philippine presidency

sir may i request something? let an administrator from the philippines administer all the pictures that is related tp the philippines and it's spouses and etc. you should have informed the user:philippinepresidency what he/she had violated, in uploading some pictures like the spouses of the presidents of the philippines and the presidents itself. -- 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The uploader used flickr to upload files under free licenses, just to transfer them here. Not one of these files had a proper source (author, publishing date and place), some were tagged as obvious copyright violations. --Polarlys (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

de:File:Die Zentenarmedaille.jpg

Hi, do you know anyone on de: wiki who can check (or perhaps you can) what the source and other information was for the file File:Die Zentenarmedaille.jpg which only mentions "de: wiki" as the source? Thanks! -- Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an "own work" claim, but the uploader is someone, who uploaded a lot of copyvios in the past with such a source. He is an old man and hsa some problems with all this stuff. --Polarlys (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, do you know anything about copyright on medals? Apparently created in 1897, but obviously the image isn't. Will I nominate for deletion? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It’s a three dimensional work, so the image of the this medal is no simple reproduction. I would keep it for now, I haven’t found the image on the internet … --Polarlys (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome. Happy Easter! --Polarlys (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Hallo Polarys, du hast die Datei:KCEN.gig gelöscht. Hat jemand vorher einen Löschantrag gestellt? Wie auch immer, die Bilder solcher Mikrophone sind im Normalfall PD-keine Schöpfungshöhe, siehe dazu auch User talk:Waylon#Radio station microphone images. Gruß, Waylon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nein, es gab keinen Löschantrag. Ich habe die Kategorie „Copyright violation“ abgearbeitet, in der sich Bilder von dir befanden und dann einer alten Gewohnheit folgend, dein Löschlog und deine Uploads angeschaut. Für Commons-Verhältnisse ist Schöpfungshöhe gegeben (Ausnahmen sind hier eigentlich nur elementare Textlogos), deshalb hab ich auf „delete“ geklickt. Im Übrigen solltest du deine Praxis überdenken, alles was auf flickr als „frei“ getaggt ist, hier hochladen. Was die aktuellen Beispiele angeht, so ist es offensichtlich, dass eine unbekannte dritte Person urheberrechtlich geschützte Inhalte mit simplen Mitteln reproduziet und als „frei“ eingestellt hat. Den Upload auf Commons mag zwar die Maschine „FlickreviewR“ als korrekt empfinden, einem menschlichen Betrachter stellt sich die Angelegenheit natürlich anders dar. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Zugegeben, bei den Flickr-Bildern war ich etwa leichtgläubig, das sehe ich ein. Aber das KCEN-Bild stört mich zugegebenermaßen: Wie Nard the Bard schon sagte sind diese Bilder soweit kleingeschnitten worden, das niemand das noch als kreative Arbeit ansehen würde. Somit hat es keine Schöpfunsghöhe. Gruß, Waylon (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deiner Argumentation folgend, könnten wir zahlreiche kommerzielle „Cliparts“ ohne das Einverständnis ihrer Urheber hier hochladen, da sie nur hinreichend „klein“ sind. Wie ich bereits sagte, die Hürde für Schöpfungshöhe ist hier niedrig. --Polarlys (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Attila Kaszás

Please, tell me, what was wrong with my drawing about Attila Kaszás? Yes, it was made from a picture, but if you see, you will find, it's not the same exactly. So, could I upload it again or not? --Eino81 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It’s a derivative work. Your reproduction of something which is protected by copyright doesn’t make it free. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW: I deleted the drawing of Cosimo Fusco as well. No matter which technique or level of alienation is used: Such works are always derivative works. --Polarlys (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Emil Hacha2.jpg

Hello, photo is taken from one number of Pestrý týden, which was published before 1938 without author information. --marv1N (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of prominent photographers worked for Pestrý týden, some of theme died only some years ago. Without further research (archives), we can’t assume that this work is an „anonymous work“ („artist never disclosed his identity). --Polarlys (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand: is realy our problem whether an artist of the photo is noted in some deep cellar without stairs in? --marv1N (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal of this project is to be a repository of free content. It’s every uploaders duty to ensure, that the chosen licensing is right. So answer your question for yourself. --Polarlys (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo was published with only name of atelier, so I think, that we can say that it is photo with anonymous author. When I am thinkiking about it longer and longer I recognising that I don't know what is Your problem: Posibility that someone knows the author is 99 % (as well as someone is (was) the author) but it was published as it was and for 70 years nobody claimed authorship, so it is anonymous and by this time public domain (in {{Anonymous-EU}} is written “If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago.”; if You don't agree with this text (or with sense of text) attempt to change it first). --marv1N (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My position is, that a lot of people use this template without knowing about it’s true meaning. It doesn’t mean that someone did not find the author’s name by using Google and that’s why he calls it an anonymous work. That’s not a reasonable amount of research for such a claim. Look for some modern newspapers and magazines around you. You will see, that most of their photos also don’t state the author’s name, whenever the author is known to those people who create the magazine, they get the photos from some stock photo agency or pay their own photographer. But the template states: “author never disclosed his identity.” --Polarlys (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this problem. But we are not speaking about modern newspaper (and mechanisms of photos bought has been maybe changed and Langhans realy didn't know who take photos ;-)). Anyway I wrote to the realy uploader about this problem (which was actually Your duty after inserting template...). --marv1N (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fotothek template

Please don't remove it, just alter it. Multichill (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. I looked for a switch like in the template from Bundesarchiv, but didn’t find one. Happy Easter! --Polarlys (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lizenzprobleme und Selbstdarstellungsirrtum

Cher Polarys! Friedlich meinen Blog <> bearbeitend, kam ein Text auf den Bildschirm, ich möge doch meine Bilder zuerst be WIKIPEDIA COMMONS hochladen, damit alle ewas davon hätten. Gut, dachte ich und nahm die erhebliche Komplikation geduldig auf mich. Nun finde ich mich auf einmal vor Gericht gestellt 1. es stimme nicht mit Lizenzen und 2. mit Selbstdarstellung liege ich hier falsch, denn hier sei es erzieherisch. Abgesehen davon, da♥ ich mein Leben lang (bin 82) Erzieher war, sehe ich grundsätzlich keinen Wiederspruch zwischen beiden. Du schreibst Ferienbild, einer Person am Fenster. Banal!? Oho! Das ist Abwertung. Das war eine Studienreise. Im HRADCANY wurde ich von meinen Kollegen vor dem Fenster aus dem mein Vorfahre Wilhelm Slavata, geworfen worden war (was bekanntlich den 30jährigen Krieg ausgelöst hatte), geknipst. Da bekommen die Person und das Fenster eine historische und pedagogische Dimension, die Du eben sehen sollst. (Ich habe über den Fenstersturz noch sehr viel zu erzählen. Auch die ihn aus der Jauche gefischt hat, ist Vorfahre, ebenso wie der Kaiser, dessen Vertreter Slavata war). Wen das nicht erzieherisch wertvoll ist, was dann? Allerdings ist es au♥ergewöhnlich Geschichte von Nachkommen erzählt zu bekommen. Jetzt ende ich hier; bin müde und wei♥ nicht recht was machen in dem Dschungel. Bis bald. Edmundw --Edmundw (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Edmund! Es ist schön, dass du in deinem Alter die „modernen Medien“ derart umfassend zu nutzen weißt. Das ist nicht selbstverständlich Jener, der dir empfahl, die Bilder doch aber bei Wikimedia Commons hochzuladen, war sich des Projektcharakters nicht ganz bewusst. Unter Commons:Projektrahmen findest du das ganze noch mal ausführlich auf Deutsch, hier aber die Kurzversion: a) Die Inhalte müssen frei sein. Das heißt, dass man keine Werke Dritter ohne deren Genehmigung hochladen darf. In deinem Fall waren das die Bilder aus der Zeitung. b) Die Bilder müssen im Projektrahmen sinnvoll verwendet werden können, wobei explizit darauf hingewiesen wird, dass das bei Urlaubsbildern nicht der Fall ist. Wenn es um den Prager Fenstersturz geht, so wollen wir zeitgenössische Abbildungen zum Ablauf oder moderne Photos, die das Fenster an sich zeigen. Was zu erzählst ist interessant, aber eben nicht im Projekrahmen. Die Wikimedia Projekte wollen Wissen nüchtern enzyklopädisch darstellen, unabhängig vom individuellen Photo eines Nachfahren am Fenster und dessen Geschichte. Wir wollen auch keine anderen Bilder, die eher privaten Charakter haben, weil eben Mutti winkend vor den Pyramiden von Gizeh steht oder ein desinteressierter Schüler vor dem Pergamon-Altar. Wenn du deine privaten Bilder irgendwo anders einstellen möchtest, so gibt es dafür zahlreiche andere Möglichkeiten, die prominenteste ist wohl flickr ( Viele Grüße und dir ein schönes Osterfest, --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Hallo Polarlys!

Kannst du diese Löschdiskussion aus formalen Gründen noch abschließen. Versteh mich aber jetzt bloß nicht als kleinkrämerische Bürokraten ;-)
MfG, High Contrast (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Natürlich. Auf Commons ist es übrigens kein Problem, sowas selber zu machen (will damit nur sagen: Das nimmt niemand so wichtig) bzw. gibt es sogar einen Bot, der das macht, wenn es der Admin vergisst ;-) Viele Grüße und schöne Ostern, --Polarlys (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Can you tell me the reason to delete this image? I don't see nowhere the reason, I hope a good explaination... --Mexicumbia (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop taking secret photos of girls in the subway. We don’t need them (Commons:Project Scope), its condemnable and in some jurisdictions even illegal. --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan

Hi there :)

Please could you restore the Daniel Hannan photo? I work for Daniel in the European Parliament and he has requested I add his photo to his Wikipedia page.

Many thanks!

We need a written permission by the copyright holder (see Commons:OTRS). The copyright holder is usually the photographer, not displayed person. --Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo taken at his request and he owns the photo´s rights. Would an email from Mr Hannan be sufficient?

No, we need a permission from the photographer. --Polarlys (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocktails Neon Sign.jpg

Guten tag! Sorry. That's about all the German I feel comfortable using. I undid your revisions on the four photos mentioned in this RFD. I did not do it to be a jerk, and I understand that once an RFD has started, Speedy usually is not an appropriate option. However, through the course of discussion, I found the original copyright holder, asked them if they would freely license the image, and they denied the request. The original image and my three derivative works are therefore all confirmed copyright violations. They need to be deleted quickly. There is no longer any discussion needed. I closed the discussion, but I cannot delete the images (I'm not an administrator). I undid your removal of the {{copyvio}} tags so that the first available Admin will hopefully delete the images quickly. Please note, that I am the person who updated all four images originally. I also went through every wiki project and changed links to minimize the impact of deleting the four files. My actions are sincere, and I am trying to prevent copyright problems not create new problems due to not following standard Commons policies. I hope you understand. Thanks! --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 11:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Will! Thank you for your explanation and your reasonable way to handle this. For us sysops it’s often complicated to delete files without the regular process. Since your explanation is okay and I don’t want you to get in trouble, I deleted these files. --Polarlys (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you, too! :-) I always try to be reasonable. I understand the difficulties. This is the first time I've ever seen an AFD turn up the actual copyright holder and then have permission denied in this way. It sure would be nice in some cases if that would happen. I'm sure it does. I just haven't been involved in any before. If you have suggestions on a better way to handle something like this in the future, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks again! --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 04:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Neumann Plakette.gif davor Ernst-Neumann-Plakette1913.jpg

11.4.09 Lieber Polarlys, seit langer Zeit habe ich Probleme mit der Einarbeitung einer Fotografie von einer einmaligen Plakette, die 1913 von Stanislaus Cauer angefertigt wurde und die sich in meinem Besitz befindet. Sicherlich habe ich beim ersten Mal vor einem halben Jahr etwas falsch eingegeben, als hätte ich die Plakette hergestellt. Daher habe ich jetzt eine neue Version der Fotografie eingestellt (Ernst Neumann Plakette.gif ohne 1913) und betont, dass ich die Aufnahme gemacht habe und daß die Plakette sich bei mir im Archiv einer Stiftung befindet. Warum wird die Aufnahme wieder herausgeschmissen?? Schließlich ist diese berühmte Plakette nachgebildet und damit ein internationaler Ernst Neumann Award ich glaube 1995 verliehen worden. Das interessiert doch die Hämatologen, wie das Original aussah und davon habe ich halt als Einziger ein Foto. Es wäre sicher im Sinne der Hämatologen, (und 100% auch von Cauer), dass solch eine Abbildung im Internet erscheint!! Was habe ich falsch gemacht?? Kann man sie nicht wieder einstellen oder soll ich ein drittes Mal die Lizensrechte auf die Abb. freigeben? Gruss aus Berlin Benutzer E.Neumann-Meding

Hallo! Der Künstler ist keine 70 Jahre tot, seine Arbeit also noch nicht gemeinfrei. Egal ob du dein Photo unter eine freie Lizenz stellst: Die zugrundliegende Arbeit ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Sicher wäre es interessant, eine derartige Abbildung verfügbar zu haben, aber der Projektgrundsatz „freie Inhalte“ geht vor. Was im Sinne des Künstlers wäre, ist Mutmaßung. Ich bitte dich, die Abbildung nicht wieder einzustellen. Weitere Informationen findest du auf diesem Merkblatt. Viele Grüße und noch ein schönes Osterfest, --Polarlys (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion log comment

I don't understand your deletion log comment here -- you said the image was a duplicate of itself? AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a minor edit to the original svg but with wrong licensing. See User_talk:Madhero88#Final_warning and the user’s contribution for details. We had to update most of his contributions and I deleted this one, since it was not used. Sorry for pasting the wrong URL. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand what it has to do with User:Madhero88, since I uploaded the first version of that image (and am the only one listed as uploading here), and when doing so gave all proper credit the best I knew how to do... AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, now I see: I wrongfully deleted the original image. I am awfully sorry. I restored it of course. --Polarlys (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete File:Otilio Castro.jpg

Can you please undelete File:Otilio Castro.jpg? The OTRS permission is on the talk page.

Thanks in advance. --V.Riullop (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the OTRS ticket number? --Polarlys (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I have fixed it on the talk page. --V.Riullop (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Restored it! :) Thank you for your OTRS work! --Polarlys (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Derby di Roma.jpg

Why you deleted this file?--Enok msg 10:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you can find it on the web. --Polarlys (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio template


On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muhyiddin-yassin.jpg you wrote "please use the copyvio template for such cases" but I disagree.

1) The source website is written in a foreign language I don't master, so I think I may fail from reading valuable information showing that the uploader has the right to upload the file on Commons, like a free license written in that language. I need that other reviewers possibly knowledgeable in that language have a second look.

2) There is a slight possibility that the uploader is the source website's owner. He should be given a chance to say so if it is the case.

Teofilo (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. --Polarlys (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Betr.: Diese kat

Hallo, kannst du mal bitte nachgucken, was mit dieser Kat nicht stimmt? Es fehlen da einige Einträge und sie ist nicht zu bearbeiten. Vielen Dank im Voraus. --Peng (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry für die Belästigung, jetzt gehts wieder. Serverproblem ? Oder jemand änderte gerade was. Gruß.--Peng (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a new User and am trying to update and add info to the National Forest Foundation page but am having trouble getting the logo to stick I'm trying to use the same rational as the logo for the National Park Foundation but i guess I'm missing something can you help??

Yes. Fair use is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Please see Commons:Licensing. We need a permission by the copyright holder. --Polarlys (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thank you, I'll read the info and see if i can get permission to use the logo. Is this how all logos say for instance the at&t logo got it's permission?
Even the AT&T logo isn’t hosted on Wikimedia Commons, but on with a fair use claim (see In general, it is difficult to obtain a valid permission.

OTRS invitation

OTRS Wikimedia.svg
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No thanks. I have already enough to do and easily could spend the rest of my lifetime deleting copyvios on Wikimedia Commons and adding proper licensing. :( --Polarlys (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello Polarlys: These two files (File:Ambulante.JPG, File:Mocito feliz.jpg) that could break the Project scope. Greetings, BetoCG¿decías? 00:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed the request for deletion for the first image, I see no chance to delete the other one, whenever we all know that it is useless. :( --Polarlys (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re:Where are the images from this uploader from?

Hi! Thank you for the message, well, I have may be tagged those picture too quickly. But there is unclear thing about them: the two black lines and the poor quality. Regards, Otourly (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider them as copyright violations but I don’t find them on the net. --Polarlys (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Hallo Polarlys, Du hast File:Charles_j_folger.jpg, File:Charles_s_fairchild.jpg, File:Daniel_manning.jpg und File:Summers_Lawrence.jpg mit der Begründung "no proper source" gelöscht. Könntest Du mir das genauer erläutern? Vor allem bei Folger und Manning kann ich das nicht nachvollziehen, da beide im 19. Jahrhundert verstorben sind und Porträts von ihnen zumindest PD-US sein sollten. Gruß, --Scooter (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ja, das muss aber auch angeführt werden und entbindet auch nicht von der Angabe einer Quelle. Ansonsten gehen neuzeitliche Aufnahmen von Gemälden samt ausladendem dreidimensionalen Rahmen nicht als „PD-old“ durch. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ich kapiere nicht, was hier abgeht. Statt mitzuhelfen, die Bilder zu erhalten, stellst Du mal wieder fix SLA, obwohl das, was innerhalb des Rahmens ist, ja zweifellos so alt ist wie die dargestellte Person. Was spricht denn dagegen, einfach einen Ausschnitt davon anzufertigen? Würde ich auch machen, aber ich muss ja befürchten, dass die Arbeit völlig umsonst ist und das Ding hinterher wieder gelöscht wird. Ansonsten nur zu Deiner Information und bezüglich Deiner Antwort: Erstens sind die Bilder (wie immer, wenn ich hier angepflaumt werde) nicht von mir hochgeladen worden. Dies impliziert zweitens, dass ich aus dem Kopf nun wahrlich nicht herleiten kann, ob sie einen Rahmen drum haben oder nicht - was ich schließlich drittens spätestens nach der Löschung nicht mehr feststellen kann, da ich kein Admin bin. Du solltest Dir bitte mal vor Augen führen, wie wenig transparant die Löschvorgänge hier sind; gäbe es den Commons Delinker nicht, würde man es manchmal gar nicht merken (den es scheinbar auf en gar nicht gibt, denn dort stoße ich in unschöner Regelmäßigkeit auf rote Bildlinks). Es sind ja offenbar nicht einmal Löschdiskussionen geführt worden, wenn ich die Links richtig deute, sondern nur die hochladenden Benutzer angesprochen worden (was bei Bildern, die es hier seit vier Jahren gibt, ja auch total sinnvoll sein dürfte). Also nimm freundlicherweise mal bitte den Fuß vom Gas. --Scooter (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
An welcher Stelle bist du denn hier „angepflaumt“ worden? Ein opulenter dreidimensioanler Rahmen ist offensichtlich und zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo ich die Bilder (ohne Quelle) gelöscht hatte, waren deren „sieben Tage“ bereits abgelaufen. Die Sache ist einfach die, dass ich mich hier nicht in der Lage sehe, jedem fraglichen Bild hinterher zu arbeiten. Fragliche Bilder bekommen einen Warnbaustein, der Uploader wird darauf hingewiesen und hat dann mindestens 7 Tage – in der Regel aber eher deutlich mehr – Zeit, die Mängel zu beheben. Wenn ich den Kram dann abarbeite (die Anzahl derer, die das hier regelmäßig machen, hält sich in Grenzen) versuche ich selbstverständlich zu retten, was zu retten ist, aber da kann ich nicht den urheberrechtlichen Status eines Gemäldes ohne jegliche Herkunfstangabe evaluieren. Im konkreten Fall hätte es wohl kein neuerlicher SLA sein müssen, das gebe ich zu (wenn auch das Ziel dadurch erreicht wurde). Ich erachte übrigens die Löschvorgänge hier deutlich transparenter, als auf, wo schon mal „im Chat geklärt“ und andere selbsterklärende Hinweise Reaktionen auf Lösch- oder Behaltenentscheidungen sind. Fehlt jeglicher Hinweis auf die Herkunft, kommt ein „no source“-Baustein rein, der Uploader wird benachrichtigt. Es ist naturgemäß nicht möglich, alle, die irgendein Interesse am Bild haben könnten adäquat zu unterrichten. Auf gab es mal eine Seite des Commons-Delinkers, wo das Setzen derartiger Bausteine dokumentiert wurde, AFAIK wird die aber nicht mehr aktualisiert. :-( Wir können hier auch nicht für hunderte fragliche Bilder täglich, eine Löschdiskussion eröffnen. Wir haben noch welche aus dem letzten Herbst offen und jeder Admin wird hier im Regelfall wissen, wann etwas direkt zu löschen oder lieber eine Diskussion zu führen ist. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Alanis Morissette firma Aram92.JPG

An email has been received at OTRS concerning File:Alanis Morissette firma Aram92.JPG you deleted per copyright violation. But the message is not sufficient to confirm permission, and the uploader has a large history of deleted files and project scope problems. Please, could you give me some context of the problem related with this file? (I'm not admin at commons) And how could it be solved? It would be helpful for replying the email. Thanks in advance. --V.Riullop (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a banner created by the user and it uses two images probably ripped from the web somewhere. The user doesn't seem to understand the concept of derivative work. Multichill (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, he used to promo-pics of Alanis Morissette for his banner. I don't know about your communication, but tell him that he needs the permission of the two photographers of the Alanis-pics. Only with their permission he can release his banner under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything explained by Multichill and Cecil, thank you both. @Vriullop: Nothing to do here, anonymous source, promo pics – please don’t waste your time with this ticket, we delete stuff like this everyday (and there is no end in sight). Best regards and thank you for your OTRS work, --Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your help. --V.Riullop (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Safvet beg Basagic.jpg

Das Bild hing bis vor dem Krieg in der Aula des Gymnasiums in Sarajevo und ist eine Wiedergabe einer schwarz-weiß Fotografie aus der Zeit um 1900. oder kurz davor. Wer der "Künstler" ist, ist schwer zu eruieren weil das Bild im Krieg verloren ging (2006. sah ich es nicht mehr hängen). Ich kann mich erinnern, dass mein Onkel der dort unterrichtet hat mal meinte, dass es ein Schüler gemalen hat. In wie weit so ein Werk urheberrechtlich geschützt ist, mag ich nicht sagen, jedoch befand sich das Bild als öffentliches Gut in der Aula. Ich könnte eventuell in Wien nachfragen ob auf der Uni irgendwas vorhanden ist weil ich zum Gymnasium in Sarajevo keinen Kontakt habe. Da er einer der bedeutendsten bosnischen Schriftsteller ist, wäre es schön wenn das Bild bis dorthin die Seiten bedient. Wenns geht, würde ich dich bitten auf meiner Diskussionsseite der bosnischen Wiki zu antworten da ich hier sehr selten bin. Danke im Voraus --Seha bs (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Die Tatsache, dass es „öffentlich“ aufgehängt war, ändert am Urheberrecht des Malers erstmal gar nichts. Die Frage ist, wo stammt diese moderne Reproduktion her? Sie muss nach dem Krieg entstanden sein und irgendwo verfügbar sein. An dieser Stelle muss man ansetzen, um ggf. den Maler ausfindig zu machen. Wird gar keine Herkunft angegeben, so kann überhaupt nichts zum Status des Werkes gesagt werden. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ich meinte eigentlich den Krieg in Bosnien in den 90er. Bei uns war es üblich, dass die Schüler ihre Werke aus dem Kunstunterricht, sofern sie gut waren, in der Schule ausstellen durften. So sind zb. meinerseits zwei Bilder in der OS. 16. Mai in Prijedor ausgestellt. Urheberrecht habe/hatte ich keins. Das Bild dürfte in den 80ern entstanden sein. Wer der Maler ist, wird wahrscheinlich niemand erfahren, ausser genau der/die SchülerIn meldet sich, was ich für unwahrscheinlich betrachte. Ausserdem in der Zeit des Komunismus und kurz danach, waren solche Bilder die die Schüler gemacht haben grundsätzlich Schuleigentum. Wenns nicht anders geht, dann lösch es, wenn doch, dann bitte ich dich es zu belassen. Danke für den Hinweis auf der Grüße aus Graz --Seha bs (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, was den Krieg angeht, hab ich etwas zu kurz gedacht. :-( Zu deinen Bildern: Wenn du etwas malst, so bist du automatisch der Urheberrechtsinhaber. Das musst du nirgendwo beantragen oder einfordern. Wenn ein Schüler irgendwo ein Bild ausstellt, so heißt das nicht „Ihr könnt damit machen, was ihr wollt.“ (daran ändern auch vergangene kommunistische Epochen nichts). Es ist praktisch unmöglich, dass das Bild schon gemeinfrei (Public domain) ist, da der Urheber dafür 70 Jahre tot sein müsste. Ansonsten liegt keine Einwilligung vor, es zu nutzen. Es ist natürlich jedes Mal schade um eine Illustration, aber wir können grundlegende Projektregeln deswegen nicht beugen. Grüße nach Graz, --Polarlys (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok dann lösch es, werde schauen dass ich was aus Wien bekomme. --Seha bs (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Hallo, würdest du bitte mein o.g. Verzeichnis löschen. Danke. Gruß --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Erledigt. --Polarlys (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Danke. Gruß --Hedwig Storch (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for removal?

What was the reason for the removal of the two images File:Friedrich-Game-Board-Closeup.jpg and File:St._Petersburg_in_Play.jpg? Aldaron (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see that in the log file for that image-name. In both cases it was derivative work. The copyright belongs to the game designer/game company. You can't photograph copyrighted stuff and then release it under a free licence. For that you need the permission of the original copyright owner. -- Cecil (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Cygx1 spectrum.jpg

Hallo Polarlys, durch diesen kuriosen Hinweis wurde ich auf das von Dir schnellgelöschte Bild aufmerksam. Da ich den Eindruck gewann, dass wir das vielleicht doch behalten könnten, da ich skeptisch bin, ob das Diagramm Schöpfungshöhe hat, war ich so frei, es bei COM:UDEL einzutragen. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn Du Deine Sichtweise beitragen könntest. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Du hast Recht. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Das Bild ist nicht von chandra-weltraumteleskop, sondern von der eso:

und das Copyright entsprechend

This photograph was produced by European Southern Observatory (ESO).
Their website states: "All ESO still and motion pictures are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported, unless the credit byline indicates otherwise."
To the uploader: You must provide a link (URL) to the original file and the authorship information if available.
w:en:Creative Commons
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Kannst Du es bitte wiederherstellen?

Viele Grüße, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Siehe unten, Cecil hat es wiederhergestellt. --Polarlys (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Elmo and Bookaneers.JPG

You are correct. I took the photo, but Sea World did not grant license to share the image. Rklawton (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi , you deleted File:Tycho-supernova-xray.jpg this was a "Copyright-free material" see [1]. It was also a featured image earlier. Is there some way we can bring this back? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored it, but the licensing information on different websites is misleading in this case ( :( --Polarlys (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Descubierta class frigates

Hi Polarlys; eine Bitte: die Category:Descubierta class frigates müsste nach Category:Descubierta class corvettes, verschoben werden, da es sich bei den Schiffen dieser Klasse um Korvetten handelt und nur Ägypten seine 2 von Spanien gekauften Exemplare nennt. Danke; --Noclador (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Da kann ich als Admin nichts anderes machen als du: Manuell umsortieren. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Gut - dann mach ich mich da gleich an die Arbeit; danke für die Info. --Noclador (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sag blos du hast noch nichts von CommonsDelinker und User:CommonsDelinker/commands gehört. Wenn man dort {{move cat|alte kategorie (ohne cat: am anfang)|neue kategorie (ohne cat: am anfang)}} reinstellt dann werden die Bilder automatisch verschoben. Man muss die Vorlage nur wieder entfernen wenn es fertig ist.
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ach stimmt. Ich hab es nie/selten genutzt und mittlerweile vergessen gehabt. Für Verschiebeaktionen musste auf diversen Projekten einige Zeit mein Bot herhalten, aber der – Gott hab ihn selig – ist auch Geschichte. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Restaurierung von Bildern von Wolfhard Theile

Hallo Polarlys, Du hast folgende Bilder gelöscht:

Zu diesen Bildern (eine Übersicht findet sich hier) gibt es ein OTRS-Ticket (Nummer 2009031110026411), um das ich mich derzeit kümmere. Um die Freigabe mit den Rechteinhabern endgültig klären zu können, war eine Restaurierung der Bilder notwendig, selbst wenn dieses OTRS-Ticket noch nicht ganz abgeschlossen ist. Ich bin selbst erst seit kurzer Zeit Mitglied des OTRS-Teams, fand aber eine sehr weit zurückreichende Queue vor, bei der ich gerade die alten Fälle abarbeite. Deswegen folgt die Restaurierung und die weitere Klärung erst jetzt. Vielen Dank für Dein Verständnis und herzliche Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Der Fall ist inzwischen erledigt, leider ohne ausreichene Freigabe. Ein wahrer Jammer bei diesen schönen Theaterbildern. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hallo! Entschuldige bitte meine verspätete Antwort. Ich war einige Tage nicht im Netz und habe deine Anfrage somit erst heute gesehen. Ich hoffe aber, dir zukünftig bei ähnlichen Fällen weiterhelfen zu können, ansonsten gibt es zahlreiche engagierte und freundlihe Kollegen hier! Danke für dein Engagement beim OTRS (gerade bei den Sorgenkindern)! Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Warnings on User talk:Chrisurlaub

Hey there, I noticed that you had tagged all of this users recently uploaded illustrations as having no source provided. Each image, though, states that it is the work of the uploader, and provides his name. I'm not sure exactly what it is you are looking for. Wasn't an OTRS ticket even filed to provide proof he made the previously deleted Susan Boyle image...that should link the account to the name provided. You may want to explain your concerns better to the uploader rather than just providing a drive-by templating. Huntster (t@c) 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

He knows about the problem. It is called “Derivative works”. --Polarlys (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet I see nothing on the talk page to indicate he's aware of anything other than the discussion around the previous Boyle image. I still suggest you further explain your current concerns on the page. Yes, I do understand what you are looking for now that you say it, but he may not be making that connection, or perhaps he may be going fully creative and not copying an existing source, as he seems to indicate with the new Boyle image. Huntster (t@c) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you are right. I’ll leave some words. --Polarlys (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rothsteineiner Felsen

Hallo Polarlys, kannst Du die Kat bitte löschen? Ich hatte mich bei der Anlage verschrieben. Vielen Dank "John" (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

erledigt. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Hallo Polarlys, die Löschung war völlig in Ordnung, mit der Markierung des neuen Bildes machst du dir sicher keine Freunde, auch hier liegst du aber richtig: Niemand kann jemanden ohne Vorlage malen, obwohl man sich selber gut kennen sollte, dürfte es kaum einer schaffen ohne Spiegel ein Selbstportrait zu zeichnen. Dennoch sollte man nach oben eine Grenze ziehen: Wenn ich einen wissenschaftlichen Artikel schreibe entnehme ich meine Ideen auch diversen anderen Artikeln und Studien ohne dabei URV zu begehen. Wie auch immer, ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass in Carlos Botelho (da sind ein paar .gif Bilder drin, also Geduld) bei so einigem Bild abgemalt wurde. Über die Urheberrechtsverletzung hinaus bin ich der Überzeugung, dass solche Privatkunst von nur sehr geringem Nutzen ist und, was schlimmer ist, sie genau wie Fair Use die Entstehung freier Inhalte hemmen. Was ist deine Meinung zu dieser Gallerie, weniger die Akte sondern eher die Portraits von Winehouse, Elvis und Marilyn Monroe? --Martin H. (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Stichpunktartig: Letztlich nur aufgrund des Artikels in von „Relevanz“ (wobei man über dieses Projekt und seine Anforderungen sicher wohlfeil streiten kann), bei den Porträts gilt ebenso Commons:Derivative works, wobei eine Löschung hier gleich wieder unter „Zensur von Kunst“ durchgeht. Für die Illustration ist der Kram aber eh nicht geeignet. --Polarlys (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging Image:Sensory and motor homunculi.jpg

I made this photo while visiting the Science Museum at London. Although the admission is free, I guess the homunculi are copyrighted, so we better delete the photo. Thanks! --Dodo (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did so. Have a good weekend, --Polarlys (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

web pictures

Demjata erb.jpg, Demjata kostol.jpg, Vlajka obce Demjata.gif, Tatran Presov stadion.jpg, Novy stadion Tatrana Presov6.jpg, Novy stadion Tatrana Presov5.jpg, Novy stadion Tatrana Presov4.jpg, Novy stadion Tatrana Presov3.jpg, Novy stadion Tatrana Presov2.jpg, Novy stadion Tatrana Presov.jpg

All contribs by user calligen are "moved" from web and marked "gfdl". --Ivob (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted them all. Thank you and a nice weekend! --Polarlys (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Könntest du mal auf die hochgeladenen bilder von diesem User einen Blick werfen? Sie werden unter PD veröffentlicht, obwohl es sich um historische, screenshots und Bilder von Internetseiten handelt:

Danke im Voraus. --Seha bs (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe die modernen Bilder gelöscht, das waren offenkundig Urheberrechtsverletzungen, bei einer stand sogar der richtige Photograph in den Metadaten. Für die alten Bilder brauchen wir wenigstens Maler und die Herkunft der Datei. Sonst ist es wertlos. Grüße und Danke, --Polarlys (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ich sag danke. --Seha bs (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Auf dem ersten und dritten Bild in der gallery hab ich auf der Diskussionsseite den Autor und die Quelle hinzugefügt. Beim zweiten Bild handelt es sich wahrscheinlich um ein Bild von Katarina Ivanovic 1811-1870 (ungefähr), nur finde ich keine Quelle. Fürs 4. such ich noch :) --Seha bs (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DamU & Commons:Project scope

You seem to have a deleted a lot of images in use at User:DamU citing Commons:Project scope. Most of these images were at Commons for almost a year and some in use at Wikipedia's, suddenly deleting these images without a proper deletion request is rather strange. Could you explain your actions? Multichill (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Multichill! We are no DeviantArt mirror, these images had no educational purpose and were only used to illustrate the user’s page here on Commons (and some for an user page on Time doesn’t affect Commons:Project scope, does it? I stumpled upon them when deleting copyvios, there was comparable image from DA with copyright issues. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not true, take for example a look at en:Motion lines. Did you know that out of scope is not a speedy deletion reason for files? You should open a regular deletion request just like every other user. Stuff gets deleted way to easily here at Commons. Multichill (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I restored this one, since I obviously overlooked its usage on Thank you. I won’t spend ten minutes of my life creating a RfD to show that Commons:Project scope targets users like this who use this project for exactly one day to upload images from the web without educational purpose to present them on their user page. This is a waste of time and still doesn’t make us a DA mirror. Most of the time, I hopefully act entirety in strict accordance with the guidelines of this project, but to work here, it’s sometimes necessary

  • to delete the tenth upload that isn’t a copyvio as blatant as the nine ones by the same uploader before instead of searching for it on the web or
  • pressing delete for unused uploads (the one above was a mistake) that don’t fit Commons:Project scope. Everything else is – as I said before – ineffectual and a waste of time that hinders us from managing this collection.

Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Can you please restore File:Vikidia-portada.png? It is not a copyvio: Vikidia is a free-content page, and all its media (images, mainly) is published under free licenses (CC, GFDL) and PD. Thank you, Racso (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I can’t find no information on the licensing of this website. The file was tagged „PD“, which is obviously wrong, if CC or GFDL: It’s not the same and as I said before: I can’t find no clear statement on this issue on the website ( is no help at all). Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded again the image. Now this is a screenshot of Vikidia in Spanish where the license is better explained. I put the link there. Greetings! --Mr. Seeker (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Betr.: Category:Agios Nikolaos (Kreta)

Damit du dich nicht nur um die Spiele kümmern musst ;-) , könntest du in der Zwischenzeit diese leere cat löschen ? Danke.--Peng (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Erledigt. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Das Bild Albach.jpg ist gemeinfrei, da, wie es auch angegeben ist, das Bild durch eine Bundesbehörde erstellt wurde. Warum wird es mit Genehmigung fehlt markiert? Es bedarf laut § 5 Urheberrechtsgesetz keiner Genehmigung! --Porphyrion (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nein, das funktioniert bei Abgeordnetenbildern nicht so und es würde dir auch auffallen, dass wir für jene, die wir haben, eine schriftliche Genehmigung vorliegt. --Polarlys (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello Polarlys.

The photos (Iris-Teatro2.jpg and Iris-Teatro6.jpg) were taken by Thiago Toledo. They aren't copies of the site. Look this link: Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So please upload them with proper licensing. --Polarlys (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Uruguayan general election

I've uploaded several images regarding the 2009 Uruguayan general election. If they get removed -for whatever reason-, I'd like to be at least warned of that. Good bye. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Polarlys (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That's much nicer. :) See you later! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobel prize

So what is your problem with the Nobel foundation as a source? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They host copyrighted content and are no author at all. They just use portraits from other sources. --Polarlys (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The laureates come to Stockholm to collect their prize, and they are photographed. This photograph is then published in the Foundation's series "Les Prix Nobel". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a statement on the source of the text, but no statement on the photos at all. --Polarlys (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"From" means where the content of the web page is from. Your "no source" template is really inappropriate. You just do not want to take the trouble to look up the source. And the books do have portraits, read for example this description: "LES PRIX NOBEL EN 1938. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soner, 1939. Octavo. 77pp., 8pp. Speech given by Fermi on Artificial Radioactivity Produced by Neutron Bombardment FIRST EDITION, 17pp. Speech given by Pearl Buck on The Chinese Novel. Includes introduction by the committee in Swedish and English, also a short biography of Fermi and Buck with photographic portraits of each author with tissue guards." (source) So now please remove you templates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The template asks for an author when no author is given or for a proper source when such is missing. So it is not inappropriate. Furthermore, it is not my duty to document why an image may be used under a specific license. There is no clear statement on these photos on the website and since I can’t confirm that the given information is right and that these portraits are fotografiska bilder and not fotografiska verks (hehe, we have not one single fotografiska verk here on Commons, do we?) and thus fall under the given licensing, I won’t remove these templates. Feel free to do so, I won’t object in this case, but documentation on the photo’s page could be a little more verifiable. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --Polarlys (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Which says:"Nobel Web does not object to your reproduction, distribution, display, transmission, performance, and use of the Content if done in accordance with the Swedish Copyright Act (Upphovsrättslagen, SFS 1960:729) or other applicable limitations and exemptions laid forth in the Swedish Copyright Act and related laws." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Which basically means "if you use our content and the copyright law allows you to do so without asking us, we don't object. Otherwise you had better ask us." It's a non-statement actually. If the law allows me to do something, I don't even care whether they object. Lupo 15:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Flickr washing?

Hi Polarlys, you deleted some images from uploaded by User:Regi-Iris Stefanelli. Do you think this is flickr washing? Multichill (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so. There are several flickr accounts involved, look at The user also uploaded images from this account, look at the packing. And all these accounts just upload images from a certain tv host? All freely licensed? I once looked for a popular music group on flickr and did not find one single image under a free license compatible with Commons. Kind of strange … if there was a big button saying „Delete all these uploads“, I’d hit it :) --Polarlys (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the no-source template

The template {{No source since}} says: "Unless the source is given, the file can be speedily deleted seven days after this template was added." But you are using this template for files that have a source, like File:Goerbing.jpg‎. It is traceable. Neither should files that were uploaded with a wikipedia as a source, get this template. Uploader provided a source, and I think it is incomprehensible that such source information is then made inaccessible. Only admins on the wp that deleted the source page can see where the image came from, and they should be contacted. If there are other problems with an image, you should use the normal deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The template says The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. If the so-called source doesn’t say anything about the file at all, it’s negligible. We want properly licensed files, no witty first step of a paper chase. --Polarlys (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
And yes, PD-Sweden says The photographer, if known, should always be attributed. Always provide source information. It’s not about between 1940 and 1950 -> PD, it’s about subsequent use, proper attribution, encyclopedic context! --Polarlys (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Formosa, acceso sur.jpg

Hi Polarlys, can you see this image? (File:Formosa, acceso sur.jpg). I think is a copyvio because was published in skyscraper two years before flickr. I think the flickr's uploader hasn't permission. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, thank you. Often flickr accounts are used to upload copyrighted images under free licenses, just to transfer them here. We call it flickr washing and it’s an increasing problem. It would help, whn flickr implemented technologies to avoid the upload of material you can find somewhere else on the web under free licensing. --Polarlys (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup E map

Its already been deleted as a copyright violation see for evidence but one of the original uploaders sock puppets has restored it The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Heres the map

Thank you for your help. --Polarlys (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done

You deleted a couple of COA images of the user Jujujuanma. I was in doubt, that's the reason because I didn't mark them. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Over the past weeks, we detected images from various sources with wrong claims. After deleting ten, I won’t search for the eleventh file on the web, until my fingers bleed … :-) --Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)



Folgende Dateien [2], [3], [4], wurde deinerseits bzgl. fehlender Quellenangaben vermerkt. Anscheinend wurde der Baustein wieder entfernt. Warum? Wo fand diesbzgl. ein Diskussion statt? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Details findest du auf dieser Archivseite. Ich hab keine Lust, mich weiterhin damit zu beschäftigen: Was die Herkunft angeht, so hat mich der andere Nutzer weitgehend überzeugt, was fotografiska verk vs. fotografiska bilder angeht oder gar die Lizenzvorlage (man erinnere sich an extreme Löschdiskussionen, bei denen letztlich alle Argumente „niedergestimmt“ wurden), so gibt es in meinen Augen Klärungsbedarf. Aber: Who cares? :-/ --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Polarlys Jujujuanma has re uploaded again an image (File:Aeropuerto de Formosa.jpg), that you eliminated a few days ago. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, du weißt, du bist auserkoren. Leider hatte ich mich beim Hochladen verklickt. DAS User:Flominator/Flinfo/Preview wollte ich nicht, kann also weg (bitte löschen), doch DAS File:Maurice Utrillo - Reu de l'Abreuvoir (dewey decimals - @85.48).jpg (der Name ist nicht von mir, der wurde selbsterzeugt) was ich hochladen wollte, erscheint nicht. Würdest du dich bitte darum kümmern. Danke. --Peng (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hat sich erledigt, oder? Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Jou, mille und tante gracie.--Peng (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I think you might have been a tad hasty in the deletion of File:1929ARMOREDCARCOLOMBIA.JPG especially with the reason of no source. I was actually working on looking for more information on the file when I noticed it was gone. So far I have been able to find it here and here with this image in my opinion being a possible source of the upload. One guess is that the fsu photo is a scan of the image from the 2006 book that the pdf is of, or they may both be scans of the same book ( hence the claim of own work by uploader). Rather than source a more compelling reason for deletion might be for no permissions. The photo is from 1929, so there is a good chance that fewer then 70 years have elapsed since the death of the photographer, though the photographer might have been a Colombian Army one. The result might have been the same anyway and the file deleted as a copyvio, but it would have been nice to discuss it a bit.KTo288 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A „web gallery“ on some website, that just collects images from somewhere, without any source information, isn’t a proper source. 70 years have to be elapsed from the year of the death of a photographer, not the creation of the photo. Please upload images with proper sources. Research has to be done before uploading an image, otherwise it is a lot of unnecessarily work for the community. We can’t discuss every file in a maintainance category by the way, this would be the final deathblow for working on thousands of problematic files. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek paintings

It is absolutely unacceptable that you are going around deleting photographs of Greek pottery art in which the three-dimensional aspect of the art is not of the essence of the image. What next, deleting Van Gogh because his paintings are three-dimensional when examined on a small scale??? Please restore this image and all its links immediately. Haiduc (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not do so. Pottery is obviously no two-dimensional art. We deleted hundred of files in the past with the same problem. Please contact User:Bibi Saint-Pol for details, he is the one who idetifies these files and often uploads free replacements. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Können Sie überprufen, wer der erste Uploader ist? (File:Hyakinthos.jpg) Vielleicht kennt er den Autor, dann könnten wir mindestens dieses Bild als "Fair-Use" am Wikipeida nutzen. Oder gibt er eine Quelle? Personlich, würde ich sagen, dieses Bild nicht von Tonware ist. Es ist eine Malerei, das zufällig auf Keramik gemalt ist. Danke.Yobmod (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The original uploader is Lysis. He uploaded the image with the following information: Catharine Page Perkins Fund. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.. --Polarlys (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks!Yobmod (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)



Which image are you talking about? If you disagree with a deletion, upload images with sufficient source information and maybe send in a written permission if the image is disputed. --Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Why have the images been removed from

Commons:Project scope. We neither host your private images nor your website. Your userpage on has abusive character as well. --Polarlys (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please

The record shows you deleted File:Suicide bomber Abdullah Al Asiri.jpg. The record shows you deleted it as a "copyright violation".

You have the advantage of me. I can't see the image, the original source I put, the liscense I put, or the other supporting information.

I would appreciate your assistance finding where the possible deletion of this image was discussed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken from the website of a newspaper without any information on the author („don’t know“). There was no license, but a fair use claim. Fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. This image is a simple copyvio and we don't need to discuss such cases. --Polarlys (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Retrat de Felip Vé exposat cap per avall al Museu de l'Almodí de Xàtiva per haver incendiat la ciutat el 1707.jpg Hi, der akrobatische Herrscher hier ist mir gerade untergekommen. Schau mal, ob du die Dinge wieder gerade rücken kannst. Danke. --Peng (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Das Bild hängt so im Museum und wurde schon wiederholt rotiert. Rotieren geht prinzipiell so: Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Vikrant class aircraft carrier.JPG

Provided evidence of permission by providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy : see Shiv Aroor said...

 anon@1.13am: You are welcome to pick up any of the photos here that I own the copyright to. I cannot speak for photos that I have picked up myself with due attribution to the respective copyright holder. But regarding any of the photos taken by me, or if I mention that the copyright is mine or LiveFist's, then you're most welcome to use them on Wikipedia.

Polarlys any further question.

welcome to use them on Wikipedia. is not enough. We provide files to be used everywhere. --Polarlys (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Above the picture of File: street.jpg Penny Lane, it out of a page that has no reason Copright in their photos that if I can use, see: [5]

Sorry by the ortography but i used the Translator.--Zak Smith (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite from your link: All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC or its Image providers. All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You.. All photos have copyright and their licence is much too strict form Commons. Those images are not free! -- Cecil (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bilder Zollikon

Quelle ist angegeben: Ortsmuseum Zollikon. Fotograf ist jeweils unbekannt. --Parpan (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Die Quelle ist ungefähr genauso gut wie „Google“ oder „Archiv“. Sind es denn Scans aus Veröffentlichungen oder wurden die Originale gescannt? Bei einem Bild aus der Zeit um 1930 ist kaum davon auszugehen, dass der Photograph wenige Jahre darauf tot war und deine Aussage (70 Jahre nach Tod des Photographen) korrekt wäre. Das Template taugt eigentlich nur, wenn a) der Photograph bekannt ist oder b) davon auszugehen ist (die berühmte biologische Uhr), dass er vor 70 Jahren schon tot war, aufgrund des Alters der Aufnahme. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Es sind Abbildungen von Karten aus dem Ortsmuseum. Über den Fotografen weiss niemand Bescheid. --Parpan (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Was steht denn auf den Karten hinten drauf? Ein Atelier? --Polarlys (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Kein Atelier. «Museumskommission 1972» --Parpan (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Jacques Plante masque.jpg

What was wrong with the license on this image? Please be aware it was on the main page of English Wikipedia - your deletion caused a red link on the main page, and the article. Majorly talk 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also File:Jacques Plante of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.jpg? Majorly talk 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering this as well because it appeared to have proper licensing when I had looked at it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I deleted these files after they were tagged for speedy deletion by User:Padraic. Please see File talk:Jacques Plante masque.jpg and the Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada for details. I restored the images for you again, so please have a look and add a regular request for deletion if necessary. I won’t be online the next days (weekend is over again :*(), so please ask one of my admin collegues for further help if necessary. Thank you! Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Polarlys, the file Evangelivm2 that I put my work for my user account and does not violate copyright--Evangelivm (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete...

File:Miwa Asao 2007 serving.jpg, which you deleted for having an incorrect license, now has a correct license again (see [6]), so please undelete it.

The original was originally licensed as CC-BY-SA and uploaded to Commons as such; the photographer accidentally changed the licensing on flickr and you deleted the image here before I was ever given a chance to comment (no one even left me a message). If you had gotten in touch with me, I could have contacted the photographer and had the license fixed in a matter of minutes, as I did today. Rjanag (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, another user has taken care of it. Rjanag (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry for the inconvenience. Unfortunately as the deleting administrator I am not able to contact every uploader to ask for details. They one who tags the file for deletion should do so if necessary. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lesser

For some reason, a small group of editors at Wikipedia are trying to claim Louis Lesser is a hoax, despite New York Times and Los Angeles Times articles about him as one of the biggest money makers, developers, and multi-business owners in history. Mr. Lesser gave me the annual report of Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., which was prepared for the SEC public offering, and is NOT copyrighted, (and even if it was, after the Chapter 7, it belongs to no one now). There is one editor in particular who deleted all of the images from the article, INCLUDING A PULIC RECORD COMMENDATION of Louis Lesser by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. There seems to be more than just a desire to make people think Louis Lesser is a "hoax" going on here. I paid for that public record stuff with my own money. There is NO NOTICE ON MY TALK PAGE. I am completely new to how Wikimedia Commons works, but I would think I would at least get a notice. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone notified you about missing licesing information some days ago. I deleted the files because of missing permission by the copyright holder and/or a plausible statement on the copyright status. Please be careful with accusations (There seems to be more than just a desire to make people think Louis Lesser is a "hoax" going on here), we just do our daily business here by deletion files with incomplete licesing information. The licesing in this case is obviously wrong and the authorship as well. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted File:Beatles logo.svg?

Hi, you recently deleted File:Beatles logo.svg because it was tagged fair use by an IP ( However, there is a deletion request discussion ongoing about this image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beatles logo.svg, and the upshot so far seems that this is covered by PD-TEXTLOGO, and is therefore not fair use, and should not have been deleted (or at least not until the Deletion Request was closed with result "delete". It may have been that the IP removed the deletion template, so you wouldn't have seen the discussion. Could you undelete it or close that deletion request discussion? Thanks, − Inductiveload (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is has already been restored. I am sorry for the inconvenience. --Polarlys (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So it has, thanks anyway! − Inductiveload (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


I just added info of licesing you required... please remove alert...

So where do I find the statement by Germaine Thomas? Is he an army employer? Please link the site of origin, not the file. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[Sabana_nacional1.jpg] Please check it now!!!

Please check it now!! i just added link --Unmae1986 (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahimovic and Zanetti imagens

Polarys, I didn't understand. Those images were from Flickr, with the same license of this one. - which is from the same user and was "confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0".

I found it using the type of advanced searh in Flickr that shows only pics that could be uploaded to wikicommons.

Why were they deleted? --Caio Brandão Costa (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not every image on flickr with a free license is a free image. A lot of people upload copyright violations to flickr, professional images from picture agencies for example. --Polarlys (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Up to never!

Since you are expert at bringing(reporting) everything it(he,she) eliminates my account(bill) because I understand that it(he,she) is to lose the time, especially when one tries to help but like they erase(smear) everything so(then) not tendras ningun problem in eliminating my account and it erases all the remaining images.

One tries to contribute but instead of helping they erase everything, go away to the devil stupid librarians, and I want that you erase the account do not want to know anything of this stupid page wait disappear imbecile and your you are a son of bitch. --BruceIsmay (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

upload error - my bad

Hi Polarlys, how're you? After quite some time away (work) I'm back and uploaded 2 days ago this file File:Armenian Army 2010 OrBat.png. as I now found out the sources are not for 2010, but for January 2007 and therefore I uploaded the file again as File:Armenian Army January 2007 OrBat.png. So, as I will only continue to update the second upload and for housekeeping reasons, my first upload File:Armenian Army 2010 OrBat.png can be deleted! thanks, and all the best, --Noclador (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Sorry I didn't notice or respond to your reply of several months ago.

You deleted File:Suicide bomber Abdullah Al Asiri.jpg. I noticed it had been silently deleted, and I asked you for your assistance. I would still appreciate the original URL. Could you leave it on User talk:Geo Swan?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Benutzer Roland von Bagratuni

Hallo Polarlys, mir ist gerade aufgefallen, dass Du die Benutzerseite von "Roland von Bagratuni" mit der Begründung "scope" gelöscht hattest, siehe User:Roland von Bagratuni - mit der gleichen Begründung könnte man vermutlich auch die Unterseite User:Roland von Bagratuni/picts und zahlreiche der seltsamen Dokumente löschen, die offenbar irgendwas in Bezug auf die Person "Roland von Bagratuni" beweisen sollen (keine Ahnung WAS genau). Bei Gelegenheit werde ich die Dateien mal mit einem regulären Löschantrag versehen, allerdings muss man wohl erst noch einen polnischsprachigen Nutzer fragen. Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ja, könnte man löschen. Das Projekt war für den Nutzer immer nur Plattform exzessiver Selbstdarstellung. --Polarlys (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PEGI content tags

I opened an undeletion request for them. may be you want to voice yourself. Cheers. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:MultiMorphing Demo MedalComposer.ogg

Bonjour Polarlys, J'écris en langue française sachant que vous la comprenez. Les oeuvres musicales générées grâce au procédé breveté "Medalmusic system" sont Libres de Droits d'auteur. Elles ont été entièrement créées par un Robot-Compositeur (mélodie + Orchestration) . Vous pouvez le vérifier sur :,,

Les fichiers audio ne doivent pas être enlevés de Commons car ils sont en lien sur l'article de l'inventeur du robot (Rene-Louis Baron) :

Je vous prie de bien vouloir annuler votre intervention et vous en remercie d'avance. Si j'ai mal rédigé cette particularité lors de la mise en ligne du fichier audio, faites le moi savoir s'il vous plait. Cordialement. --JCAILLAT (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the file in its current state, please make sure that this file can be used for commercial purposes as well. Sorry for answering in English, I am able to understand your French text but I haven't written anything in French for years now :-) Merry Christmas, --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Polarlys ! I've send a message to RLBaron (author of the software and inventor of MedalComposer) and he have send the permission to "". Thank you for your help and I hope you, a very good year 2010. (My english is bader than never... Shame !!!!). Cordialy. --JCAILLAT (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Bonne Année ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Adventskalender 1.jpg

Hello Polarlys, I've converted your speedy into a deletion request for further discussion. Thanks, –blurpeace (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. All in all it is a clear case for speedy deletion, but when people insist on discussion … ;) --Polarlys (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Kumata ikuwa kouen 1.JPGに関しまして

Joker in the dark knightです。ライセンスに関して、企業ロゴ等誤った理解でアップデートしたものがございました。しかし、File:Kumata ikuwa kouen 1.JPGに関しましては、私自身が私自身のデジタルカメラを使用し、撮影したものでございます。適正にライセンスを付加致しますので、宜しく、お願い致します。--Joker in the dark knight (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Kitatanabe 1choume.JPGに関しまして

Joker in the dark knightです。ライセンスに関して、企業ロゴ等誤った理解でアップデートしたものがございました。しかし、File:Kitatanabe 1choume.JPGに関しましては、私自身が私自身のデジタルカメラを使用し、撮影したものでしたので、適正にライセンスを付加し、再度、アップデートをさせて頂きたく、宜しく、お願い致します。--Joker in the dark knight (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

? I can’t understand you, I am sorry. --Polarlys (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
言語(Language)の問題になるでしょうか?--Joker in the dark knight (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I don’t speak your language, I am sorry. --Polarlys (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


What do you mean by this? You are refusing to speedy delete; I am refusing to speedy delete; but we have to keep a speedy deletion tag on the page? I don't understand. Wknight94 talk 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One of us should open a regular request for deletion :-) --Polarlys (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I would if I had an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. I just recognize that a speedy deletion would be quite inappropriate. I see you have already nominated for regular deletion so good luck. Wknight94 talk 21:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple scan

Hello, What do you mean by this and this? How do you know it is a "simple scan"? I tagged both pictures as copyvios because of the © symbol on them. Thanks in advance. -- 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! When you put something that has been created some hundred years and is in the public domain on a scanner, with no creativity involved, a mere technical reproduction you create nothing that is copyrighted by you. See btw. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not a "copyfraud" if that's what you want to think about me. I just noticed the copyright claim on the picture which seemed to me like an obvious copyvio. Maybe I was wrong. I still don't understand what the copyright symbols in the images are for. Cheers, -- 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Still waiting to an answer from you. Isn't the © in the image a clear violation of copyright? I'm a little clueless about those matters, sorry. -- 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Most people use these signs without even thinking about it. Here in Germany for example, a © is not needed anywhere since anything which can be copyrighted is automatically copyrighted. Anyway, there is an excessive use of the sign. In our special case, please see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (BTW: I use my free days for some relaxed work at home – Don’t run out of patience if I need some time to answer!) ;-)

my own work

I wonder why you deleted my own work File:Space Image by vikram.jpg. I'm am artist. I am the creator of this work and you deleted this on copyright basis. I have no problem in making this public then why you deleted it not even asked about it. can you please un-delete it. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Other copyvios uploaded by you speak a different language. --Polarlys (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Savannah Outen

Hallo Polarlys,
kannst du die Bilder von Savannah Outen, die du erst vor kurzen gelöscht hast, wiederherstellen? Ich habe die Freigabeerklärung inzwischen weitergeleitet. Grüße --Brackenheim (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Erledige ich gleich. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Danke! --Brackenheim (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning freedom of panorama and speedy deletions

I noticed that you use speedy deletions for photos that does not meet the freedom of panorams in the source country rule. Could you please join this discussion?--Fastboy (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Polarlys (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

MultiMorphing Demo MedalComposer.ogg


The author have given the permission to Wikimedia. It' now a file under licence "Creative Commons". I have reintegrated the file on the page of René-Louis Baron (fr.wikipedia).

Thank you for your work and Good year 2010. --JCAILLAT (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the same to you. --Polarlys (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:My photo of Abbott.jpg

Thanks for actioning this speedy deletion request. FYI, I've blocked the editor who uploaded it and then added it to several articles on the English Wikipedia (see:, and you may wish to do the same as they have a history of copyright violations. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I already did so shortly after deleting the image :-) --Polarlys (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cabeçalho Blog PT

Can you explain me why this file is copyright infraction? I made the picture, so the "rights" are mine!!! Cdmafra falem 15h02 UTC de 03 de Janeiro de 2010

Please provide the file name, I will have a look. --Polarlys (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Polarlys, I wish You a happy 2010! Könntest Du bitte von o.g. Datei die älteren Versionen löschen? Gruß --Hedwig Storch (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

erledigt. Dir alles Gute 2010! :) --Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank You very much. Greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I can get permission from the copyright owners to use the Eccentric Club logo here. If I can get this would you please restore it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please see Commons:Permission for details and handle it via our OTRS team. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. On reflection I think it would be better for me to produce a free use rationale to use a low res version of the logo here. The club would not want to lose its rights to the logo. Can you advise me on how to do this please? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, under no circumstances. Please upload the logo to with a proper fair use rationale. Thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Photographs Delete

Why have the photographs been deleted from the page: They did not infringe any copyrights and I was the owner of the pictures.-- 08:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC) sainik1

Even most of them could may be published under a free licence J3HaaD fR33z3 with his infamous 0-15 score in F1B3R (former J3HaaD) vs FM.jpg is a screenshot of (I guess) Counter Strike (or CS Source or something the like)
All other images are not within Commons' project scope. Commons is not a host for Images which contain material like my last party, me 'n' my friends, etc. If you want to upload such images somewhere you can use Flickr for example.
Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and articles about "amateur gaming organization[s]" does not fall into their project scope
--D-Kuru (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mount Everest 1980 - Wielicki Cichy.jpg

Polarlys, FYI I undeleted one of your fast deletions and nominated it for regular DR. --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I already answered you there. Don’t get me wrong, but maybe this case of a living photographer who tries to enforce his copyright claims could bring some real legal clarification (no matter in which way) regarding our practice on Commons. --Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


You deleted the above-named image as a copyright violation. The photo, however, was credited to NOAA and tagged as public domain. Is there something about the origin of the photo that I was unaware of that made it a copyvio? —Werewombat (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleared up. See User talk:Werewombat#Blobfish2.jpg and User talk:Asclepias#Blobfish2.jpg. —Werewombat (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


hi.. were you aware of ?--0g1o2i3k4e5n6 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I restored the file with a missing permission template. Thank you for the hint. --Polarlys (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos about Khojaly

Good day. You have delete some files about Khojaly massacre (File:Xojali agdam1.jpg) as a copyright violation. This is not so. Author of these photos Ilqar Ceferov (User:Ilqar2010) uploaded them himself. So can you return them? Ilqar Ceferov has these photos with high resolution (ca 100 MGb). And how can he prove that he is an author?

I also know author personaly. He can prove that he is an author. Must he upload these photos on high resolution? --Interfase (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Another user found these images on the web, but I restored them. Please add sufficient description and statement on authorship (with the full name). Additionally a permission could be send to Commons:OTRS. Thank you and sorry for the circumstances. --Polarlys (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! If I may, I think permissions should be sent to OTRS: these images are on several websites with copyright. It should be settled. Sardur (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Danke, Polarlys. I will talk with Ilgar Ceferov tommorow or an a few days (cause he is a journalist and has not so much time) and say him to sent to OTRS a letter that he is author. You can also contact with him yourself. Here is his He had files with a very high resolution (these files with that resolution you cannot find anywhere). I will say him to send these files also to OTRS (if needed). --Interfase (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put {{npd}} for waiting the OTRS ticket. Otourly (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. OTRS is always a good way to secure files on our servers forever. Experience teaches us that most photographies of such contemporary events are stolen news photographies. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you know some OTRS volunteers. I want contact with them and ask some questions about Ilgar Ceferov's photos? What must Ilgar Ceferov do, what must he write and etc? That I can help him to send a request to OTRS. --Interfase (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check Category:Commons_OTRS_volunteers and Commons:Email_templates. I think all the OTRS volunteers do a good job, so simply look for one who speaks your favorite language ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Polarlys. I already add OTRS-pending templates in these files. So Ilqar Ceferov will send these links for volunteers. Danke, noch mal. --Interfase (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Gern geschehen/You are welcome. --Polarlys (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smyrne Group of Gypsy.jpg

Incomprehensible decision, I have requested undeletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazi comic

Of course I know there is no vote, so I didn't mobilize for a vote. Thanks for the fair-play ! Morburre (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This started several days ago and just a few people participated. Within the last twelve hours almost a dozen users from raised there voices, a lot of them in a “voting manner”. This happens always when people on local projects are encouraged to raise their opinion (of course in a special way). I don’t know how this happend in details but obviously something happened. Morburre, I am not your personal enemy, we just share different opinions on our project guidelines. We can discuss this and drink a beer afterwards. Could we settle this please? --Polarlys (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The something is here : [7]
I don't believe we have different opinions. And drinking a beer is the best thing to do. Morburre (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. Unfortunately you always have to read stuff like that: Et ce type est admin sur Commons!. As an admin, I am also an average user. I open requests for deletion and most of them are closed with the result delete and nobody cares. There were also some request in the past where users strongly disagreed with my point of view. This is okay, but it does not disqualify me from doing admin work like User:PatríciaR/category_tracker. Why do users always confuse that? --Polarlys (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Long

Hi. I restored File:Speedy Long poster MVI 2720.jpg, as I think this one is OK. Note that the poster must be no later than 1970 per en:Speedy Long, so it should qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}} thus the derivative photo violates no copyright. I have added this info to the image description. If you think I'm mistaken or I've missed some relevent fact, please let me know or list the image for deletion discussion. Thanks for your work. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe you could have a look at other uploads by this user (see his talk page), there are a lot of statues in the US and similar derivative works from museums. Cheers, --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File Deletion

You have deleted my file File:Natalia Vladimirovna Komarova.jpg It's says on the page where did I get it: "При полном или частичном использовании материалов гиперссылка на "Красный Север" обязательна". Translation: "If you use these materials fully or by parts hyperlink to Krasny Sever is obligatory". So I used licence which says "Use it with same rights. Why did you deleted my file without notice?--WWay (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Another user tagged the file as a copyright violation because he found it on I am sorry, but the text above can't be translated in a cc-by-3.0 license. Please follow the scheme on Commons:OTRS if you want to upload a file without any explicit licensing. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A mon niveau

Je n'arrive pas à comprendre le cas du dessin Kgerstein.
Je suis triste quand vous l'effacez.
J'ai besoin de plus d'appartenance communautaire pour collaborer au projet Wikipédia.
Je veux que vous me compreniez.
--Legraindeblé (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Polarlys, thanks for deleting the Oradea images by User:King-danny: So far I was only able to verify a part of the images, but I'm pretty sure they would all have ended up as copyvio cases. Fransvannes (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

They came from different websites as you showed before. Don’t waste your time looking for the source of his 100th copyvio. Thank you for your work. --Polarlys (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Bono tranvía.jpg

Hello. I have seen that you have eliminated this picture some months ago: File:Bono tranvía.jpg. Why did you do it? In other Wikipedia's articles, there are some tickets of tramways, trains,undergrounds and buses. Thank you. If you can, please, upload it again. --JonyTF (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture was a copyriht violation, the uploader had not the right to upload this file under a free license to Wikimedia Commons. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with you. But, for example, why these pictures were accepted:

Image:London-underground-travelcard.jpg, Image:Oyster front.svg, Image:Freedom Pass.jpg, Imagen:Billetetranviaparla.JPG, etc... --JonyTF (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As an explation:

  1. There are a lot of copyright violations on Commons. But they don’t legitimate more copyright violations.
  2. Not every ticket can be protected by copyright. If you got a plain piece of white paper with a number printed on it, there is no creativity involved. --Polarlys (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand you. Don't worry, I will try to not do more "copyright violations". Sorry. --JonyTF (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File: Motera_Stadium_Aerial_View.jpg


If you don't mind then could you please let me know what made you think there was a copyright violation for the file Motera_Stadium_Aerial_View.jpg. I found this image on one of the forum and if i remember correctly there was no mention of copyright there. If you have tracked down the source then please let me know.


What about your other images, where did you find them? Please name the photos you created entirely by yourself. --Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are created entirely by myself.. and, as far as my knowledge goes, none of them violates any copyrights. Let me know if you find any one of them problematic.. will provide details for that file..

Every picture created by someone is protected by copyright. Every image you took from the web is protected by copyright. So please name them. --Polarlys (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Battle of Duck Lake.jpg

Hello. Thanks for helping track down the source of this image. Unfortunately, this image could not possibly have been published in the Canadian Illustrated News, because that publication ceased publishing two years before the battle even occurred. Could you please point me to the source that you found that indicated that this is a LAC image? All I was able to find was this, which turns out to be a different work. I just want to make sure that the image is properly credited and referenced. Thanks! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I knew the image from a book I read in my younger years (can't tell you details since I am not at home, it is a book on Canadian history, published by Time Warner, maybe 20 years ago). It was sourced as an image kept in the Library and Archives Canada and when looking for "Library and Archives Canada" and "battle duck lake" I found where a colored version is shown. There it is sourced as an image from the Canadian Illustated News. A little complicated, I know ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah. So it appears that the cite at is incorrect. The LAC website has references (although no graphics) to artistic renderings of the battle published in 1885 in a publication called "The Canadian Pictorial & Illustrated War News". At some point, the publication name might have gotten mixed up with the much better known Canadian Illustrated News. None of this is for certain, but it's enough not to delete the image. I will edit the image description to provide these details. Thanks for your kind help. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thanks for changing the file’s description in a sophisticated manner and thanks for The Games ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Hallo, Du hast das Bild "BisericaBistra.jpg" gelöscht, anscheinend weil ich zu dem Bild ein link auf hinzugefügt habe. Bitte beachte, dass das link zu dem commons-Bild führte. Sprich, ich fand das Bild auf commons und wollte, dass es auch andere sehen. Wahrscheinlich hast Du gedacht, das Bild wäre vom kopiert, was nicht stimmt. Nun ist das Bild weder auf commons, noch im forum-catolic zu sehen, da Du es gelöscht hast. Es wäre gut, wenn Du die Löschung rückgängig machen würdest. Vielen Dank! --Mihai Andrei (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Der Uploader hatte all seine Bilder irgendwoher kopiert (geklaut), ich lasse es also gelöscht. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Wenn Du Dir sicher bist, ok. Hat mich nur gewundert, dass Du bei der Beschreibung der Löschung "" geschrieben hast, so als ob das Bild von dort kopiert worden wäre. Die besagte Seite enthält lediglich ein link zum Bild und das Bild selber stammt nicht von dort, also zwischen der Löschung und dem Forum besteht kein Zusammenhang (obwohl von Dir so angegeben). Schöne Grüße, --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Wenn ich mit Google Images etc. nach Bildern suche und finde diese in einem Forum dargestellt, so ist das i.d.R. ein aus diesem Forum geklautes Bild. Ich kann nicht noch jedes Mal gucken, wie es eingebunden ist. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything here

Please make a DR for File:World map of lactose intolerance.png which is, to my opinion, a derivative work of all works which includes any view of our planet. You are right we should ask for deletion of all images who include any pixel of any image which have ever been published. I agree with you, copyright must be extended to every pixel.

--One who is not a fr.wp contributor (I can prove it)

Your polemics bore me. Time to calm down. --Polarlys (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Polarlys.

You probably already do that, but, as I can't see deleted files - in case you don't - please make sure that only:

  • identical files (listed as such on the file description page)
  • or scaled down versions of the same file (not of the same painting)

are deleted as duplicates. All others would have to be listed at Deletion Requests first, not speedy deleted. {{duplicate}} does not apply to those.

BTW, if you delete files, it's up to you to make sure that the information is preserved. -- User:Docu at 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think users should share the work. One transfers all the information, one checks it and deletes the file. From my point of view, "duplicate" deals also with identical file information. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To enable me to comment on this, would you undelete the following for review ?

  1. 18:14, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diego Velázquez 027b.jpg" ‎ (File:Retrato_de_la_infanta_Margarita_(3),_by_Diego_Velázquez.jpg)
  2. 18:13, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Philipp IV.jpg" ‎ (File:Retrato_de_Felipe_IV_en_armadura,_by_Diego_Velázquez.jpg)
  3. 18:12, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diego Velasquez, The Count-Duke of Olivares on Horseback.jpg" ‎ (File:Retrato_ecuestre_del_conde-duque_de_Olivares,_by_Diego_Velázquez.jpg)
  4. 18:08, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diego Velasquez, Philip IV in Brown and Silver.jpg" ‎ (File:Felipe_IV_de_castaño_y_plata,_by_Diego_Velázquez.jpg)
  5. 18:04, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Coat of Arms of Pavlodar.gif" ‎ (duplicate)
  6. 18:03, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Button star.png" ‎ (duplicate)
  7. 18:03, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Baltasarcarlosspain.jpg" ‎ (File:Príncipe_Baltasar_Carlos,_by_Diego_Velázquez.jpg)
  8. 18:03, 2010 March 2 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Albrecht Dürer zelfportret 1503.jpg" ‎ (File:Nude_self-portrait_by_Albrecht_Dürer.jpg)

Thanks. -- User:Docu at 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored the paintings. --Polarlys (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The tags on the files are somewhat confusing, but I don't think they were meant to be deleted. I suppose they somehow got into to the wrong work list. BTW, can you list the duplicate files for the remaining two? For one, I could find only a png, no gif? You might want to double check some of your speedy deletions. -- User:Docu at 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure are they meant to be deleted, what else is Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker for? Regarding the two remaining files: I won’t waste my time with them, one is a ugly unused star symbol and the coat of arms is an incorrectly drawn file, unused as well. I don’t want to double check any of my deletions since I spend my spare time working on our backlog (User:PatríciaR/category_tracker) and -- User:Docu at 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC) after 30.000 deletions and several years of working here I know that my error ratio is very low and that some files like the two files mentioned above aren’t worth double checking. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The bot adds it there after doing the replacement. One just needs to remove the tag added by the bot, nothing else. According to the "Superseded images policy", such files aren't supposed to be deleted. -- User:Docu at 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Can you tell me why did you delete it? It is a clear simple text logo. It's has only a simple black font, one green circle, and a grey piece of circle.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So it’s more than a pure textlogo. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
PD-text und PD-shape.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right, PD-textlogo is enough. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Polarlys (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Danke.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

by the way

Auf Deine Anregung hin mache ich jetzt ab und an wieder Speedy-Deletions. Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ich werde sie abarbeiten, wenn ich da bin. Eine gute Begründung sollte ausreichen, da wird sich auch keiner der Admins sperren. Danke und Gruß, --Polarlys (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:RichlandWaPNNL 1 enwiki-r306255690.jpg

Thank you for deleting the file. Hopefully I will not be making that mistake again. – Allen4names (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Warum wurde MEIN EIGENES Bild gelöscht?


Ich verstehe diesen Nonsens nicht. Das Foto "Totoro meeting", das ursprünglich unter "Mein Nachbar Totoro" eingestellt war, wurde von mir selbst in meinem eigenen Haus fotografiert und zeigt meine eigenen Totoro-Plüschtiere. Natürlich habe ich eine free license vergeben - ist ja auch mein eigenes Werk!

Wieso wurde das Bild auf Wikimedia Commons und in Folge auch auf Wikipedia gelöscht? Bitte um Erklärung, danke. --Chu-Totoro (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! Mal bitte ganz ruhig, niemand hat in Frage gestellt, dass es dein Photo war und dass du eine korrekte Lizenz für dein Photo vergeben hast. Der Haken ist folgender: Das dargestellte ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Dabei spielt es keine Rolle ob du im Museum die Skulptur eines modernen Künstlers photographierst (auch dein Photo) oder eben derartige Kuscheltiere, Pokemon-Figuren, Überraschungseierfiguren. Das ganze wird unter Commons:Derivative works dargestellt. Beachte insbesondere diese Grafik: File:Derivative Works Decision Tree.svg. Eine kurze Übersicht zu Bildrechten findest du auch auf diesem Merkblatt. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, jetzt ist alles klar. Vielen Dank für deine schnelle und nette Aufklärung! Grüße von --Chu-Totoro (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Gern geschehen. --Polarlys (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Going overboard with the deletionism

Normally I don't mind seeing an administrator has closed a DR as "Deleted", but when I notice that administrator has closed 47 DRs today and closed all of them as "Deleted", and has closed hundreds of DRs...every one of them with the identical decision...I start to question whether that administrator is any better a choice to be handling DRs than a hypothetical one who closed everything as "Kept". Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When looking at these requests you will see a large number of entries that are about COM:SCOPE and are opened up by only a handful of users. I closed several hundred of these requests over the last days. "Deleted" is added by a script. I usually add a comment when I have to explain my decision, but in most cases (copyvio, COM:SCOPE, duplicate, …) this is not necessary. My goal is to work on our backlog. I focus on deleting old and/or obvious cases at the moment and this goes very fast. --Polarlys (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello. It seems you have forgotten to delete this file. Thank you for your help. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) --Polarlys (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

wrong delete

in Juan Carlos Chirinos' article you delete the photo: it's a public photo. How I know it? Because the web paeg of the authot authorized the use of it. If you don't speak spanich, don't delete items in spanish articles, please.

There was nothing wrong about deleting this image: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JuanChirinos.jpg --Polarlys (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything is wrong: it's my photo, and put in my article: so, please, don't delet it any more. It's my photo and I decide to put it in copyleft form. Why you delete it? read permission status; if you don't speak spanish, ask anyone. Thanks.
@Juance, try to get a written permission from the author. For a permission template see Commons:Modelos de mensajes. --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sufficient information on your uploads, we cannot read between the lines. --Polarlys (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nur so...

[8]. Mal schaun' was der Effekt ist. Lupo 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, wir können es nur ausprobieren. Quantitativ bieten sich wohl auch es und pt an ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Natürlich, da diese Projekte keine lokales Hochladen erlauben. Aber erst 'mal abwarten, ob das überhaupt etwas bringt. Lupo 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently deleted File:Canadian Governor-General Michelle Jean accepts US Ambassador's credentials.jpg

Before I uploaded that image I wrote to "US Missions Canada" -- the flickr-id that uploaded it asking them why they were marking their images as all rights reserved, when it was my understanding that all images taken by employees of a US Federal agency, in performance of their job, were automatically in the public domain.

On March 1st I received the following flickr-mail:

From: US Mission Canada
Subject: Re: U.S. Embassy Ottawa Image licences
Thank you for your comments regarding our photo licences. Our Flickr settings are in the process of being updated accordingly (
Thanks again,
U.S. Embassy Ottawa

The did change their liscense terms -- from "all rights reserved" to a CC liscense that falls short of what flickrreview recognizes as a free liscense.

I participated in Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr. I contacted the flickr user in question, and advised them of the deletion discussion. They showed up, and established that they were a good faith uploader. They were advised that since flickr didn't have a button to mark material as public domain it was better, when uploading to flickr material one knew was public domain to mark it as "all right reserved", rather than putting a creative commons liscense on it, that implied the uploader was the creator. They were advised that contributors here could and would use their own judgment as to whether an image really was in the public domain.

I thought, from their tone, the person giving this advice was an administrator.

After uploading this image, and a bout a dozen others, I checked. User:Hekerui is not an administrator.

Nevertheless I believe this is a free image, and should be restored.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are most certainly right and I restored the image. To get some other opionions on the current licensing I opened up a request for deletion. Don’t take this as an offensive act, it is just to determine if the current licensing fits. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I just sent a reply to their flickrmail. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note.
I am a volunteer at the wikimedia commons, a sibling project to the wikipedia. We are strict about only using images that are properly liscensed. The creative commons liscense you currently use can still be a problem for wikimedia commons contributors who want to re-use your images. I uploaded an image of Ambassador Jacobson presenting his credentials to the Governor General. Another volunteer checked your original flick image, and saw that the liscense said you still retained some rights that made it unavailable for use here.
Could you please have a press officer, or someone else with the right authorization, send an email to that says something like: "unless explicitly credited otherwise all the images the flickr-id US Missions Canada has uploaded to the website flickr are in the public domain".
It is possible the images of the GG meeting with the Ambassador were courtesy photos. I didn't see them marked as courtesy photos. If they were taken by the GG's official photographers, not by embassy staff, they aren't free to use. If you do ever republish photos not taken by US Federal employees, that were given to you, as a courtesy, could you explicitly mark them as "courtesy Joe Blow", or reasonable equivalent?
A deletion discussion works for me. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar of reliable deletionism.png The Deletionist Barnstar
Thanks for closing so many deletion requests and keeping this place clean with your awesome deletion skills. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Haha, thank you. This is my first “barnstar” after working on Commons for five years and 31.000 deletions. Thank you for recognizing all these closed requests over the last days as something positive on the way to create a free media repository. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
And I second this barnstar; I noticed your amazing work on the DRs too, and meant to congratulate you. It's a hard and ungrateful job, and you did it anyway. Thank you very, very much! –Tryphon 01:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+1 Rauenstein (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Casas solariegas de Trujillo

User:Lancastermerrin88 seemed to have uploaded the entire category Category:Casas solariegas de Trujillo. How would one check to make sure the photos are really his? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They are from his camera :-) --Polarlys (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Tja... Lupo 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hab ihn angeschrieben. --Polarlys (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Festival Rock Zaidín

Why so many photo files deleted? Cartel_Festival_Zaidín_Rock????.png. For example: Cartel_Festival_Zaidín_Rock2009.png They are original. No copyright. KronT

No permission by copyright owner/author. Yes, they are copyrighted. --Polarlys (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Image restore, pls

Hi, you cancelled the file File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG arguing it was a copyright violation. Maybe you thought it was a picture of a sculpture, but, guess what? It is a picture of a bookshelf, instead. Commons accepts pictures of design objects, no matter if the designer is dead or alive, we already discussed it many times here, here, here... next time please be sure to start a normal deletion request before cancelling design images. Thanks --Sailko (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't restore it per Commons:Derivative works. I won't follow some requests for deletion that were closed in a different way, since they have no impact on our guidelines. --Polarlys (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Which guideline says that Commons does not accept Design pictures?? I can't understand why some pictures are allowed and some not, I'm very confused. Look at categories like Furniture by designer. Are those not derivative works?? Thanks. PS: put a notice on my discussion page. --Sailko (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) --Polarlys (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I chechek my picture again and it doesn't look like it has any "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". It has just shelves, with pois pattern, no scultorial part.. If don't want to restore the image can you tell where should I ask for that? Thanks --Sailko (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. --Polarlys (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Against nature?" picture


Sorry to come here and ask you, but I'm not sure how to go about this. The file File:Against nature.jpg has been marked for deletion, citing lack of confirmation of permission. My problem is that the photographer of the Natural History Museum, Oslo is an elderly gentleman who do not know how to use e-mail. Can the head of my department (Exhibitions and Public Relations, NHM) grant permission to use his images, as they have been taken as part of his work here? There are several other images I would like to upload that share the same problem, an answer from your would be a lot of help. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is okay. Please have a look at Commons:OTRS for details. You will get a ticket number if the licensing is okay and advice how to source further uploads with this ticket number. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed

I've uploaded some images [9] - but forgot to add permission to it - how to do it without sending e-mail one by one? Also I got an e-mail permission from company which equipment I've used (as photo-finish operator) at events. -

You have our permission to use all the images in your article. Please indicate all permissions with the following: “Lynx System Developers, Inc.”

How can it be done in most simple way (without messing with e-mails etc.).Thank you--Mag lnx (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:OTRS is the most simple and reliable way. You have our permission to use all the images in your article. Please indicate all permissions with the following: “Lynx System Developers, Inc.” is no permission at all. To limit the usage only to our articles isn't enough. --Polarlys (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - Ok - images were placed here [10] - "Images for wikipedia" - does it's a permission?Mag lnx (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No. Please read Commons:OTRS. When you want to distribute these files under a free license, „for wikipedia“ is not enough. --Polarlys (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) --Polarlys (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've read it - it's too complex - so I'm not confident. I don't want to distribute these files I simply would like to depict the text/event which known for me but not for everyone- and I've indicate my and manufacturer of my equipment permission to use files for mentioned propose. Could you advice my other way (other type of license) to provide own pictures without sending private information (real name etc) – I simply don’t trust to anyone in this regards. Thank you again.--Mag lnx (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What is too complex? All you have to do is to take the permission template, add your information and send it via mail to Or simply contact this mail address and the OTRS volunteer will help you. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AlRamtha city.jpg

why did you delete the file AlRamtha city.jpg?

No trusthworty source. --Polarlys (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

French Copyright laws

Hey, I'm a little confused with this French copyright law regarding the "freedom of Panorama". Could you perhaps explain to me what this means?. I'm mainly concerned with pictures regarding Disneyland Paris. There definatley needs to be some pictures of the park to display on the relevent Wikipedia articles... Could we upload a picture to Wikipedia itself but use a Fair Useage policy? Cheers, Glenny127 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Please see and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France for details. We can't host these files here on commons, I don't know the rules of I am sorry, but the need to display certain images doesn't overrule our principle to collect free content only. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Polarlys,
wenn du nichts dagegen hast, würde ich File:Bystronic ByVention.jpg gern wieder herstellen, weil die von Wizard191 postulierte[11] copyvio eher nicht besteht. Wie hier glaubwürdig gezeigt wird, dürfte der Uploader von der betreffenden Firma sein. Er hat ja auch in seinen Uploads diese Zusatz-Signatur "--Bystronic Corporate Communications 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)" hinterlassen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jetzt sehe ich es auch. Hab es wieder hergestellt. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A mistake

File:Melnica-20151.png was deleted by a mistake, while there's a discussion about the file. Its author clearly stated in several articles that he had no copyright for the photo, that the photo was prepared by the request and order of a museum, that the photo was made in the expedition organized by a museum under the guidance of the museum's director. Could you please recover the file, as soon as the discussion is not finished yet? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't restored the file.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the file for the explanation. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

2 weeks have passed since you deleted the file by mistake. If you cannot restore it please tell me what to do.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have not been online for some days. I won’t restore the file since I disagree with your rationale. --Polarlys (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What's the reason, please?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The author died in 1976. --Polarlys (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The author clearly states that he had no copyright, all the rights were reserved by Pereslavl museum. Here is the quote: «I transferred the negative photos and positive printings to Mikhail Ivanovich Smirnov for the museum, by his, so called, request. I performed his order. I specified that I can leave the copies of those printings for myself, hoping to make some sketches so to produce my painting». Thus we see the author acted by the order being a fellow worker of the museum's expedition under the guidance and order of the museum's director.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Where and when did the author this statement? Is there any "work for hire" concept in Russia? --Polarlys (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Several newspaper articles, radio broadcast (published in 1964—1973).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, okay. I am sorry, but did he do so for the further use on Wikimedia Commons? --Polarlys (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Cannot catch the idea, sorry.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I can’t imagine a photographer who talked extensively (in the USSR and 40 years ago) about the copyright status of his works, in a way that could entitle us to use them here althought he is no dead for 70 years now. Please contact Commons:Undeletion request, I won’t restore these images. --Polarlys (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
But he did, because he was proud to proclaim his success in performing the order of the museum's administration and creating the requested photos — photos of the place connected with Vladimir Lenin. That is the reason why he told about these details.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Bystronic ByVention.jpg

Why did you delete the copyvio template from this image? Please, at least give an edit summary. Wizard191 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the file and restored it after the hint above. The uploader belongs to the company. --Polarlys (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't read German, but how do you know he belongs to the company. It's an assumption. I thought policy was that if the image was published under copyright prior to upload to commons that an OTRS must be filed for each file. There are no OTRS notices on any of them. Wizard191 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
He is the webmaster of his company’s website. I’d prefer an OTRS ticket for all his uploads as well. --Polarlys (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So how do I go about asking for OTRS's for all the files? Wait a sec...the webmaster doesn't have rights to release what's on the website, only the owner of the pictures does, which is the photographer. I highly doubt the webmaster and the photographer are the same. Wizard191 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he is no entitled to upload these images here under a free license, but if the company has someone who is paid to create such content or does so within his employment they can do whatever they want. --Polarlys (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ultraschall munich02 29.06.2002.jpg

Dear Admin Polarlys,

Just to note that you forgot to delete this image too. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


I noticed you deleted two of my deletion nominations, thanks; and it is also nice to meet another wiki Commons editor who speaks both English and German! May I ask for your asistance in deletion nomnations in the future? That is, when I nominate something and it has passed through revision by others and they agree may I notify you and have you delete them? One of my missions on the Commons is to help clean it up by getting rid of duplicates and other nonsense. Maps & Lucy (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I currently try to clean our backlogs a little. Often, I am not on Wikimedia Commons for weeks. As long as your requests are justified, these images will be deleted sooner or later. I don’t want to make other users think that I act on the behalf of somebody, but feel free to ask administrators here if they want to look on your request. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

moved from File:Semcul.jpg

I am a member of this association, and I have permission to put these photos online, to be available on the following page wikipedédia: [12] I ask for your reconsideration regarding the elimination of those images. Can you undelete those images? My presence in the association can be found in following link: [13](My name is Agostinho Sousa) Thanks,--Agostinho.Sousa (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please send in a written permission (Commons:OTRS). Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I've got to say that I got really puzzled seeing you've deleted a file to which I personally have added an OTRS ticket number. The copyright owner of this file has clearly stated that "The Dartmouth agrees to release it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license." Is there any possibility you might restore it back? Thank you. odder (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Something went wrong here. I am sorry! --Polarlys (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why delete a free photo?

Why did you close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 156.jpg as delete? This was a free photo. The other photos are copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The other photos were of significant lower quality and we have PD-art. --Polarlys (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 156.jpg. --Polarlys (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


carulmare (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Why did you delete this picture... without even trying to answer my questions? Don't you think that pictures that try to communicate feelings are important... useful?

Hi! Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope, please see COM:SCOPE. There is just no need to upload digitally altered versions of classic artworks. Maybe you should use for such images. --Polarlys (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, and the suggestion.
But I'm not sure I understand. I have read 'the scope', but really haven't found any mention of digitally altered classic art. Are you sure there is a general agreement on this?
I have also found many similar pictures in Wikimedia Commons, even categories, for example[this one].
If this is a general agreement, I would really like to know the principles behind it, and perhaps be given the opportunity to discuss them. --carulmare (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)--
There is absolutely no educational purpose. --Polarlys (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... what is the educational purpose of the original painting? What is the educational purpose of any painting??
Most paintings are not educational, in the usual meaning of the word. They don't communicate factual knowledge, but they do reach out to you. They tell you about life, about feelings... they invite you to have a conversation. --carulmare (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Our goal is to show free artworks of notable artists to those who are interested and within encyclopedic context. --Polarlys (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notify uploaders of DRs

When you nominate images for deletion, you must nominate notify the uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. --Polarlys (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Or notify the uploader, which ever works for you. Rocket000 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Wasn’t there a bot some time ago for adding these templates to user talk pages? --Polarlys (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Would be good to have, because too often this is not done. For example when the deletion script won't run properly because of pop-up blockers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, that’s why. Thank you for the hint. --Polarlys (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Carrete de pesca.png

why its delete File:Carrete_de_pesca.png--Silvestre (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carrete_de_pesca.png. --Polarlys (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Joanna DArc sztandar.jpg

Hi. I have uploaded File:Joanna DArc sztandar.jpg. You wrote that : “This file is missing evidence of permission”. This painting is from XIV century so its unquestionable that author died and that its copyright has expired. I am asking you to delete your information. Princess Angel (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It’s acutally the photo of flag, something more or less three-dimensional. --Polarlys (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ossetian mosaic

you deleted file File:Ossetian mosaic.jpg. can you specify the reason of the deletion.--Bouron (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I deleted it after a request for speedy deletion. A user noted, that the last image was taken from a website without their consent. I checked it again and the licensing - at least of this photo - seems okay. They most likely have taken it from Wikipedia. But what about image number 2 (no source provided) and number 3 (who is the author)?. Collages are always problematic … --Polarlys (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the image! so as i understood i should provide source for 2nd and 3rd images to save the mosaic? --Bouron (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
i think it is ok with 2nd image. that is public domain image.--Bouron (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Provide a source. A good one. No public domain without a source. --Polarlys (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
file was created by uploader. i will translate the file info to english. uploader is famous tv-reporter registered in wikipedia. --Bouron (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Soviet caucasus1922.png

can you take a look to File:Soviet caucasus1922.png. I see no reason to delete this map.--Bouron (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on the history of this territory, so I won’t raise my voice here. All I know from my Wikipedia experience is that dealing with hardliners regarding the whole Caucasus is extremely difficult. It always makes me shake my head to see how people are that hostile. --Polarlys (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

source for public domain images

can you explain what kind of source do you want? for example you photographed famous person and you are going to upload it to wikipedia. what source would you provide in that case?--Bouron (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would explicitly state that this work was created by myself and upload it in a format that looks that way. If there was something potential disputable (close-up and professional image of an actor for example) I would additional provide a written permission (COM:OTRS). --Polarlys (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have done the same. here is the summary

G. Tokaty

Date february 2001
Source Own work
Author Timur Kusov
what should i add to solve the source problem?
i give you some examples of images that were put into mosaics of some nations.
File:Damon Albarn mg 6661.jpg
File:David Beckham Nov 11 2007.jpg
File:Merab-kostava.jpg why these images don't require source?--Bouron (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, nothing is clear: The image is own work by Timur Kusov. It was uploaded by someone named Bouron. Is there any permission by the real author? --Polarlys (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

uploader is ru:user:Alaniatv(ru:Кусов, Тимур Владимирович). I just transferred the image from ruwiki to commons.--Bouron (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you still have doubt?--Bouron (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but you have to source the image (link to russian wikipedia). --Polarlys (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
done. now if i find alternate for 3rd image from mosaic will you delete the template of source missing?--Bouron (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


The flickr-id US Missions Canada changed its liscense, again, on File:Canadian Governor-General Michelle Jean accepts US Ambassador's credentials.jpg. It is now a liscense compliant with the commons rules, {{flickrreview}} has confirmed this.

Would you now feel OK withdrawing the deletion request?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Have a nice weekend. --Polarlys (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try my best. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


"No proper source"? is sure proper source.--Bouron (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you put template here, why dont you put it here, here, here and here.--Bouron (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Why dont you delete the template {{no source since}}?--Bouron (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Beius Martie 2010 254.jpg

Hallo! Soeben habe ich ein Bild unter einem falschen Namen hochgeladen. Es handelt sich um File:Beius Martie 2010 254.jpg Der richtige Bildname ist File:Biserica Bistra 1.jpg Könntest Du bitte die Datei mit dem komischen Namen "File:Beius Martie 2010 254.jpg" löschen? Vielen Dank, --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! :) --Polarlys (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi. My photo of File:Hayedomasaustraldeeuropa.JPG was deleted. I took the photo, in my holidays in greece in 2008. I put tha photo in my picasaweb page, etc. How can i prove that File:Hayedomasaustraldeeuropa.JPG is a product of my own work? thaks, --Pruxo (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored it. --Polarlys (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Hiya... can I ask why you deleted this image? The uploader is asking me on EN to restore it (see here), but I don't want to step on any toes in the process. Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the OTRS template, I am sorry. --Polarlys (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
S'okay. Tabercil (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Chy ty zapysavsia dobrovolzem edited.gif

Hi, what do you mean file has no source? --Rkononenko (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That this is not your work. --Polarlys (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Whose work is this then? Rkononenko (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I don’t know, but I don’t trust uploaders, who upload such thumbnails copied somewhere from the web and have a history of proven copyright violations. --Polarlys (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Very nice answer, extremely friendly and not hostile at all. Keep up all your "good work" Rkononenko (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I don’t have to use euphemistics here. The facts are clear: You uploaded several copyvios in the past, claiming own work. So this upload is just a thumbnail (people don’t create thumbnails of their own works, usually thumbnails are copied from websites) and there is another strange own work claim. Your attitude towards this project isn’t very helpful. --Polarlys (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Have a look here File:Tnmk.jpg. You have no idea who created this, but upload it to Wikimedia Commons, without a license and a serious rationale. --Polarlys (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Concerning this file, if you bothered looking it up on website,link provided in about file section,([14]), you would see that this is a freely-available wallpaper, allowed to be used by anybody anywhere(include obviously Wikipedia). Also, I added the author, as I found out on the website that he is actually known. Rkononenko (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
So he has to give a permission to use this file under a free license. „freeley-available“ doesn’t mean „free licensed“ (anybody may use it, everywhere, for every purpose, even commercial). Wallpapers are usually only for personal use. Second, there is still no license template. As I said before: Please read Commons:Licensing. --Polarlys (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I changed the licence type to fairusein. If you still find it inappropriate, please feel free to delete the file.Rkononenko (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. --Polarlys (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, 'cause I just started using commons a few weeks ago, and the first time I tried uploading, I couldn't, no matter what I tried. Only uploading images with "my own work" worked for me, so that's what I did. Anyhow, now all of them are deleted, so I'm not gonna spend any more of my time trying to add images to articles that have noneRkononenko (talk)
Please read Commons:Licensing and only upload images which are free. --Polarlys (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Polarlys. Sorry to bother you, but would you care to take a quick look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessycaexterior.jpg? It's been sitting at DR for three months with unanimous support to delete, but no one has taken any action on it. Thanks, rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Done :-) --Polarlys (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. Thanks! rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Tyrrhenaria_ceratina.jpg

Hello, what were all information in the image File:Tyrrhenaria_ceratina.jpg? (or other File:Tyrrhenaria_ceratina_2.jpg, File:Tyrrhenaria_ceratina_3.jpg) Who was the author / uploader? That was nice and useful image and so I would like to detect its permission to stay the image free. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jymm uploaded images with an own work claim from various photographers. --Polarlys (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You erased my picture

You erased a picture I released into the public domain. The picture was ECW Champion Jack Swagger Why did you do this? Raaggio (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It’s from --Polarlys (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my picture has been uploaded in What's your point? Are you trying to say that a picture I upload on Commons can't be uploaded anywhere else? That's a ridiculous notion. Raaggio (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Usually people take images from the web and upload them here. Don’t blame us for protecting our project from copyright violations. Please upload a photo with higher resolution from your original file. --Polarlys (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not blaming "us", I'm blaming you specifically for not asking me first on my page and for not assuming good faith. As for the picture, this is a cropped version of a larger picture. The larger picture is useless because the wrestler, Jack Swagger is hardly visible and a lot of of the crowd's faces are shown. Raaggio (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I said “us” because I followed essential project guidelines. Checking Category:Copyright violations, seeing a tagged image, opening up the linked website, seeing an identical photo and thus deleting the Commons image is something that could happen to every sysop here. I don’t have to ask the uploader, since this is not part of the procedure and it would finally paralyse our work here. What do you think how things work here? It’s all about asking? There is just no suitable way to handle it this way, and yes, every single day people lie here about their uploads. They say “own work” and the EXIF data says “Getty Images”. So it’s about the uploader to prove that the uploaded image is truly his work and in your special case you could upload the whole image and later overwrite it by the cropped version. --Polarlys (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that's just being ridiculous. Adding the whole image and then overwriting it with the cropped one? If you're such a fan of "procedure", tell me, where in Wikimedia guidelines does it say that wasting time adding the whole image and then cropping it is part of procedure? Raaggio (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
We even got a template for this (see below). If we can’t find the source of a highly suspect thumbnail on the net, we often ask this way for another version of the file to establish the authorship. This is not part of the procedure, but one way of finding a solution for a doubtful file. I asked you for this solution, since two version are already available. --Polarlys (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Timoleon von Neff - Bather.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Timoleon von Neff - Bather.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-- (der erste Kommentar ist schon mal recht hübsch :-) Grüssle Mutti 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ja, auf Rahmen sollte man achten. --Polarlys (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a better version of File:Test.jpg?

Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | +/−

Thank you for your submission of File:Test.jpg. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)

If you can supply the same exact image as File:Test.jpg at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.

Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.

Polarlys (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Polarly,

magst Du Dir mal angucken, wo eine Löschentscheidung von mir - vielleicht zu Recht - kritisiert wird?

Danke --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe mal beherzt auf „Löschen“ geklickt. Die Sache ist die: hängt die Latte für Berühmtheit nicht unbedingt hoch. Eine Löschung dort sollte uns aufhochen lassen, ist man doch auch auf Commons hinsichtlich COM:SCOPE weitaus empfindlicher. Letztlich ist es doch so: Wird die Eigenwerbung irgendwann mal enzyklopädisch relevant, so wird der Selbstdarsteller wieder Bilder einstellen, die wir dann eben gemäß der lokalen Nutzung akzeptieren. Auf die hier noch vorhandenen, aber vergessenen Bilder wird niemand zurückgreifen. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image Source

WikiLaurent asked that I send you a message with more specific sourcing for File:Walt_Disney_in_1912.jpg and you would be able to restore it. As I explained to him here, the best I can provide is a source for the image, as the actual magazine I scanned it from has not been in my possession for some time. Anyhow, here is a book containing the image:

The Art of Walt Disney, Finch, Christopher ISBN 0-8109-0122-6 Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 73-4639 p.28

There is absolutely no difference between the image I uploaded and the one in the book, but if you require I scan and (re)upload the one from the book in its place, let me know and I'll see what I can do (the book is very large and unwieldy - hardly scanner friendly).
Additionally, the book uses a couple of the other images I uploaded (they're used rather frequently when books/magazines detail Walt Disney's early life), specifically of Walt's brother and parents, so if the veracity of those is in question, we can add the book as a source for them as well.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Although I tend to forget to check this account (it's seperate from my en.wikipedia account for some reason), I'll make every effort to check back here in the next day or so.
--K10wnsta (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored it, please add information. --Polarlys (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

An incomplete deletion request

Hi! When you closed this deletion request and deleted Kaari Utrio's image, you seem to have missed another image, that was listed for deletion in the same discussion. Could you please delete that image too? Thank you! Herra Maka (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I did so. Thank you for your help. --Polarlys (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it that time of year again, to crack down on -Nard the Bard 11:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What "time of year" do you mean? And why "again"? There are a lot of open questions, please see --Polarlys (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
"Again" means previous requests, and you have conveniently linked to the discussion mentioning them. You have answered your own question! -Nard the Bard 15:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Did we settle this problem in the past? --Polarlys (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized the way I phrased my statement could be construed as meaning this was a settled issue. It's far from settled. I responded to the COM:AN thread. -Nard the Bard 16:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



Hallo Polarly, Du hast das Bild Braekhus_cecilia_BY_gio_lowe.jpg auf Commons gelöscht (aufgrund von "copyright violation"). das Foto wurde von mir (ebenso wie der Artikel über Cecilia Braekhus) erstellt und in wikipedia eingestellt. würdest Du bitte die Löschung rückgängig machen und mir, wenn das freundlicherweise ginge, mitteilen, was ich künftig tun kann, um zu kennzeichnen, dass ich keine Urheberrechtsverletzungen mit meinen Fotos begehe? vielen Dank!

Hallo! Kannst du das Bild eventuell in einer Größe hochladen, die uns ob ihrer Komprimierung nicht den Eindruck vermittelt, dass sie von irgendeiner Website kopiert wurde. Das Ansehen dieser daumengroßen Uploads ist nicht unbedingt das beste. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Also ehrlich gesagt: Ich würde das Bild nicht unbedingt wiederherstellen. Das Bild mag im Original war im Original mal ganz gut, aber dann wurde es nicht nur so klitzeklein gemacht, dass selbst Handys ein besseres Bild geliefert hätten, nein, es wurde auch noch mit komischen Krinkeln verunstaltet. Und das macht es für eine Nutzung in Wikipedia, die du ja anscheinend angestrebt hast, komplett ungeeignet. Bilder sollen dort nämlich illustrieren, nicht verzieren (Neutralität). Selbst wenn es hier wieder hergestellt wird, weil du der Autor bist, sollte es nicht in einen Wikipedia-Artikel eingebaut werden. Ich würde es dort jederzeit wieder entfernen. Dazu noch ein Hinweis: Wikipedia-Benutzer können selbst einstellen, wie groß sie Bilder sehen wollen. Die Bildergröße sollte schon einiges über 400px für die kleinere Seite sein. -- Cecil (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)