User talk:Jarekt

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


Castrocielo- Photo

Dear Jarekt, as the poster of the photo of the town of Castrocielo, I declare under my responibilty that the photo is mine. It was my first time at posting photos on Wikipedia, and I ignored that it was my duty to put the licence on it. I hope now it goes better.

--Francesco Camplani (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Making Evidence Matter in Canadian Health Policy, book cover.jpg.

Thanks, Jarekt,

So sorry, I normally upload photos manually, but wanted to try the Flickr uploader this time, and I'm not sure what happened. I did add this information (it is a Creative Commons license and the book itself is a Creative Commons book). I provided both the Flickr URL and the original URL which show the CC licenses. In any case, I'll add it in again and hopefully do it correctly this time. Let me know if you need something further from me.

thanks

Kathleen5454 (talk)

Ussr-userbox

Well, it seems that the file is deleted. I will make a new version of this image. (the flag will be from wikipedia itself, ironically)

[[1]]

Image deletion

Hi Jarekt, please delete this file: File:Ligeti László 2c.jpg. I uploaded this by accident. Thank you.


Hello, Jarekt. You have new messages at Hedwig in Washington's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  বাংলা  català  čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  español  suomi  français  galego  हिन्दी  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  ქართული  македонски  മലയാളം  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tagalog  Türkçe  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

Fotografie broni

Chcę wstawić zdjęcia pistoletu produkcji Arsenal Firearms na commons, napisałem w związku z tym maila do nich, z prośbą o fotki oraz pomocą z ustawieniem licencji, bo o to się rozchodzi. Napisał do mnie sam dyrektor Arsenal Firearms, Nicola Bandini, że cieszy się z maila i udzielił pozwolenia na publikację. Napisał też:„For Copyrights, please use ©Arsenal Firearms.” i wydaje mi się, że jemu się wydawało, że ja nie potrafiłem tego znaczka (c) skombinować. I teraz co ja mam tam zrobić, na jakiej licencji to puścić, jak to wstawić, aby zdjęcia nie zostały usunięte. Proszę podać mi jakieś konkretne wskazówki, bo nie mam zielonego pojęcia o tych skomplikowanych mechanizmach na commons. Z góry dziękuje. Pozdrawiam!Batorry (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To jest trochę bardziej skomplikowane. Najpierw przeczytaj Commons:Pozwolenia potem poproś o przesłanie standardowego emaila (do OTRS) który miedzy innymi powie jaka używać licencje. Dopiero wtedy prześlij plik używając omówioną licencje. Jeśli coś nie jest jasne po przeczytaniu Commons:Pozwolenia to chętnie pomogę. --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No właśnie mało co jest jasne. Mam wysłać do AF maila z podaniem o pozwolenie? Napisze tego maila do OTRS, zobaczymy co powiedzą, a ten mechanizm z pozwoleniami powinien być jakoś uproszczony. Chociaż wytłumaczenie jego winno być prostsze.Batorry (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zdjęcia z filmu "Kamienie na szaniec"

Jarek, dzięki za oznaczenia. Wciąż są szanse, że w ciągu tych kilku dni, jakie nam zostały, uda się otrzymać właściwą zgodę lub pełnomocnictwo do dysponowania majątkowymi prawami autorskimi od Zarządu Monolith Films, i będziemy mogli wykorzystać te piękne zdjęcia w naszych artykułach. Jeżeli nie, przynajmniej będziemy mieli świadomość, że zrobiliśmy wszystko. Gdybyś miał okazję w US, obejrzyj ten film, bo jest ciekawy. PS. Czy w pierwotnej zgodzie nie było "Cc-by-sa-3.0-pl"? Boston9 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nie jestem pewien w czym jest problem. Przesłane zdjęcia nie są kadrami z filmu, tylko fotografiami zrobionymi podczas produkcji filmu. Autorem jest chyba tylko fotograf (i/lub jego pracodawca). Przesłane OTRS wygląda poprawnie. Tak przy okazji to mimo {{OTRSPending}} powinieneś także dodać licencje podczas przesyłania zdjęć. Wszystkie pliki na commons maja mieć licencje, i jest to prostsze w UploadWizard niż później. Pozdrowienia--Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masz rację. Będę dodawał przy wgrywaniu, a do tych 17 dodam ręcznie. Boston9 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Licencje była "Creative Commons: uznanie autorstwa, na tych samych warunkach, wersja 3.0 Polska ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pl ).". Text mowi Cc-by-sa-3.0-pl ale link jest do Cc-by-sa-3.0. Ale chyba idźmy z tekstem. --Jarekt (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jarekt,

Apparently something wrong happened when I uploaded these two files. Despite, as in File:Dactylorhiza majalis RHu 01.JPG, there is {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} when I am editing its content, no licensing is appearing on the file. Despite there is [[Category:Dactylorhiza majalis - flowers]] no category is appearing in the category bar.

Please correct it, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Fixed. That was an strange error, I have never seen license disappearing when there was some minor markup error. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit requests for two PD-old templates

Jarekt, I'd appreciate it if you could process my edit requests for the two protected templates {{PD-old-50-1996}} and {{PD-old-X-1923}}. Thanks. —RP88 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Somewhat relatedly, regarding your recent "category added by Template:PD-old-X-1996 " fixes, you missed PD-old-75-1996. —RP88 20:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate only has the description as "girl without a rose." I'm somewhat worried that could be a poorly translated vulgar sexual reference, and should be deleted. Please confirm or deny. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it is just "girl without a rose". No idea what it is all about. Looks a bit out of scope in the current form. --Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Joshua Tree National Park - Joshua Tree - 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Dust spots --A.Savin 11:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected --Jarekt 18:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of both spots at the top is still there. --A.Savin 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I got it this time (I have really hard time seeing them) --Jarekt 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Looks OK. --A.Savin 11:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
[reply]

So why was this image deleted? I had taken this picture, given away the license as per Wikimedia commons license policy, categorized the image and added a link of it to valid Wikipedia article? In return, you come and delete it. THANKS for YOUR contribution!!!! --Wikigringo (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigringo, The image did not have any license templates. I alerted you about it, but we can not host images without licenses, so after 9 days some other admin deleted it. I will be happy to undelete it if you tell me what license template you meant it to have. --Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Please undelete. You can use Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license which the most common. I also certify that I am the one who took the picture and release the license. --20:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! --Wikigringo (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jarek, you flagged this file, and I'm hoping you can provide some advice. I am certain this image is freely licensed, but I am unsure of the best way to report that on the page. The software was produced by the Wikimedia Foundation under a grant from the Ford Foundation; the software is freely licensed as part of MediaWiki (GPL), and the Wikimedia Foundation publishes non-software under a free license (CC BY-SA). In this case, I'm not even sure if the threshold of originality has been exceeded, so I wonder if it's publishable as public domain. What do you see as the problem -- and what do you think would be the correct way to tag this file? Or do you believe it is actually protected by non-free copyright, and if so, who is the rights holder? -Pete F (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, The image was semi-automatically tagged solely because it was lacking any license tags, since {{Free screenshot}} by itself is not a license. As for which license to use, I am no expert on Wikimedia Foundation licenses but since I was recently uploading some screenshots I noticed {{wikimedia project screenshot|logo=no|project=commons}} template. Other possibility would be {{PD-text}}. Greetings. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks! -Pete F (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jarekt, the request for a license for image in subject was sent by me on behalf of the author, David Whitworth, to Wikipedia Commons permissions-commons@wikimedia.org yesterday (late evening by Eastern European time). I hope it will be processed soon. I am sorry, I am a very new user, what is the possible time interval between uploading and getting the license?

The uploader is usually asked to choose the license template at the time of upload, but I see that you had a verbal description of the license, so I added matching template. So everything is OK for a moment, and we just have to wait for OTRS to process the email. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for clarification! Next time I'll try to be more attentive during uploading.
I have one more question: how to edit the comment in the table "File history"? While uploading I made a typo in the file description (Alex Withworth instead of Whitworth), so the reference went to non-existing page. I have corrected it in the description but it is still wrong in the File history table. Thank you in advance! -- Ethylene_en (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That one unfortunately can not be edited. If it really bothers you you can reupload the image under a new name and I will delete the old one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think I can live with it so far. But I have questions related to another image uploaded by me File:Alex Whitworth at Falmouth with coffee.jpg. OTRS ticket is issued but the page still contains the tag "The license agreement will be forwarded to OTRS shortly." as well as "This media file is uncategorized." How do I manage this? I would appreciate any help either from you or forwarding my question appropriate person.Ethylene en (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- Ethylene en (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A stupid question: the photo didn't get licence yet, should I start worrying? Another photo I've uploaded a weekend before had got it in an hour. This one and another one File:Berrimilla arrives back in Sydney after her first circumnavigation, December 21, 2005.jpg are still suspended after a week. How long does it take to get a number from OTRS? Could I use them for wiki entries as they are? Thank you in advance. Ethylene en (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethylene, OTRS can take a while to process your ticket, since we often have a big backlog. But since I am one of the people handling it, I processed your ticket. I did not see any tickets related to File:Berrimilla arrives back in Sydney after her first circumnavigation, December 21, 2005.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for processing a ticket out of turn! I would like to apologize for my impatience. I only wanted to know whether I could use the suspended images for wiki entries. Concerning the second photo I didn't want to show author's email here, I sent you you a reply to Wikipedia Commons -- Ethylene en (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No required license templates

Hi Jarekt, is ok now?https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IBFF%C2%AE_Methodology-_Vincenzo_Mazzarella.jpg

Thanks

The license is fine, but there is still an issue with the author. The author listed is "Vincenzo Mazzarella" and the uploader is user:Ypsos81. From the documentation it is unclear if the file was uploaded by the photographer. If it was not than it should be followed by OTRS email from the photographer or copyright holder. Please read com:OTRS for more details. Regards --Jarekt (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i'm the autor of the photo, i'm Vincenzo Mazzarella

Thank you, everything is fine then. --Jarekt (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Base page not found for autotranslate

My talk page looks even worse than normal. It's full of "Base page not found for autotranslate" warnings (you have one on this page too). I suspect this might have caused it. Could you please fix this? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have time to look at this at the moment so I will just revert. I guess I will need to add more testcases to figure out what happen. --Jarekt (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 images without licence

Dear Jarekt, I forgot again to include {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to my photos File:JPaul-Löbichau.jpg and File:Kirche-Benndorf.jpg. How can I add this information? Thank you! I would prefer the possibility to have the presetting {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} when I upload pictures. Is this possible?

Yours sincerely, Tnemtsoni

I restored those files. What tool do you use to upload? if the default special:UploadWizard than you can set default license at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads.--Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hint, I will try it next time. Yours sincerely, Tnemtsoni

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Adirondacks - Snapping Turtle - 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing license for "Madonna - Wembley Arena 120806 (16).jpg"

Hi Jarekt! You left a message on my talk page concerning the file "Madonna - Wembley Arena 120806 (16).jpg" in which you said that the file had no license and thus it could be deleted. I checked the file's page and the CC BY-SA 2.0 license is indeed mentioned in its description page in the "Permission" line. Amzer (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that was my mistake and I removed the template from the file. It was File:Madonna - Live to Tell at Wembley 6.jpeg that did not have license, but since it was a duplicated of File:Madonna - Wembley Arena 120806 (16).jpg I removed it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please re-check your last changes of Module:Fallback. Template {{Assessments}} (based on {{Autotranslate}}) now incorrectly worked in the Russian interface language (and many others). See example in File:Angyalvar036.jpg:

  • code - {{Assessments|huwiki=1}}
  • Assessment box, first string:
    • uselang=en, uselang=hu (correct links into huwiki)
    • uselang=ru (incorrect links into ruwiki; incorrect name of Wikipedia edition)
    • uselang=pl (incorrect links into plwiki; incorrect name of Wikipedia edition)
    • etc. (for all another languages)

No another recent changes in related templates and modules.--Kaganer (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see the problem. In the past {{Autotranslate}} only passed numbered parameters to the language specific templates, and now it also passes "lang" parameter that was originally passed to {{Autotranslate}}. Also with direct call to the module named parameters can be passed. In {{Assessments/commons}} there are calls to {{Autotranslate}} that send both "1" (wikipedia language) and "lang" (display language) parameters. In the past only "1" was passed to the language subtemplates, now both reach it. In the language subtemplates you have so the display language is substituted for wikipedia language. this edit to Template:Assessments/translate/pl fixed the problem. I propose to do similar changes to other language templates (I can do them). --Jarekt (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks! Please do it for all these language subtemplates.--Kaganer (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jarekt, please urgently fix all the related templates because what is now happening is very confusing. See example. Thanks. --ELEKHHT 05:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed--Jarekt (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Module:Fallback changes

Hi, Base page not found for autotranslate is written on pages, for example User_talk:Bernie44. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a purge to that page fixed it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Thank you. But autotranslate on a lot of pages broken (reported onwiki, on irc). I have reverted Jarekt changes now. I hope he can fix the bug later :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bug was fixed we were only waiting for the purges to catch up with it. Reverting to any earlier versions will just break pages that rely on the new version and will not make the purges any faster. Can you revert? --Jarekt (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless of course there are any pages that still have a problem (after purge). --Jarekt (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since your changes a _lot_ of reports. For example autotranslate in Commons:Upload_help was broken becouse fullurls don't work with your new version. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right one of the {{Autotranslate}}s does not work on Commons:Upload_help. It is a case of usage for purposes the template was not designed for, since {{Autotranslate}} documentation states that it was intended for use in Template namespace only. But if it is how some people use it, I guess I will have to switch back parts of the code to more computationally expensive version we used before. --Jarekt (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the odd errors on the test page, and this line of code seem to show the problem:

%3Cstrong+class%3D%22error%22%3E%3Cspan+class%3D%22scribunto-error+mw-scribunto-error-73746397%22%3EScript+error%3A+No+such+module+%26quot%3BDate%2Fsandbox%26quot%3B.%3C%2Fspan%3E%3C%2Fstrong%3E
+
2+June+2014%2C+15%3A15%3A00

Looks like there's an additional space before "2014". Do you know what might be the cause and could you fix that? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the space in the template or lua versions? And BTW how did you compare them? I usually look at the sourcecode of the page but there are no differences there. --Jarekt (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The space seems to be in the original template version. Urlencode showed an additional "+" in it, which means an additional space when decoded. MW parser seems to remove the space before rendering the page to html, but it doesn't seem true when doing comparisons in Lua. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I modified Module:UnitTests so multiple spaces are ignored as a difference. One reason we are working on the module is that the {{ISOdate}} is unmentainable. I can not fix a space there. --Jarekt (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The current discrepancies seem mostly come from the time part. Unfortunately, I have even less idea about this than the previous one due to the weirdness of the character counts. Eg:
  • {{str len|{{ISOdate/time3|2010-08-18 08:15:30}}}} = 10 (Isn't there only 19?)
  • {{str len|, <nowiki/>}} = 36, {{str len|, <nowiki/}} = 10 (difference in only one char but count up to 35)
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a head scratcher, but I am very exited to get this ball rolling. {{ISOdate}} is unmentainable in the current form, and once we match the current capabilities we might be able to expand number of supported date formats. May be even add some short-cuts for {{Other date}} (like ~1900 == {{other date|ca|1900}}, etc). But in the mean time we are stuck in the comparison step. I for example can not figure out the logic of
  1. {{urlencode:{{#invoke:Date/sandbox|ISOdate|1999-08-18 08:15|lang=en}}}} gives
    "%3Cstrong+class%3D%22error%22%3E%3Cspan+class%3D%22scribunto-error+mw-scribunto-error-73746397%22%3EScript+error%3A+No+such+module+%26quot%3BDate%2Fsandbox%26quot%3B.%3C%2Fspan%3E%3C%2Fstrong%3E"
  2. {{urlencode:{{ISOdate|1999-08-18 08:15|lang=en}}}} gives
    "18+August+1999%2C+08%3A15"
  3. {{#ifeq:{{urlencode:{{#invoke:Date/sandbox|ISOdate|1999-08-18 08:15|lang=en}}}}|{{urlencode:{{ISOdate|1999-08-18 08:15|lang=en}}}}|same|different}} gives "different"
But the displayed strings are identical !? Another think is that I am not sure if <nowiki/> still serves any purpose. --Jarekt (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jarekt, Thanks for the note! I hope everything is ok now?

License wise everything it fine, but you are using {{Mschroeder 1/credits}} template which does not exist. May be you can fix? --Jarekt (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sea_Hill_Lighthouse._Curtis_Island,_Australia,_May_2011.jpg

Thanks for picking up that this file I contributed to the commons did not have a license statement attached. I selected the license on the upload form, and I don't know why it did not stick. I am the author of the image, and I embedded my intended license info in the metadata (which is displayed on the commons page). I need some explicit instructions how to fix this problem. Cheers, Peter Marquis-Kyle.

Peter, I took a liberty of copying a license from one of your earlier uploads. Please verify that it is OK. --Jarekt (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jarekt, that's fine.PeterMarquisKyle (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's marked {{Otrs-pending}}, and it's only been 24 hours. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? EEng (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Your message on my Talk said to reply here, but your edit notice here says to reply there.)[reply]

{{Otrs-pending}} is not a substitute for a license, which has to be known before the upload. See 3rd bulllet of that template. And all files need a license template at the time of the upload. PS. Thanks for the tip about my notice, I will make sure they are in synch. --Jarekt (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing license information

Is it everything ok now, Jarekt? [52] Yours sincerely.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page regarding the copyrights of File:Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft.svg and I looked for correcting them, but because I am new here at Wikimedia I did not find the correct license to put on this file. This file shows the logo of the Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft (South Tyrolean Scout Association) and I made this version (SVG) of it; the original I took from the association's homepage (http://www.pfadfinder.it/de/home.html (page in German)), to be correct from the Impressum of it. As a member of this Scout Association I wanted to improve their Wikipedia pages (in german, italian and english) by first correcting the logo to the new one (since 2011/2012) and now, in a second step, changing it with one in SVG.

I hope you can tell me, what licenses I have to use to provide my file from deletion.

Hoping for a fast answer. Michael

Michael, File:Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft.svg seems to be an SVG version of File:New Logo of the Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft- (For the articles in the english, german and italian Wikipedia-) 2014-05-11 09-58.gif so I used it's license. However File:New Logo of the Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft- (For the articles in the english, german and italian Wikipedia-) 2014-05-11 09-58.gif claims that you are the author or creator of this logo. If that is not the case you should read Commons:OTRS (it is in several languages) and you should contact the scouts to see if they can help you find the original creator of the logo or it's copyright holder and ask them to send an email to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]