User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2012

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.


This DR

Something went wrong with this DR? Don't know what happened. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this pointer, Leoboudv. This upload is indeed quite strange and I've asked the maintainer of File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) how something could be uploaded without refering to the user who asked for this upload nor its source. The deletion request was never finished, just {{delete}} was added to its file description, leaving it incomplete. But cases like this do not need a regular deletion request and I've just speedied it. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pl-De Grolsch Veste.ogg

Hello, this file maybe is consistent with Dutch, however this is not Nl-De Grolsch Veste.ogg but Pl-De Grolsch Veste.ogg and this is not Polish name. It is like to upload Pl-Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski.ogg as De-Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski.ogg or En-uk-Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski.ogg. Listen it. Is it German pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 January 2012‎ (UTC)

As long as a file appears to be useful and/or educational and in COM:SCOPE it is kept. Whether its name or its description are correct is a different matter which is not decided through a deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know Dutch so I cannot say if it is correct in Dutch but if the Dutchman said that is, it would be better to change filename into Dutch because current name is misleading. 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to file a rename request using the {{rename}} template. It might be useful to discuss this at Commons:Bar to get other opinions from Polish speakers. I cannot decide this as I speak neither Dutch nor Polish. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Voidokilia beach location map.png

Hi, presumably there is no problem if I recreate the map based on one of the declared free sources mentioned, quote that as my inspiration and upload under the same file name? Thanks -- (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, this would be surely a good idea. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As I've already said in the DR, Google at small scales uses TruEarth by TerraMetrics. TruEarth is basically Landsat 7 passed through some fancy filters -- these filters do not change the data, just make the map more pleasing to eyes. There is nothing wrong in tracing of PD Landsat imagery. Trycatch (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I noted this but then it is still better to use directly the original material which is free from restrictions. You do not know which kind of smoothing and postprocessing has been done which possibly carries its own copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's a moot point, because Fæ already recreated that file using OSM, but the previous version wasn't a copyvio. TerraMetrics processing created new copyright filtering and coloring Landsat imagery? Maybe. But their coloring and stuff were not used in that picture. The only thing that was really copied -- the shape of the coastline -- was not created or modified by TerraMetrics guys. "You do not know which kind of smoothing and postprocessing has been done which possibly carries its own copyright." -- well, you don't need to guess, Landsat imagery is freely downloadable from various sites. Or you can compare the same place in Bing, Yahoo and Google at small scales (all of them use differently processed Landsat for small scales) -- the difference is in coloring, filtering of the clouds, etc., not in the moving coastlines around. Trycatch (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You may want to cast your eye over File:Voidokilia beach location.png. Considering the pattern of recent events, I would be happy to make any improvements you suggest to make it waterproof. -- (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Fæ, this looks good to me. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related matter, I have now asked Pieter Kuiper to desist with image stalking me, User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Image_stalking, based on his pattern of actions over the last week. Is there any clear policy that applies in this situation? Thanks -- (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Complaints like this in regard to Pieter Kuiper were already handled multiple times at the boards: See, for example, 1 or 2. These cases are challenging. On the one hand, Pieter Kuiper is quite good at spotting problematic contributions. Hence, you'll never find any nomination for deletion coming from him that is not to be taken seriously. It is also not uncommon at Commons to walk through contributions of a user if there are indications that more questionable cases are to be found. However, and here is the problem, there were some cases (not just by Pieter Kuiper but by him most prominently) where many people believed that such an examination was triggered by a previous conflict. To me it did never looked like a personal thing but more like cases where Pieter Kuiper apparently believed that double standards have been applied (particularly in cases of admins), where people are nominating old pics for a strict interpretation of COM:PRP where he apparently would prefer some relaxation, or in cases related to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. One thing, however, is sure: If you raise this topic at one of the boards, there won't be a quick resolution. Instead, I think, that this would generate another load of drama because it would come, as before, down to the point whether Pieter Kuiper is to be banned or not and if this case would justify a ban. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the context, I was not aware of the history here and it is helpful. I am disappointed that disruptive behavioural patterns has to become excessive and affect so many contributors before taking effective action (thinking of other accounts involved). If the on-wiki behaviour persists I will take some time to refer to the history here. I will also take into consideration some of the timing and content of apparent off-wiki canvassing that he was part of, however if that continues, then I would expect this may become a matter for resolution outside of our more limited community processes. Of course, it's a terribly boring distraction from our mission, hardly something I ever expected to waste so much time on. -- (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Melikov Memmed Hummet.jpg

Memmed Melikov is my grandfather and this image belongs to our family and I scanned it. The photo was taken before World War II, the author is unknown and according to The Law of The Republic of Azerbaijan on Copy Right and Related Rights works it has fallen into the public domain. The foto is not taken from or another site. I can upload it again with very high dimensions. Please undelete it.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melikov Memmed, thank you for your message and your explanation which confirms that this photograph is not your "own work" as claimed while uploading it. Scanning a photograph does not make it an "own work" nor can you claim to be its author as you did. Even if this photograph is in your possession and depicting your grandfather that does not imply that you can publish it. This requires the consent of the copyright holder which is the photographer and not your grandfather. If I consider this section about Azerbaijan copyright law we would either need a proof of a publication more than 50 years ago, or, if the photographer is known or was identified at the first publication, we need a proof that the author died more than 50 years ago. Given all this I do not find a ground which would allow me to undelete it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. A ground which would allow you to undelete the photograph is that it is a very old anonymous photography created before World War II and according to the Law of that time (10 years for photography after its creation) the photograph has fallen into the public domain. And according to The Law of The Republic of Azerbaijan on Copy Right and Related Rights works (Article 3.7 “Azərbaycan Respublikası ərazisində Azərbaycan Respublikasının tərəfdar çıxdığı beynəlxalq müqavilələrə uyğun olaraq, elə əsərlərə və əlaqəli hüquqlar obyektlərinə qorunma tətbiq edilir ki, mənşə ölkəsində həmin obyektlər üçün müəyyən edilmiş qorunma müddətləri bitməmiş olsun. Azərbaycan Respublikası ərazisində müəlliflik hüququ və əlaqəli hüquqların qüvvədə olma müddəti mənşə ölkəsində müəyyən edilmiş qorunma müddətlərindən çox ola bilməz”) it has fallen into the public domain. The photograph is useful on Wikipedia and please undelete it. I'll use {{PD-Azerbaijan}}--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Melikov Memmed, please take a close look at {{PD-Azerbaijan}} which offers three variants under which it applies. But none of them match the current case as the proof of a publication more than 70 years ago is missing and as the author remains unknown. Regarding Wikipedia: Please note that some of the projects (like en-wp, for example) allow fair-use excemptions. But Commons is not allowed to do this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
These three variants are “Special Terms of Copyright” (Article 26) but there is other terms. For example, According to The Law on Copy Right in Azerbaijan till 1960 for an anonymous photography (if the photographer does not show his name on photography) the term of the copyright expires after 10 years from its creation (Article 12. - “Срок пользования авторским правом на фотографические произведения и на произведения, полученные способами, аналогичными с фотографией, устанавливается для отдельных снимков в пять лет, для собраний снимков — в десять лет. Для сохранения за фотографом авторского права на фотографические изображения требуется означение на каждом экземпляре: фирмы или имени, фамилии и места жительства фотографа, а также года выпуска в свет фотографического произведения). Accordin to the article 3.7 of the Law of The Republic of Azerbaijan any anonymous photography created before World War II has fallen into the public domain. So I added to template “it is an anonymous photography created before 70 years ago”. In fact this is true. --Melikov Memmed (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I am sorry, but creation is not publication. And the 70 years start counting when it was published first and not from the time of creation. You wrote yourself publication in the diff you are refering to. And, independent from this: You stated in your file description that this photograph has been taken in 1960. How can you argue now that it was created before World War II or that it is more than 70 years old? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that in law till 1960 for photography it is 'creation'. And after 5 or 10 years from its creation the photographer has no copyright for his work if he didn't show his name on the photography. According you grandfather's foto created about 1939 but published in 2009 is under copyright till 2079 by law of Azerbaijan Republic. A foto has been in public domain in 1945-1996 years, how by the law from 1996 can be under copyright till 2079. This is not seriously--Melikov Memmed (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This is serious. It is copyright law as it is practised in other countries as well which accepted the Berne Convention. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Insist that the copyright holder of this photography is not my grandfather, is the photographer is not true. According to both old law and new law the copyright holder of this photography is my grandfather. In the first according to old law if photographer not show his name on each photography after 5 years it falls into the public domain. Then this photography was taken by order of my grandfather and he paid the photographer for this photography. So from its creation the legal copyright holder was my grandfather. In new law (Chapter II Author’s Rights. Article 15. Property (economic) Rights) you can explain who is the legal copyright holder of this photography. To my disappointment it seems it is true that is better not to upload pics to Commons and I don’t think that you will undelete it. But for all that I want you know the legal copyright holder of this photography according to law was our family and it is free now. Excuse my poor English.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Melikov Memmed, when your grandfather paid the photographer, the copyright was not automatically transfered to him. Ownership and copyright are two different things. Please understand that (as I have outlined above) I will not undelete this picture. You are, however, free to raise your request at COM:UDEL. Then another admin will reconsider this case. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I know that ownership and copyright are two different things. But ownership is not exactly what I had in mind. In our law there is “possessor of a copyright” (Chapter II Author’s Rights. Article 15. Property (economic) Rights) “Müəllifin və ya əsərə müəlliflik hüququnun digər sahibinin” – “the author or the possessor of a copyright of a work”. I tried to say that my grandfather was the possessor of a copyright of this photograph from its creation and after 5 years the photograph was fallen into the public domain. By the new law a work fallen into the public domain before deems a work fallen into the public domain. Article 25.3 - Bu Qanunla müəyyən edilmiş qorunma müddətləri bu Qanunun qüvvəyə mindiyi tarixə qədər qorunma müddəti bitməmiş bütün əsərlərə şamil edilir. Unfortunately in official translate of the law were missed a lot of paragraphs.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

HipHop 100 Enhanced

Hi, with regard to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Debrah-Lee Resized.jpg, I did bundle File:HipHop 100 Enhanced.png to the same request. Do you think this needs separate discussion? Thanks -- (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fæ, for remembering me to delete that as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Comprendo lo que me dice, yo he sido sysop en la española. Pero no me gustó nada la respuesta de su compañero, después de que he molestado a una amiga para que tradujera al alemán mis argumentos y he recibido como respuesta que soy ridículo. He sufrido acoso que intentaba borrar estos artículos y ahora me encuentro con que en commons se borran las fotos de mi total propiedad, sujetas a mis derechos de autor y que había liberado aquí con la mayor buena fe. Esto me tiene muy aburrido, así que no pienso hacer nada más. Gracias por sus buenas intenciones, un saludo.--Ensada (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you said, I have been sysop in Spanish. But I did not like his teammate's answer, after a friend have bothered to translate into German and I received my argument in response that I am ridiculous. I have been harassed trying to delete these items and now I find that in commons are deleted photos from my wholly owned, subject to my copyright and that it had released here with the utmost good faith. This has me very boring, so I will not do anything else. Thank you for your good intentions, a greeting.

This is a translation of google, my languages ​​are Spanish, Portuguese and French

Bonjour Ensada, s'il vous plaît correspondent en français. Merci, AFBorchert (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour. J'ai essayé d'expliquer à l'administrateur MartinH tout se qui concerne les photos avec l'aide de utilisateur Mar del Sur qui connait mieux que moi l'allemand mais la réponse que j'ai obtenu était que les licences étaient "ridicules", je ne suis pas du tout d'accord. Quand je l'ai fait, j'était très nouveau a la Wikipedia et Commons, et ne savait rien sur les licences.
Ces photos sont de ma propriétée, car ils sont de mon grand-père Ricardo Mella et Urania Mella, sa fille, et mon autre grand-père Juan Tizón. La photo de Ricardo Mella est dans le domaine public, car il est décédé en 1925, et les deux autres m'ont été transférés pour ma famille, pour les hommages divers et les livres qui ont été fait pour honorer sa mémoire. Je ne sais pas comment je dois faire avec les licences, mais je peux t'assurer que les originaux sont en possession de ma famille et que toute copie qui est sur ​​internet aura été à l'origine cédés par nous.
J'ai été sysop dans la version espagnole et j'ai été harcelé par différents utilisateurs, qui ont trouvé dans ces articles une manière de harcèlement continu, quand je vois ces suppressions je crois que c'est une continuation du harcèlement reçues. Je sais que c'est peut-être trop méfiant :), mais croyez-moi c'est vraiment m'ennuyant. S'il ya un moyen de recupérer les photos, tant mieux, si non, ce n'est pas grave; merci quand même. Une salutation. --Ensada (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC) PD Il y a longtemps depuis que j'ai écrit en français, nous remercions a google XD
Salut Ensada, s'il vous plaît permettez-moi de répondre en anglais: Unfortunately I am just able to read French but can no longer respond in it. But it helped me to understand your message. (Special thanks go to Bernard!) You are refering in particular to File:Ricardomella.png and File:Urania Mella.jpg. In both cases, Familiar was stated as a source. This is a truly ambigious term. Even in Spanish it appears to have multiple meanings according to my dictionary: either as reference to the family or as something which is well known (íntimo). In English it has just the latter meaning. Perhaps this misunderstanding caused the comment by Martin H. However, independent from this, please take a look at Commons:Sobre las licencias#España:
Generalmente, según la ley española, y concretamente el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (PDF), los derechos de autor expiran 70 años tras la muerte del autor. Si la «propiedad intelectual» de una obra no es propiedad de nadie, o se trata de una obra colaborativa en las que los autores no son identificables, dicha obra estaría en el dominio público pasados 70 años desde la fecha de publicación. A las obras publicadas con anterioridad a 1987, se les aplica la ley de 1879, que otorga un plazo de ochenta años post mortem auctoris.
This means that you either need to know the photographers of these pictures and to proof that they died at least 80 years ago, or, alternatively, you need to proof that they have been published anonymously at least 70 years ago. Even in case of a photograph taken before 1925, the photographer might have lived until 1932 and the photograph wouldn't be public domain now.
I'm afraid that it is in general quite difficult to upload any photographs from family archives to Commons as in most cases the photographer remains unknown and the photograph has not been published before. In case of your grandfather, Ricardo Mella, it is probably best to research original publications during his lifetime or shortly thereafter – perhaps one of them has a picture. (BTW, I just researched the New York Times and found an article about anarchism in Spain that mentioned Ricardo Mella, written by Herbert L. Matthews, published in 22 August 1937 on pages 6 and 14: There are no really important Spanish exponents of the anarchist philosophy, for the movement here has always been in a process of ferment in which the leaders were actively struggling, rather than formulating theories. Among the few worth mentioning are Juan Serrano y Oteiza, his son-in law Ricardo Mella; José Liunas Pujols and, above all, Anselmo Lorenzo, who died in 1914. Unfortunately, Ricardo Mella was not depicted in this article.)
If, however, you know about publications more than 70 years ago, then please refer to them in your uploads and make sure that the publication was indeed anonymously.
Cordialement, AFBorchert (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about File:Voidokilia beach location.png

You deleted File:Voidokilia beach location map.png with the comment "Deleted as all variants of this map are based on non-free original material, see COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery". I recall that there were a few different versions of the map uploaded by Fæ but I assume that your comments related to all of them. If that is the case, I am confused by File:Voidokilia beach location.png, which looks to be the same as final version of the deleted image. Did I misunderstand what you wrote? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between the current version of that map and all the previous revisions that were deleted by me. The outlines of the previous maps were apparently derived from Google. The new map, however, is derived from OpenStreetMap which is free. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Andreas. There is a question about a ticket in German on the OTRS noticeboard. Could you please have a look. Thanks :) mickit 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this pointer, Micki, I've responded to it at the OTRS noticeboard. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Очень просим Вас подтвердить нашу карточку #2012011510004596

Здравствуйте, уважаемый! Ольга - Администратор Ярослава Стаховского - (информация для подтверждения -

Очень просим Вас подтвердить нашу карточку #2012011510004596

Данная фотография принадлежит Ярославу Стаховскому и передана автором в личное пользование, которое предусматривает собой размещение в источниках по усмотрения артиста. Свидетельством является размещение данной фотографии на официальном сайте артиста

Спасибо Вам огромное заранее))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgatolm (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo use: File:Grand Canyon Grandeur Point 2006 09 09.jpg


I create an educational feature for kids. I was wondering if you allow use of your images?

Currently, I am working on an issue about the Grand Canyon.

You can see samples of my feature at:

You can click on any of the categories and view an issue.

Thank you.

Jeff Harris
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi, please feel free to use my photographs in your feature, just attribute them to Andreas F. Borchert. Kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Witten Stockum - Zeche Vereinigte Hamburg und Franziska (Theodor) 02 ies.jpg

Hallo AFBorchert, vielleicht kannst du für Klärung sorgen? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Witten Stockum - Zeche Vereinigte Hamburg und Franziska (Theodor) 02 ies.jpg Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Saibo, was erwartest Du von mir? Ich sehe nicht, dass das Schild unmittelbar mit der Aktion SchachtZeichen assoziiert ist. Letzteres bestand (soweit ich das gerade gesehen habe) in der Hauptsache darin, stationäre Ballons bei den einzelnen Standorten fliegen zu lassen. Selbst wenn die Schilder im Rahmen dieser Aktion aufgestellt worden sind, gibt es überhaupt keinen Hinweis darauf, dass diese wieder abgeräumt wurden. Ich weiß hier wirklich nicht, welche Klärung Du von mir erwartest. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closure

Hi AFBorchert,

Would you re-open the thread at AN/U to allow the user to retract himself. This to avoid having to take additional steps. --  Docu  at 05:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Docu, if one of them has something significant to add which helps to close this, I wouldn't mind to have that thread temporarily reopened for that. But why are you asking me this? Did one of them ask you for this? Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No, but I'm one of participants to the thread. You closed the thread after my comment (last in one section) without reasonable time for Rd232 to think this over and respond. Maybe I'm too optimistic. --  Docu  at 11:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. But did you think that it was appropriate to call for a de-sysop just because an admin moderates a thread at COM:AN/U? I am neither happy with the drama generation in case of a moderation including the multiple calls for a de-sysop nor do I like to see blocks for raising a point at COM:AN/U. We are quickly moving towards a direction where we turn Commons into an en-wp style battleground. This is something what I wouldn't like to see. We should instead strive for some collegiality and should show more mutual respect, independent from admin status. Docu, if you feel really strong about reopening that thread than you have my permission to do it. You can refer to this thread if you want to. However, I recommend not to reopen the thread as I do not think that this would be helpful. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not moderating threads, but moderating threads and redacting posts by other users in threads one is heavily involved or started. What make it even worse, he acts as administrator in discussions he is involved in and even threatens and blocks other users over this. Your summary closure suggests that you endorse this. --  Docu  at 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Docu, I certainly do not endorse in my summary that the block was ok. This would be strange as I have lifted the block. I endorse that moderation at admin boards by admins is permitted to keep a thread on-focus. And I also stated in my summary that users should not be blocked for contesting such a moderation. I personally would prefer to collapse off-topic subthreads (which I have done before) but of course every admin acts in this regards as he or she sees fit. And if a particular moderation leads to objections, it seems best to me to ask other admins whether they agree with that or not. In general, I would prefer that all participants at admin boards would stay on focus in a particular thread and to think twice whether a comment is helpful towards solving the problem for which a case has been opened for. If, however, a thread turns into an open battleground with off-topic subthreads everywhere, then it becomes extremely time-consuming to find a solution and to see which administrative action should be taken. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Still, you seem to ignore that the admin keeps attempting to censure, hide or remove other users who express POVs different from his. --  Docu  at 05:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Transferring to Wiki Commons


Do you have any better suggestion on this[1].

How can I share the file with commons, I mean I don't want to download the file and upload it again. The file is already on en.Wikipedia, I wanna transfer it to Wiki Commons so to share it, with other projects. Then I want to use it on other wikis. (Its necessary to mention that file is not mine and I have not uploaded that at first place, Its uploaded by another user, which he himself don't know how to share that.)

Cheers, KhabarNegar (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi KhabarNegar, you can use the Commonshelper for the transfer if you do not want to upload that logo yourself at Commons. You just need to create a TUSC account to use this service. The logo itself can be transfered to Commons as it is not eligible for copyright. Please use the {{PD-textlogo}} license template for it. Once the transfer is complete, the file description page of the logo at en-wp should be tagged with {{NowCommons}}. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theodor mommsen 2 zangala-ka-WP.jpg Ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ww2censor, I was glad that this photograph could be saved. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This DR

Pls feel free to make a comment in this DR if you wish Admin Borchert. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, in such cases where files have been transferred from en-wp to Commons, it is best to make an inquiry how exactly that file left en-wp. I did this now: en:WP:AN#File:Generalnakhtmin.jpg. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the folow up. Unfortunately, while the uploader claims to be a scholar--which means he could have been able to take photos at the Cairo Museum after following official procedures (ordinary tourists were permanently banned)--I doubt one can trust his/her statement because his/her other photos at wikipedia have such low resolution with no metadata at all. But hopefully someone at AN#File can check the photo more carefully. I made a more detailed statement in my DR after I read your reply. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, photos of objects in the Cairo Museum have been taken and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. That such photographs are not allowed in the museum is of no concern for Commons. Given that such photographs have to be taken in secret, it is not surprising that such shots are often of bad quality, i.e. blurred, low resolution etc. (take a look at this category). Anyway, we need full information before we can proceed in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I know what you are saying. This photo here: File:Psusennes I mask.jpg is a classic example of a photo taken in 2006--after the Museum photo ban--where the uploader likely smuggled in a camera and took a quick photograph. Its fuzzy and out of focus. But at least there is a clear metadata and no one disputes that the uploader is the real photographer. The uploader has many pictures on Commons--so one can trust his work too. Secondly, today Commons has two other images of pharaoh Psusennes I's funerary mask--so its replacable. But of course I will place my faith in the people at WP:AN#File regrading the nominated case. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, Leoboudv, and they have surely to be weighed in. However, it is in my opinion helpful to get all facts on the table. Sometimes this can even help to make a deletion easier if, for example, it should be found that the uploader never attached a valid license tag to it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Generalnakhtmin.jpg @ enwiki

Hi, just a notification that I've replied to you at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Generalnakhtmin.jpg. Regards, Snowolf (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Shouldn't the block summary mention "impersonation". The current block summary might mistakenly give the impression that it's Thekohser's sockpuppet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Michaeldsuarez, thank you for sharing your concern. I've added a new block message which should help to clarify this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS tagging

My mistake. Already corrected. Thx 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aargambit (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Monitoring of the request

Good night, sorry to bother you, but advised me to speak with an OTRS volunteer, so that you do not care, do the follow-up request. The request concerns the following images: and

Thanks, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shania Twain Portugal, I've found the ticket (ticket:2012041710010801) and tagged both pictures with {{OTRS received}}. This ticket, however, needs to be processed by someone who speaks Portuguese. And it needs an explicit declaration that puts it under a free license, a permission to keep it on Commons is not sufficient. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon and thank you, the email I sent the author authorizes the publication in accordance with the license explicit and that I is contained in the message. But surely that a portuguese user might realize better, thank you anyway, is that I have had difficulty finding Portuguese users that do not care to solve this issue. Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 13:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
We usually insist that the license is explicitly named in the email correspondence. And even if I do not know Portuguese I am able to notice the lack of such a references. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Holstein HSV-6.jpg

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Perhaps you know what categories to add to this image? Its a hard image to categorise as this Chinese-German footballer is very rare. As an aside, I think that this image needs a rename but I leave it to you to choose a more suitable title. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: As an aside, perhaps you can mark the image below. I am "transcluded" from marking it. For some reason the flickrbot 'skips' marking some images and this is one of them. It was uploaded 24 hours ago...and is very heavily used. The license on flickr is 'cc by sa 2.0 generic' while the flickr author's other images have a NC restriction. So, he has chosen to license this image freely:
  • File:Down With Military Rule Flag (Saudi Embassy, Cairo).jpg

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, I've added categorized the photograph of the Chines-German football player and reviewed the protected image from Flickr. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thank You. That German-Chinese player was a difficult case to catalogue, I'll say. Meanwhile, while you passed that image, I spotted this DR and decided to make a response. Just to let you know. In this case, I am quite certain the Common's uploader must have got the flickr account owner to change the license and remove the NC restriction. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, do not worry, this watermark does not constitute a problem for this picture. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: That's good to know. Some people see the copyright mark and worry when the source of the picture is the photographer who has licensed the image freely. So, there is no issue here. But there are other bigger problems like this where the flickr account owner licenses his images freely on flickr but says on his flickr profile that all my images are "Creative Commons, Non-Commercial". In this case, I tagged the image for deletion but someone felt that perhaps this was hasty. I don't disagree...because the real problem is with the flickr account owner. But since he licenses all his newer images today as ARR, perhaps in the past they were just "CC BY 2.0 Generic" and he kept it this way? Well, goodnight from Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Guild of Saint Luke.jpg

Dear AFBorchert

My name is 弦楽五重奏(String Quintet in English ).

I would like to ask you the following questions;

Copperplate print of Guild of Saint Luke , I don't have positive proof , I'm pretty sure it isn't a work by Johannes Vermmer.

I think it is a work by obscure artist.

Vermeer was buried in 15 December 1675 , This picture was published 1730s.

Why did you think author of this picture Vermeer?--弦楽五重奏 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi 弦楽五重奏, thank you for clarifying this. I've fixed the attribution in the file description and my summary of the deletion request. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow,thank you! I'll let you know if anything changes. I'll be eager to study English :) 重ね重ねありがとう!--弦楽五重奏 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This category

Can this category simply be renamed to Senakhtenre? This pharaoh's full royal+birth name is now shown to be Senakhtenre Ahmose but most people know him by his old name of Senakhtenre Tao. However, Egyptologists today know his full name is Senakhtenre Ahmose. This is based on a new archaeological discovery made in February 2012 at Karnak by French scholars and recently published in a French language article . (Ahmes in Egyptian is Ahmose in English)

The Germans on Deutsch wikipedia just call him by his royal name of Senachtenre...and keeps things simple. A reference to his royal name of 'Senakhtenre' seems appropriate, I think and won't upset people especially if a reference to the aforementioned article is made. You can read the English wikipedia article I wrote above on him. Any views on a simple renaming. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, I have no knowledge of Egyptology and consequently no opinion which name should be preferred here. I suggest to open a discussion for this at COM:CFD. Or, alternatively, feel free to ask admin Marcus Cyron who is an expert for the classical era but who also contributed in the field of Egyptology. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark this Edit?

If you can, please feel free to approve this single edit to interlink the correct king/pharaoh on Deutsch wikipedia. Right now the interlink will go to the wrong king's article on English wikipedia from the Deutsch wikipedia web page. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your kind help. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, you'd deleted File:LAMBORGHINI.jpg based on my DR, however, you'd kept the Porsche one as it was a derivative of PD works. I normally stay away from these types of DRs as I'm not very comfortable with the story behind them. I just realized that there's a lot more similar to the Lamborghini logo from the DR at Category:Lamborghini. Can you take a look at those too? I would, but these are just way out of my comfort zone. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi SpacemanSpiff, I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/Lamborghini emblems for the remaining cases. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll follow the DR. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Flickr email

Please see this thread on en wiki "User_talk:PumpkinSky#Camp_Paxson_Boy_Scout_Camp". Can you email the flickr uploader for me and ask for a free license? Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi PumpkinSky, I've sent a FlickrMail to him. I hope he will respond as his latest contributions are from July 2010. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. PumpkinSky talk 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Using one of your pictures in a textbook

I am including your picture of the Chartres jamb statues with minor cropping, in a textbook. This being printed text, no hyperlinks, I wondered if you would like to add any other information (location, any URL, whatever). I can also be contacted at thechabon aaa ttt hot mail dddottt com. Thanks very much.

Iiiiaaaa (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Iiiiaaaa, thank you for your notice. Please feel free to use this picture, just attribute it to Andreas F. Borchert. In addition, I would appreciate it if I could notified as well as soon as it gets published. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abbildung von Kunstwerken

hallo AFBorchert, ich habe die schriftliche Erlaubnis eines Künstlers, Abbildungen von einigen seiner Werke hochzuladen. Wie komme ich an das Ticket? Gruß, Ruesterstaude (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Ruesterstaude, bitte leite die schriftliche Erlaubnis an weiter. Diese Genehmigung muss auch auf die zu wählende freie Lizenz Bezug nehmen und es sollte daraus erkennbar werden, dass dem Künstler die Konsequenzen der freien Lizenz klar sind (einschließlich der kommerziellen Weiternutzung und der Möglichkeit, die Fotografien weiter zu bearbeiten). Als Vorbild hierzu kann diese Vorlage dienen. Wenn die schriftliche Genehmigung auf Papier vorliegt, kann sie eingescannt und beigefügt werden. Im Falle einer E-Mail würden wir auch die E-Mail-Adresse des Künstlers benötigen. Schließendlich sollte die E-Mail die URLs der hochgeladenen Abbildungen nennen, d.h. diese sind zuerst hochzuladen. Beim Hochladen sollten die Abbildungen mit {{OTRS pending}} und der vom Künstler genehmigten freien Lizenz versehen werden. Wenn es werkgetreue Abbildungen sind, liegt das gesamte Urheberrecht beim Künstler. Wenn die Bilder in irgendeinem Kontext gezeigt werden (beispielsweise an der Wand hängend), dann ist es ein abgeleitetes Werk, an dem sowohl der Künstler als auch der Fotograf Urheberrechte haben. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Vielen Dank! Ich hoffe, es hat funktioniert. Schöne Grüße, Ruesterstaude (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Ruesterstaude, das Ticket habe ich sogleich gefunden und beantwortet. Wie oben bereits erwähnt, muss die Genehmigung auf die zu wählende freie Lizenz Bezug nehmen etc. Details sind in meiner Antwort. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo AFBorchert, danke für diesen nochmaligen Hinweis! Der war auch notwendig. Der Autor hat sich inzwischen etwas intensiver die Lizenzbedingungen angesehen und möchte die gewerbliche Verwendung seiner bekanntesten Bilder nicht zulassen. Das bedeutet wohl, dass die Bilder - bis auf den öffentlich zugänglichen Storchenturm - den ja jeder fotographieren kann, zunächst einmal gelöscht werden müssen. Er will noch einmal darüber nachdenken, ob, und wenn ja, welche anderen Bilder er für die Lizenz cc-by-sa-2.0 freigeben will. Dann werde ich das Hochladen mit dem nunmehr mir bekannten Prozedere vornehmen. Tut mir leid für die Umstände, viele Grüße, Ruesterstaude (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Ruesterstaude, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Es ist in der Tat für uns sehr wichtig, dass den Künstlern die Konsequenzen einer solchen Freigabe bewusst sind. Da der Künstler mit der Freigabe unter einer freien Lizenz nicht einverstanden ist, habe ich jetzt die ganze Serie wieder gelöscht einschließlich dem Storchenturm. Natürlich kann der Storchenturm per Panoramafreiheit (sofern der von öffentlichen Wegen aus sichtbar ist) frei fotografiert und veröffentlicht werden, aber dieses Bild ist eben von dem Künstler und die Fotografie benötigt dann natürlich eine Freigabe von ihm. Sollte diese noch eintreffen, kann ich diese gerne wieder restaurieren. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fix astigmatism, please

I reverted the picture of fluorine gas to go back to one that has wider aspect ratio (original), but it is now displaying as distorted circles. I tried doing a null edit on the target page and that did not help. Is it the transcluded Wiki page that is the issue? Also, look in File History. I should see exactly the same for the top and bottom picture (was just a reversion). But what I see is the top with astigmatism and the bottom normal.

Moissan color images.jpg

TCO (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

P.s. I see astigmatism, here too. -T

Hi TCO, that image needed to be purged. I've done this now. You will have at times a problem when another file version is chosen that you still encounter cached versions of various resolutions. A purge operation voids the outdated images in the cache such that they get regenerated. You possibly need to purge your browser cache as well while reloading this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks better already. How do I purge an image? TCO (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See here. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sunset Photo from Yaki Point, South Rim, Grand Canyon

View, East-Northeast, Walhalla Plateau (Kaibab Plateau at left, Cape Royal & Cape Final region).

Thank You, sincerely. Many thanx for your comments to me; Nobody had yet contacted me about my 4.5 weeks, now, of "Grand Canyon studies"... What is so amazing is that, there are ssooooo....... many photos, all from different locations... And of course the GEOLOGY.
I so love it that a photo can be used for purposes, "far beyond" an original person's purpose for taking it, or for offering it to Wikipedia. ( ! )

It took me 2 weeks to discover these two "flat-topped" landforms, typically of en:Kaibab Limestone, (almost the same elevation as Kaibab Plateau; Equivalent elevations; they were once part of the Kaibab Plateau). The Wotans Throne, and Shiva Temple. Because they are closer to the picture taker (the Viewpoint, for example from the South Rim)... the gologic sequences are thicker in appearance, than the cliffs of the en:Kaibab Plateau beyond. I am using 2 "Road Atlases" for Arizona. One, from Benchmark Maps, has an expanded map, (topo map, with elevations, etc.) of Grand Canyon, from just west of Grand Canyon Village, and to -- Just east of the photo you took from Yaki Point, before the Colorado River comes down from the northeast.

Of note, Shoshone Point is just east of Yaki Point (about 1.1 mi due-Southeast, on an access road). So the viewpoints from each, are basically, identical... Thanks again for your assistance... Andd..... "A photo does say a thousand words!"...(from the HOT, SonoranDesert, Arizona-USA,....--Mmcannis (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mmcannis, thank you for your reply and for your efforts to sort, fix, and better describe the Arizona photos. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi AFBorchert, I changed the heading in your post on Pieter Kuiper's ANU subpage to make it a little clearer what people were supporting and opposing. Hope that's okay. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jafeluv, that is ok for me. Thanks for the notice. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Baginbun Head Eastern Beach 2010 09 27.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Baginbun Head Eastern Beach 2010 09 27.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.



I felt it relevant to file Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:James-franck-fig-1.jpg, both because I'm not certain your argumentation is the correct one in the closure, and because I felt you should have recursed yourself from closing the discussion due to your involvement in the Pieter affair moments before. AzaToth 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi AzaToth, if you honestly think that my closures of deletion requests are biased, I suggest to open a section concerning my admin activities at COM:AN/U. But then you should also consider cases where I had a different opinion as Pieter Kuiper. Some samples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Шульце-Бойзен, 1932 г.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinrich Gerhard Scherhorn.jpg, or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dunlop laarzen-1.jpg. My main motivation of closing this DR was that it depended on the threshold of originality. I have closed a large number of such deletion requests before and most admins prefer not to touch such cases. And it escapes me how I am involved in the Pieter affair as you chose to call it. I have multiple times pleaded for lifting blocks of quite a number of users that I found excessive or in conflict with our policies. (The last one was Ottava Rima who, BTW, was in conflict with Pieter Kuiper.) This has never stopped me from blocking one of them at another occasion. Today I blocked the IP address that is assumed to be Pieter's. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Morsi cropped.png

Hey. Would you look at this picture when you have time? -> File talk:Mohamed Morsi cropped.png Regards - --Pixi Uno (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pixi Uno, I've responded at the talk page you are refering to. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- and once again? :-) --Pixi Uno (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- and again. :-) --Pixi Uno (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have it on my watch list. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

COM:AN/B#Proposal to unblock User:Lucas Brígido/Lucas Secret

Hallo Andreas (Ich hoffe das ist richtig so, wenn nicht bitte korrigieren),

was denkst Du über den Vorschlag? Martin H. ist natürlich nicht begeistert und das ist durchaus verständlich. Nun sollte man auch beachten, dass manche Menschen impulsiver sind; ich habe diese Erfahrung gerade mit spanisch- und portugiesischsprachigen Nutzern gemacht. Interessanterweise habe ich (in meiner kurzen Zeit hier) noch nie ein Problem mit einem Galicisch- oder Català-sprechenden Nutzer festgestellt.

Wirst Du Zeit haben, ab und zu einmal nach seinen Beiträgen zu sehen? Danke und Grüße -- RE rillke questions? 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Rainer (ich hoffe, dass das ebenfalls ok ist), mit einer Aufhebung des Blocks wäre ich einverstanden. Die Antworten sahen jedenfalls relativ vernünftig aus. Und ich werde dann auch ab und zu mit ein Auge darauf werfen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. Ich war gleich so frei, den Block aufzuheben. Ich sehe da momentan keinen Widerspruch und es erschien mir dann nicht sinnvoll, das noch lange weiter aufzuschieben. Ich hoffe, dass dies in Deinem Sinne ist. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Danke. So sieht es besser aus, als wenn ich es gemacht hätte (stimmen & entsperren). -- RE rillke questions? 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello AFBorchert, thank you for this chance. If necessary, I will ask help for someone. Thank you very much! Lucas Secret (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lucas Secret, good luck and feel free to ask me whenever necessary. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Retinol 3Dstructure.png

All uses have been replaced by a correct alternative. --Leyo 07:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leyo, thanks for the notification. I've reopened this DR and deleted the disputed diagram. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 18:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Brody Stevens in Vegas.jpg

Do you want to mark this strange image or is it a flickrwash? No one wants to mark it and I don't know what to do either. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Oh well! Someone has finally decided to mark it. I couldn't say if it was a flickrwash--it looked OK--but the image is rather strange. Thank You anyway, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, I share the same thoughts regarding this picture but I have unfortunately no time right now to investigate this further. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:00876 Archäologischen Ausgrabungen auf dem Michaelerplatz vor der Pfarrkirche in Sanok. Zustand am 15 Mai 2012.JPG‎

Hello and thanks for your post. I never want any edit-wars etc. I only try to categorize files as far rational as possible. This image shows "Excavations at Świętego Michała Square in Sanok‎" and that's the point of case. You can check how looks "talk" with user (that's the same person as User:Silar). There are many problems with him. There is no discussion, no answers from him. And additionally he deletes posts of other users on his discussion page. So far from me. Regards. --Lowdown (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lowdown, I understand but this file has now a long history of edit-warring and this is something which has to stop. The easiest way to open a discussion is at the corresponding talk page. Simply outline the rationale for your edit. And then wait. If Silar reacts and responds to that discussion, this would be good. Otherwise, if there is no reaction and the protection of that file ends, I assume this to be the consensus until the discussion is reopened again. This is not the most convenient approach but it avoids edit warring. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Independence or death" painting

Hi, AFBorchert. I saw that you erased one of the many copies of the "Independence or Death" painting. I asked for the deletion of the other copies,[2][3][4][5] but another administrator, called Yann, opted to kept them[6] I don't understand why since they aren't used anywhere and they have a low resolution, awful colors and terrible overall quality. Shouldn't they be removed? --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, in this case it was quite simple as it had a very low solution and no real source. Yann is surely right that in many cases it is worthwhile to keep alternatives. In case of File:Independência ou Morte.jpg, for example, we find a proper source which alone makes it sufficiently useful to keep it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason tkeep them, but if there is no problem at all keeping them, that's fine. Thank you very much, AFBorchert. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture from University of Freiburg

Could you please write to this fellow and request donation of this image?


Or something like it? I tried, but got no response. But my Deutsch is schlect and I got no response.  :(

Seriously, I would appreciate it if a German speaker could try writing to the lab and asking for the license. It is for an important article:


[contact data, email addresses etc. removed]

I wrote in English but got no response. Maybe a German outreach will do better? I want that picture...;-)

Or I could just disrupt some flame war by making off topic comments about needing actual Wiki help. Sort of the reverse of the norm, you know...


TCO (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi TCO, please do not post email addresses, phone numbers etc. on this talk page. The colleagues from University of Freiburg will have no trouble understanding emails in English. This will require a well-written letter and some patience, though. Most importantly, you need to identify and contact the person who shot this photograph. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Freiburg one is really nice. I guess I could try Eric Hope at Uni of Leeds if the Germans don't want to give away their artistic content. Or just have someone go and...take a picture. It is just one little trinket, but I want it. Feel like that is a lot of what I do...try to make articles shine by finding better pictures. The benefit adds up after a while. For instance, with Painted turtle, it was translated into French and Russian and got lots of kudos...for the graphics. TCO (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I could also have someone draw a line drawing based on that illo. Hmmm...kind of a cool idea. There was one sort of like it in the Du Shriver Inorganic textbook. But if we draw from a photo instead of trying to modify his, it is easier to say we are original. And a line drawing would give some variety. Maybe even annotate it with letters and explanations. Hmm. Could still add a reference to the Freiburg lab webpage (which seems sort of state of the art in F handling). TCO (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you please get the picture for me? I can even nominate it for FP with your name on it. (Having a hard time getting a graphicist to convert to line drawing).TCO (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi TCO, you can try to contact the copyright holder of that picture in Freiburg yourself in English. There is no need to involve me in this at this stage. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi there, about the Cirillo pics, we should get an answer soon, I'll keep you posted. Bye! --Elitre (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elitre. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that I have the sender's answer, I can recap the whole thing for you. Those pics were provided by Cirillo, who was interviewed by User:Erato for this Wikimedia Italia interviews'project for Italian Wikinews. As I was once part of the team, I can tell that each interviewee was adequately informed about free licenses, especially the CC-BY which is Wikinews'one. This usually happened in person, but I also asked for email confirmations at the time. She mentions the CC-BY in the mail, and he replies that's fine for him. So by giving us those pics he claimed he had the rights to do so. In case we want to keep those files, we just need to fix the license (BY, not BY-SA). If this is still not ok I might contact Cirillo as well. Regards, --Elitre (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elitre, this is more or less what I understood from the ticket. But it appears to be unlikely that Cirillo photographed himself. People often believe that by owning a photograph they have the copyright. This is, however, usually not the case. And even in case of a transfer of rights the author (i.e. the photographer) has a moral right to be named per article 20 of the Italian copyright law. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I get it. Still, when someone claims he owns copyright, I do believe he/she knows what he/she is doing (especially if the person is experienced in how the Internet works). Tons of pictures of VIP are only authorised by themselves. Also, when we get permissions to reproduce contents from a given website under a free license (or when we find a free one) we are never 100% sure of who the author of the contents really is. Cirillo's address should be in that ticket, in case these pics are deleted and someone wants to ask for a replacement. Bye, --Elitre (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
At the OTRS level we should never accept a simple statement by a VIP that they own the copyright of a picture showing them as experience tells us that most of them do not know much about copyright law. It is our job as an OTRS member who processes permission tickets to make sure that things are done properly even if those contacting us are inexperienced in these matters. This is also expected by the community at Commons. We had already deletion requests where the validity of an OTRS ticket was questioned. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Deletion requests happen but they are not "a big deal", if you know what I mean. Can you please link to a Commons policy page about it or to an OTRS best practices one explaining in the details how to behave in these cases? Otherwise I'll start a discussion at the OTRS'village pump. Thanks, --Elitre (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as I was able to trace some pages by myself and can keep researching for the others, don't worry about my previous request. Thanks! --Elitre (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Archaeowiki images on Commons

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

I notice you managed to see the correct license on archaeowiki images in this DR here Unfortunately, the situation is not good. I can't find the source for this image below but its most likely another copy vio from archaeowiki...where it was never free:

I told Admin Dcoetzee here of 2 or 3 other obvious copyright violations and asked him to consider filing a mass DR on most of the 'archaeowiki' images. Maybe one or two of the archaeowiki black and white images here can be saved...but in truth only this image below is safe since it is 2D art--a papyrus dating to circa 1550 BC:

Its creators died thousands of years ago. I think Admin Dcoetzee is maybe busy so the images that I mentioned to him still remain here as does the pectoral from the Myers museum which I doubt was ever free. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Maybe if Admin Dcoetzee is still busy, you could consider filing a mass DR on most of the remaining archaeowiki images except this image below which is 2D art|old from 1550 BC. If you wish, you can exclude 1-2 old black and white photographs...but that is your decision. Most of the archaeowiki images are likely unfree as I said in my message to Dcoetzee 1 week ago.
  • Only File:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.jpg is free.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, I would suggest to file these pictures for deletion and to refer to the already closed DR. Deletion requests provide a better documentation why such files got deleted. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafka image

File:Kafka portrait.jpg. This seems to be a 1906 photo. It probably falls under German or Czech law. What is it's proper license on Commons? I doubt the uploader owned it. PumpkinSky talk 19:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the other images in the en wiki article on Franz Kafka are ok. PumpkinSky talk 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi PumpkinSky, according to the source this photo was taken in 1906 by Atelier Jacobi. This is a quite famous photographing family with Lotte Jacobi the most well-known descendent. As it was taken in 1906, this was apparently taken in Posen by Lotte's father Sigismund Jacobi who was born in 1860 and had a working period from 1899 to 1908, and died in 1935. Thereby it is in the public domain in its source country per {{PD-old}}. The copyright status according to US law, however, remains unclear due to URAA as it was still copyrighted in 1996 per pma70. Unfortunately we do not know when this picture was published first. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sehr interessant. Danke.PumpkinSky talk 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got

Email! Greetings --THWZ (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi THWZ, you should have received a response by now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

File:2012 Olympic Cauldron.jpg

This image is now 'private' on flickr--so I can't see its license or even view it. But Magnus Manske confirmed that the license was 'cc by 2.0 generic' at upload: is that correct? Just curious. Unfortunately, I will be away and cannot respond to any reply you can post for maybe the next day but hopefully everything is OK. The Olympics ran from July 27 to August 12 but maybe the author's camera metadata was set backwards a day to show July 26. On the other hand, the picture appears to have been taken from here and it now looks to have been deleted; so, I can't tell if it was deleted because it was a flickrwash that flickr detected or not.

This may be a legitimate image or a copy vio. You may wish to ask other Admins on the Admin network on Commons about this image. I have to go now as I don't know what to do. If it is a possible copy vio, it is better that you ask other Admins their opinions about this image which has no camera metadata...just software imaging metadata. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, I'm not surprised that Flickr images under free licenses of the Olympic Games are taken done shortly after publication, in particular when they found prominence by being used at en-wp articles. The problem is that the smallprint of the terms and conditions of every ticket at the Olympic Games restricts photographs to private use only, a release under a free license is prohibited. See this story in the Signpost. Those who publish photographs from the Olympic Games nonetheless under a free license get a quick note by a law firm, asking them to remove the free license. It is very likely that this happened in this case as well. But even if the photographer violated the terms of his ticket, this does not concern us as this is a non-copyright restriction. However, if the photographer should contact us per email (through OTRS) we are possibly inclined to take it down here at Commons out of courtesy as we do likewise in case of local uploads and legal pressure against the uploader. But otherwise, we consider such a free license as unrevokable.
However, this particular photograph has another problem as it depicts a sculpture by Thomas Heatherwick. This is not covered by {{FoP-UK}} as the sculpture was non-permanent. It was assembled during the opening ceremony and dismantled during the closing ceremony. For this reason, I've filed it for deletion. It is a pity that it has to go. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thank you for clearing the issue up Admin AFBorchert. The Olympic flame in London is not permanently affixed--so it is not covered by British FOP unlike the 2010 Olympic flame where the City of Vancouver decided to keep the flame in place after the 2010 games and light it for special occasions. So, it cannot be kept on Commons. I will vote in the DR to delete. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dreifaches Bild mit OTRS-Ticket

Hallo Andreas, kannst Du bitte mal nach der Dreiergruppe, File:Thai-Ridgeback-blau.jpg, File:Diamond-ThaiDi.jpg gucken. Davon reicht wohl ein Bild, die anderen können weg. Ich weiß nur nicht recht, wie mit dem Ticket umgehen, damit da nichts schief geht, denn just das Bild, von dem ich meine, es sollte behalten werden, hat kein Ticket. Anka Friedrich (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

date of churches

Dear A. F. Borchert I am doing a project and was querying into transepts; in particular, when the first catholic church transepts were found in England. If you even have a rough idea, I would really appreciate the 'heads up'. Thank You Yours Sincerly OcA

Hi OcA, transepts exist in England since at least the arrival of St. Augustine in Canterbury. The earliest church of St Augustine's Abbey of the 7th century was of the square Byzantine type as was found out through excavations. Other similar churches were erected throughout Kent. (See Hugh Braun: English Abbeys, Faber, ISBN 0-571-09612-3.) Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cat rename

Can this cat simply be renamed Arthur Darvill for this English actor? Or will it be 2 weeks before the cat is renamed? I just made a slight typo in the last name unfortunately. This is his article and its Arthur Darvill. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, in such obvious cases it appears best to create the correctly named category, to move all pics, and to file a speedy deletion for the old category. I've done this now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Thank you for the tip, The next time, I will create a second cat with the right name and then file a speedy delete on the wrong category. I have never done this on cats before...until today. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Guten Morgen Andreas, ich bin gerade dabei eine Genehmigungsanfrage wegen der Fotos in Category:Notker Becker loszuschicken. Die vorhandenen Genehmigungsvorlagen passen dafür aber alle nicht so recht, denn ich kann ja z.B. nicht eine konkrete Lizenz angeben, wenn die betroffenen Fotos unter verschiedenene Lizenzen stehen. Hast du oder ihr auf OTRS vielleicht eine für diese Freigabesituation - Urheber der Kunstwerke 1978 verstorben, daher noch geschützt; vermuteter Rechteübergang auf Abt seines Klosters; Freigabe für Fotos von Dritten - passendere Vorlage? Oder genügt in solch einem Fall eine formlose Freigabe ohne Nennung einer Lizenz? --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, in der Tat, die normalen Texte kommen in so einem Falle nicht in Frage. Es sollte vielleicht zunächst geklärt werden, ob sie in der Tat im Besitz der Rechte sind und ob sie bereit sind, die Abbildungen der Kunstwerke pauschal freizugeben oder konkret nur für die Bilder der Kategorie oder ob sie noch darüber hinausgehende Anforderungen haben. Letzlich muss aus der Erklärung hervorgehen, welche abgeleiteten Werke unter welchen Bedingungen frei sind und dass die essentiellen Freiheiten aus COM:L für die Abbildungen einschließlich der kommerziellen Nutzung eingeräumt werden. Das kann relativ formlos sein oder auch beispielsweise folgendermaßen aussehen:
Ich erkläre hiermit, dass ich bezüglich des künstlerischen Nachlasses von Notker Becker
(a) allein im Besitz der Urheberrechte bin oder
(b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder
(c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.
Ich erlaube hiermit die Veröffentlichung von Bildern (oder konkret genannten Bildern) dieser Kunstwerke (ggf. Aufzählung der Kunstwerke), selbst wenn dies unter einer freien Lizenz geschieht, die in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht einräumt, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen, zu verändern und weiter zu verbreiten. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.
Mir ist bekannt, dass sich diese Freigabe nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen des Urheberrechts rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.
Wichtig ist dabei, dass die genau verstehen, was so eine Freigabe bedeutet und dass sie damit gut leben können. Eine konkrete Lizenz muss nicht genannt werden, wenn sie eine pauschale Freigabe für alle freie Abbildungen dieser Kunstwerke erteilen. Sie haben aber natürlich das gute Recht, auf eine konkrete Art der Lizenzierung (etwa CC-BY-SA) zu bestehen und dann müssen die Bilder halt dem entsprechen. Viel Erfolg wünsche ich Dir dabei! Du kannst mich gerne anstupsen, sobald etwas an das OTRS-Team geschickt worden ist. Dann sehe ich mir das gerne an. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Andreas, vielen Dank. Ich hatte die Erstanfrage schon abgeschickt, weil es wegen bereits auf Commons befindlichen Fotos (da vermutlich URV) schnell gehen musste, mich dabei aber um ähnlich Formulierungen bemüht wie du empfohlen hast. Hättest du etwas dagegen, wenn ich (oder du selbst) aus deinem Entwurf eine neue "Anfragen-Vorlage" auf Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen erstelle? --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Túrelio, Du kannst das sehr gerne tun. Ich selbst habe momentan kaum Zeit für so etwas, da ich im Augenblick beruflich etwas angespannt bin (Semesteranfangsstress). Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pi Mu Epsilon pin

Per, "After the academic year 1914-15, the fraternity was definitely a functioning organization, most of the decisions having been made on such items as formal initiation, ritual, die, seal, badge, colors, flower and shield." This would make the pin public domain. Would you please restore it? -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Avi, do you have a link to the DR or to the deleted file? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion_requests/Fraternity_pins. -- Avi (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, Avi, I've restored that image and added a notice to the DR. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Guten Abend. Zuerst sorry für mein deutsch (es is nur polnisches Gymnasium level). Gerade habe ich die unten dargestellte Probleme bei 3 polnischsprachigen Commons-moderatoren gemeldet. Hiermit möchte ich versuchen die Sache auf deutsch zum Anschein bringen. Schauen Sie sich bitte die Tätigkeit des Users [9]. Bis jetzt dachte ich dass wir hier mit einem internationalem Programm zu tun haben, wo man sich die Mühe gibt nichts zu komplitzieren. Leider habe ich festgestellt das es mehrere "neue Kategorien" entsanden sind und zwar doppelte (so wird versucht doppelte Standarts für bereits existierte Ordnung einzuführen). Die Kategorien die Medien beinhalten die Polen betreffen heissen plötzlich "category:Klötkow Klodkowo", "category:Hagenow Bieczyno‎", "category:Hoff Trzesacz", "category:Klötkow Klodkowo‎", "category:Langenhagen Karcino‎", "category:Robe Roby‎", "category:Treptow a.d.Rega Trzebiatow", "category:Triebs Trzebusz", "category:Zarben Sarbia", "category:Zirkwitz Cerkwica". Schauen Sie sich bitte an vieviele aktuelle Medien von heute in diesen Kategorien gelandet sind. Verstehe gar nich was das soll, was passiert wenn die Polen anfangen genauso solche Doppelstandarts für Orte in Ukraine ("Category:Lwów Lviv"), Litauen ("Category:Wilno Vilnius") und Weissrussland ("Category:Grodno Hrodna") einzuführen das führt doch zu gar nicht. Hoffe dass Sie vielleicht Zeit finden und etwas in dieser Angelegenheit tun können. Vielen dank im Voraus. mfg 21:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Die Namen entsprechen in der Tat nicht unseren Richtlinien für Kategorien, und wie ich sehe hat gerade Sfu eine Nachricht hinterlassen. Generell empfiehlt es sich in solchen Fällen, direkt mit dem Betroffenen zu reden und auf die Richtlinien hinzuweisen. Um die fehlerhaften Kategorienamen zu korrigieren, wäre es hilfreich, eine Liste von solchen fehlerhaften Doppelbezeichnungen zu haben und diese bei COM:CFD zu listen. Ich selbst habe im Augenblick nicht die Zeit, sofort diesbezüglich aktiv werden zu können. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. Ihr Deutsch ist ziemlich gut. Ich wünschte, ich könnte so gut Polnisch :)

Zweite Meinung gefragt

Als "newcommer" in die Wikipediawelt habe ich mir in DE und NL ein Mentor gesucht und gefunden. Nun habe ich aber in meiner Naivität und auf mich gestellt, mich auf "commons" ganz schön verhaspelt: Problem: Die zwei Bilder die ich auf commons plaziert habe sind sofort in die Delete Request geraten (im nachhinein nicht ganz unverständlich). Es sind aber schon außergewöhnliche Fälle: Es handelt sich um Bilder die höchst wahrscheinlich in Fotostudios vor dem 2. Weltkrieg entstanden sind. Eine Möglichkeit da Sicherheit zu bekommen besteht in keiner Weise mehr. Die Copyrights haben (sicherlich etwas eigenmächtig) die Erben der abgebildten Personen verwaltet. So erschienen die Fotos auf und in Bücher und inzwischen auch im Internet. Die Fotografen, oder deren Erben (sofern sie überhaupt noch lebten oder gab) haben sich nie hierzu geäußert. Es handelt sich also um Fälle die dem regelwerk siebzig Jahre lang anonym gebliebene Werke, wenn nicht gleich gestellt sind, doch sehr nahe kommen. Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist.

Nun bitte ich herzlich um eine zweite Meinung zu diesen Fällen da der Admin Jim hierzu eine absolut restrictive Ansicht vertritt, normalerweise für commons zweifellos ein Segen, aber in diesen beiden außergewöhnlich seltene Fällen wo Erben der abgebildeten Personen die Einwilligung geben und die Fotografen (+ deren Erben) in keiner Weise mehr zu ermitteln sind?.... Die Request Diskussionen sind zu finden auf: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stein-Walter Johannes.jpg

with Amendment statement: A littlebit the same problem exists here

com:Deletion requests/File:F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven.jpg

only with the difference that it was my Grandpa and hu:J.E. Z.v.E. my Father. It exists allready a lot of books with photos of my Grandpa without any note to the photographer. see here on here on WorldCat and here. The permission for all this photos was given by my father! I would appriciate if you have a look on it and give also to this request your opinion! I thank you in advance. --Deklamat (Diskussion) 13:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC) PS Look also here. The permission for all this photos was given by my father!

Gerne wüßte ich zu diesen beiden Grenzfälle eine zweite Meinung und wenn sogar positiv en {{vk}} Vermerk auf die Request Seiten. Vielen dank --Deklamat (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Deklamat, das sind Fälle, bei denen man die Bilder relativ risikolos anderswo veröffentlichen könnte, aber dies in Commons nicht gelingt, da wir entsprechend diesem Prinzip etwas strenger sind. Im einzelnen:
  • Urheberrechtlich bringen die Zusagen der Erben der abgebildeten Personen überhaupt nichts. Ebenso wenig kann der Besitzer dieser Bilder helfen.
  • Du sprichst an, dass die Bilder siebzig Jahre anonym geblieben seien, offenbar in Bezug auf {{Anonymous-EU}}. Das nützt hier auch nichts, es sei Dir denn, Dir gelingt es nachzuweisen, dass die Bilder bereits vor über 70 Jahren anonym publiziert worden sind. Hier zählt nicht das Alter der Bilder, sondern die Zeit, die seit der ersten Publikation vergangen ist.
Es tut mir leid, Dir keine bessere Auskunft geben zu können. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC).
Vielen Dank AFBorchert für die freundliche Darlegung der Sachlage auf "Commons". Ich nehme wohl die Redewendung zu ernst "Wenn ein erheblicher Zweifel an der Freiheit einer bestimmten Datei herrscht...".
Einen Nachweis ist ausgeschlossen weil die Erstveröffentlichungen durch einen Verlag "Kruseman Den Haag" und "P. de Haan" Zeist (beide NL) vorgenommen wurden. Diese Verlage gingen Konkurs (der letzte -De Haan- in 1962) und der Konkursverwalter konnte 10 Jahre nach Abschluss des Konkursverfahrens alle Akten und Unterlagen vernichten. Die Bücher mit den Fotos sind nach dem Krieg erschienen, also nicht 70 jahre alt. De Haan und Z.v.E. waren befreundet und es ist davon auszugehen, dass -eher mündlich als schriftlich, im Rahmen des Konkurses die rechte an die abgebildete Person zurück gegeben worden ist. Ich könnte sozusagen eine Erklärung an Eides statt ablegen weil für mich überhaupt keine erhebliche Zweifel bestehen. Würden sowas die OTRS-Teams entgegen nehmen? Wie würde das funktionieren? Schließlich habe ich P. De Haan und F.W.Z.v.E. als Kind noch persönlich gekannt. -Es ist leider alles etwas kompliziert und deswegen bin ich froh und dankbar, dass ich ein Admin in deutscher Sprache den Sachverhalt darlegen kann. Meine Ausführung kann ich hier (am Flugzeug stehen F.W.Z.v.E. + Pieter de Haan) und hier glaubhaft im Internet nachweisen. Wobei mein geschichtslehrer H.P. van Manen leider den Konkurs etwas verbrämt dargestellt hatt. Der Name wurde von Unieboek b.v. aus der Konkursmasse erworben. Inzwischen gehört Unieboek zu Uitgeverij Terra Lannoo bv; Postbus 97, 3990 DB Houten. Das Logo von de Haan hat inzwischen eine Drukkerei in Amsterdam. [10]. Der Verlagsnahme wird nicht mehr geführt. Die Autorenrechte gingen zurück an die Erben von F.W. Z.v.E. Lange rede kurzer Sinn. Schriftliche belege werden nicht mehr aufzufinden sein. Eine Eidestattliche Erklärung kann ich mit reinem Gewissen abgeben! --Deklamat (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Deklamat, gibt es in den nach dem Krieg erschienenen Büchern mit den Fotos irgendwelche Bildnachweise, die Rückschlüsse auf die Urheber zulassen? Oder sind die Bilder jeweils anonym veröffentlicht worden? Es wäre in jedem Fall sinnvoll, das in den Löschanträgen zu dokumentieren, da wir auch im Fall einer Löschung die Bilder restaurieren, sobald sie frei werden. Wenn beispielsweise eines der Bilder 1950 anonym veröffentlicht worden ist, könnte es zum 1. Januar 2021 nach europäischem Recht bzw. wegen URAA erst zum 1. Januar 2046 wieder restauriert werden. Das wird dadurch organisiert, indem beispielsweise Fälle, die 2046 frei werden, in Category:Undelete in 2046 untergebracht werden. Zwar wäre das noch eine nicht unerhebliche Wartezeit, aber dann wäre das Hochladen nicht umsonst gewesen. Im übrigen: Unter normalen Umständen würde man das Risiko der Veröffentlichung wohl eingehen, aber auf Commons hat sich die Gemeinschaft auf eine strengere Interpretation festgelegt und die Wikimedia Foundation hat dies auch so verbindlich festgelegt. Das liegt auch daran, dass wir das nicht jeweils für uns alleine entscheiden, sondern Commons als Medienarchiv für Dritte zur Verfügung steht, die normalerweise davon ausgehen, dass die Medien hier problemlos anderswo weitergenutzt werden können. Theoretisch wäre es aber beispielsweise möglich, die Bilder in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hochzuladen und dort unter der fair use-Klausel zu nutzen, wenn sie konkret für Artikel benötigt werden und es keine Alternativen dazu gibt. In der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia gibt es bislang keine Ausnahmeregel, die hier hilft (denkbar wäre eine Kombination aus fair use und Anwendung europäischen Rechts, die in unserem Beispiel eine Nutzung nach 70 und nicht erst nach 95 Jahren ermöglichen würde).
Das OTRS-Team, dem ich angehöre, kann hier auch nicht weiterhelfen. Das Team dient in diesem Kontext dazu, Nachweise zur Freigabe von Medien nicht-öffentlich entgegenzunehmen und das Vorliegen eines Nachweises öffentlich zu dokumentieren. Zusammengefasst: Es handelt sich offenbar bei den Bildern um verwaiste Werke, für die leider bislang keine befriedigende urheberrechtliche Lösung existiert. Der schwarze Peter liegt hier nicht bei Commons, sondern bei den Gesetzgebern, die diese Problematik bislang weitgehend nicht beachteten. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hallo AFBorchert für die vorangegangene ausführliche Darlegungen bin ich ganz besonders dankbar und bin froh die recht komplexe Verhältnisse in einer Sprache die mir etwas besser zu Gebote steht als engl. austauschen zu können. -Also verstehe ich es richtig, dass commons die bilder offentlich nicht mehr zugänglich macht aber nicht physikalisch löscht, sodass wenn neue Tatbestände bekannt werden, sie wieder öffentlich gemacht werden können? -Ich werde die Sachlage so gut ich kann weiter recherchieren und verbinde das zugleich mit der vorsichtige Frage ob du weiterhin bereit wärest in dieser Sache mein "coach" auf commons zu sein? Wie auch immer möchte ich schon jetzt für dein bisheriges Mitdenken mich ganz besonders herzlich bedanken!! --Deklamat (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Deklamat, Du verstehst es absolut richtig. Löschen bedeutet bei allen Wikimedia-Projekten, dass die entsprechenden Dateien oder Seiten nicht mehr für die Öffentlichkeit sichtbar sind, aber jederzeit wieder mit Admin-Privilegien sichtbar gemacht werden können. Entsprechend gibt es auch Antragsseiten für Wiederherstellungswünsche, auf Commons ist das hier. Und über die Undelete-Kategorien wird das Wiederherstellen organisiert für die Fälle, bei denen das Jahr bekannt ist, wann eine Datei frei wird. Du kannst Dich gerne jederzeit wieder an mich wenden, d.h. ich stehe in diesem Sinne gerne als coach zur Verfügung. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Entschuldigung AFBorchert aber ich falle schier vom Glauben ab. Wie kommt es das auf commons so absolut korrekt und im Zweifel gegen Verbleib gehandelt wird (statt wie bei Gericht im Zweifel für den Angeklagten) und bei den fürchterlich strengen Copyrightgesetze in Deutschland dieses Bild gleichsam durchgewunken wird? Hier werden ja m.W. nicht nur "verwaiste copyrights" mißachtet, sondern auch noch x mal Persönlichkeitsrechte. Da habe ich wohl die falsche Plattform gewählt oder? Vielleicht läßt sich Z.v.E. noch hierhin umziehen? --Deklamat (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Deklamat, das Bild wurde nicht durchgewunken, sondern bislang noch nicht überprüft. Darauf aufmerksam geworden, habe ich jetzt das Bild markiert, dass es nicht korrekt ist. Die Prozesse auf de-wp laufen anders als hier auf Commons, aber das Bild kann dort auch nicht bleiben. Grundsätzlich kann es immer passieren, dass Bilder durchschlüpfen, da gerade auf Commons auch keine systematische Kontrolle sämtlicher hochgeladenen Dateien stattfindet. So kann es passieren, dass solche Bilder dann u.U. sehr viel später gelöscht werden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Noch ein Nachtrag: Ein Dateiüberprüfungsbaustein war bereits vorhanden für das Bild, wurde jedoch regelwidrig entfernt. Ich habe den Betroffenen angesprochen. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Vielen dank für die schnelle Prüfung usw. Dadurch, dass der "Dateiüberprüfungsbaustein" nicht mehr vorhanden war, ich als Anfänger im Prüfen aller diesen Dingen noch nicht so bewandert, dürfte vielleicht mein "gewaltiges Verwundern" erklärlich sein. --Deklamat (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Deklamat, ja, es gibt hier immer Dinge, worüber man sich nur wundern kann. Jüngst z.B. die Behalten-Entscheidung bei Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stein-Walter Johannes.jpg, bezeichnenderweise ohne Begründung. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Also ganz ehrlich, natürlich hast du (leider) ein bisschen recht. Nur durch meine Dummheit hätte es nie so heikel kommen dürfen. Es stand völlig ok als "faire use" auf EN:WIKI und ich habe durch Unwissenheit und unnötiger Weise dieses Bild in Gefahr gebracht. Dabei wird es schon lange als "GNU" in Zeitschriften und Bücher verwendet. Darüber hinaus behauptet Perseus Verlag Copyright darauf zu haben. Das ist bestimmt sinnvoll, dass ein verantwortlicher Mensch wie Thomas Meyer sich überhaupt dafür verantwortlich fühlt... Wie auch immer, eins ist sicher: dieses Bild wird keiner beanspruchen und Kabale darum machen. Bei Z.v.E. ist es (ebenfalls leider) insofern anders als es noch nirgends als freie Lizens veröffentlicht war. Möglicherweise sind die Copyrights die de antroposofische vereniging in Nederland und vielleicht insofern auch richtig, weil eine alleinstehende Dame denen ihr Erbe vermachte? (In dieser Richtung ist mir eine kuriose Begebenheit eingefallen als ich etwa neun Jahre alt war). Du siehst es läßt mir keine Ruhe und ich will jetzt die Sache auf den Grund gehen. Wozu gibt es sonst ein Willem Zeylmans v. E. Archiv? Hoffentlich haben die Admins noch etwas Geduld mit mir und lassen die Diskussion noch ein Weilchen offen. --Deklamat (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


Nun bin ich fleißig am recherchieren, und habe um Jim, der sich für dieses Deletion Request verantwortlich fühlt, nicht zu lange warten zu lassen einen Zwischenbericht plaziert. Er hat sofort geantwortet (was natürlich freundlich ist, aber gleich klar gestellt, dass verwaiste Copyrights oder anonyme Publikation auch wenn es vor 70 Jahren geschah nichts nutzen.) Inzwischen weiß ich sicher, dass das Foto 1979 unter dem Copyright von Emanuel Z.v.E. in seiner Biographie über F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven veröffentlicht wurde. Ich bin mir auch ziemlich sicher, dass er der Erbe des Copyrights war, da ich mich inzwischen schwach erinnere, wie eine anthroposophische Dame (deren Name ich nicht weiss) etwa 1963 für mich, durch Vermittlung meiner Lehrerin, vom Negativ ein Abzug hat machen lassen. Da alles im persönlich vertrautem Kreis ablief, gibt es höchst wahrscheinlich keine schriftliche Belege über den Vorgang. Es ist vielleicht eine ganz kleine Chance, dass das negativ noch bei C. Z.v.E. (Ludwigsau) Familienbesitz von Z.v.E. befindet ohne, dass sie es bislang weiß. Dass wäre doch hoffentlich stichhaltig genug, dass das Copyright bei den Erben von Z.v.E. liegt? Erst in August 2013 werde ich das aber prüfen können. Sobald ich Sicherheit habe werde ich wahrscheinlich mich an OTRS wenden müssen oder? Wieviel Zeit habe ich noch die Diskussion so offen zu lassen? --Deklamat (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raoli, I do not have the time right now to go through all individual cases listed on that page. But in principle, it appears to be correct to nominate them (I checked a few of them). It would be, however, quite helpful to get more insight to the Italian case law in regard to copyright of architecture. And we need native speakers for this. The questions are what is eligible for copyright and where is the frontier between utilitarian design and pure art? This would help to get a better understanding of cases like File:Bridge in Venice by Calatrava.jpg (could be seen as mere utilitarian) or File:Stadio San Nicola - Curva Nord.jpg (it appears to be a plain stadion, not something architecturally breathtaking). Another point: In each of the cases it would be helpful to research the architect to determine when eventually the copyright of the depicted object expires. This allows us to sort these DRs into appropriate undeletion categories. There is no need to hurry this as their publication at Commons does not violate the copyright of the depicted objects (per the non-commercial exception of the Italian copyright law), it just violates our policies and it is a problem for potential reusers. In summary, I think that it is good to go through all the cases as you are doing it right now but at the same time we should carefully look which cases really need to be deleted and make sure that we can recover these images as soon as their depicted objects are free. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Because the Italian legislation is very vague on this issue, I started a discussion on it.wikipedia where we are also discussing of your question. I'm sorry I replied just now, but I forgot to answer first. Tomorrow or the day after I will give you the answer if any take place, otherwise I will translate this legislation into English. Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

See my talk also. Perhaps you should discuss reverting a fellow admin before just doing it? Pieter Kuiper is a sockpuppeteer. Several admins have blocked and tagged his socks, most or all from the same ISP in Sweden. The sockpuppeteer template is used on dozens of userpages. What makes PK special? Why should we hide the fact that he's violating block policy by using multiple socks? His socking is a legitimate concern, and labeling his userpage alerts other admins/users to the problem, which is what the template was created for. INeverCry 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the template should stay on his userpage, but I wouldn't object to your moving it to his talk seeing that he has no talk privilege, and that MB has now protected it. It should be on one or the other though, as it's a recognized fact that he's socking. INeverCry 00:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry, the goal of the WMF projects is to freely share the sum of all knowledge, not to humiliate users who happened to have worked for this goal as well. If a collaboration no longer seems supportable, we should allow a split in dignity. There is absolutely nothing won by putting such a template on a user page but much lost. Pieter Kuiper has never created multiple user accounts to the best of my knowledge. He continues to work without login, i.e. under an IP address. While this technically violates a block, it is not a deceptive way of socking. You have re-introduced the template on his user page. Please undo this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Socking is socking, whether he uses IPs or new accts. One of his sock IP DRs concerning a personal image on Fae's user page was frivolous at best, and I personally call it malicious. After I closed these DRs, PK came back and slapped 2 frivolous DRs on 2 of my old uploads. This is disruptive behavior. Where's the dignity in that? If you want to move the template to the top of his talk, that would be fine with me, but I don't agree with removing it altogether. INeverCry 19:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that his TP access has been restored, I think the template should remain where it is. INeverCry 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are apparently upset as PK has opened deletion requests for some of your uploads, it is surely not appropriate to insist to add this blocking template on his user page. Whatever your reasons have been to apply this template, this sequence of events does not look good and is better avoided. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not upset because of my 2 uploads being tagged. I couldn't care less if they got deleted or not. I was using that as an example of him going after those who disagree with him or do something he doesn't like. He did this and numerous other DRs using IPs to sock in violation of blocking policy. That's why I placed the template on his userpage. INeverCry 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would also note that w:Sock puppetry includes "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" in it's definition of sock puppetry. INeverCry 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but such a sequence of events still does not look good and is therefore better avoided. Many of the complaints regarding PK were likewise critical of such sequences of events where someone or something apparently caused PK to be upset and where his subsequent deletion requests were considered retaliatory. Please understand me correctly. I do not think that your application of the blocking template was an act of retaliation but it is still better to avoid such sequences.
Regarding sock puppetry: There is a huge difference between a vandalizing/spamming/copyvios uploading user who creates multiple user accounts and someone who got blocked and continues to file deletion requests as IP. Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address refers to users who could continue to work under their regular account but chose to logout to post some nasty remark or similar as IP to avoid scrutiny. This is not the case here. PK does not disguise himself. To my knowledge he never worked as IP when his account was not blocked. And now his DRs were easily recognizable. While this is not exactly the way we would like to have it we should not dramatize this unnecessarily and put PK into one basket with vandals/spammers/copyvio uploaders etc. This blocking template practice on user pages is en-wp style but so long was not the way we have things run here at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no control over the sequence of events, insofar as it refers to PKs DRs, and so he would have to be the one to avoid retaliatory practices. Otherwise a problem user would only have to do something directly against a certain admin or their uploads to render that admin unable to take action against the problem user afterwards. If PKs DRs were purely disinterested, that would be another story, and I might not insist on the userpage banner, but this isn't the case. Using DRs to get even with people is a different animal altogether. INeverCry 00:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

3 images to German wiki articles

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

If you can, feel free to spot EliOrni's 3 edits here on Deutsch wikipedia. He was adding images to 3 wikipedia articles on Deutsch wikipedia. I just marked one of them on Commons. (I don't know him but of course images are helpful) A belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thank you for sighting the 3 images on Deutsch wiki. The image for Jim Carter's article seemed important since his English wikipedia article here has 56 footnotes alone. Best Regards and Goodnight from Vancouver where its 12:57 AM, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Leoboudv: thanks, I've sighted the three articles as you have already noted. Good night and a Happy New Year to you as well. Best regards from Germany where it is 10:20 AM, --AFBorchert (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist a Flickr account Here

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Can the above flickr account be added to a blacklist? The flickr account owner takes other people's images and uploads them on this flickr account on a free license. One of them was deleted in this DR that I filed. (It is an interesting read) Another was deleted in another DR by a separate user. This would avoid future difficulties. Just curious? --Leoboudv (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: As an aside, please close this DR nomination as keep. I withdrew the DR nomination as the nominator since the problem has been succesfully resolved. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, I've added that flickr account to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users but it was already present on User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors and I've closed the DR with keep. Regards and with best wishes for the new year, AFBorchert (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank You Admin AFBorchert for your help here. I was hoping both issues could be resolved in 2012 before 2013 began. As for the map issue, I notice there are many old maps of Africa that don't show South Sudan. I contacted the uploader here who said he didn't mind it being deleted. I have filed one more deletion...but that map is not used anyhere on wikipedia. Anyway, the community will decide, not me. Please have a good and safe 2013 with your family and friends. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
With thanks for your support and the pleasant co-operation in the past year, I wish you all the best in the new year! --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)