User talk:Ankry

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



A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Hello, thank you for your contribution for the work of AKA$H a.k.a. Salman Aziz the writer from Bangladesh. But would you kindly do me favour? Please remove the deletion tag from the photos. It will be helpful. Thank you once again. S Kahn (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Serbia.svg

Thank you very much for doing that so quickly - we shall have another satisfied customer! I think you may have neglected to re-enable the upload protection after the merge, though... Apologies if I'm jumping the gun and you hadn't finished yet, or you just decided that 7 years of upload protection was long enough to try it without... - Begoon 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon: Thank you for the notification. Really I missed that. Especially, as the protection log have suggested that the protection was set on... Maybe it is a bug, maybe a feature. Ankry (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I've seen that happen before - protection doesn't get restored automatically. In fact, I just remembered where I saw it - it was when WMF deployed "SuperProtect". The "SuperProtection" was designed so WMF could prevent admins from editing a page, but, as it was deployed, all the admin had to do was delete and restore the page - the "SuperProtection" did not prevent deletion, and was not preserved through the restore... Fun times... -- Begoon 08:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but the flag was converted from cdr with bad drawing precision, there are a lot of juged lines on the crown. I have converted the cdr from to svg. Can you remove the protection for a bit just to upload a better version, after that return the protection, also can you protect these two aswell and so that only administrators can edit it because it is a State Symbol. Thanks. ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС: Can you upload your file under another name, temporarily and I will merge it? Ankry (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Or can i just send you with mediafire. Here is the svg. ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС: looking at the file size (1.5MB) it may need some optimization. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I tried, it only reduces to 1.3 mb and the colors get messed up, because it is a cdr conversion, this is the best i can do. I don't think the size is a problem considering it is a 5 colored svg with a lot of details. If you know how to reduce the size, please do, if not, just upload it like it is if it's not a problem. ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС: As I am unsure which exactly changes you wish to apply to current version nor what exactly is wrong in current version nor I am a SVG expert, I think, you would need to talk to more SVG-experienced users about opimization. Maybe, athors of earlier versions may heklp here. I also think, uploading your image under another name may be helpful here. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The svg I sent is directly converted from the official cdr so everything is ok. The current version is poorly converted, zoom at the crown in the browser, if you can upload it, please do, if not can you at least add administrator protection that I mentioned, i don't know why weren't they protected in the first place. and ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The image is protected as it is higly used and so it should not be changed without community discussion and a consensus that a change is required. Can you point out such a discussion (may be in Serbian)? Plase note, that Inkscape-created SVGs are often poorly optimized and often need manual corrections (such corrections were made here previously). 3 times larger size is an argument against your change which should be considered in the discussion. Ankry (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The svg is created with CorelDRAW, it is impossible to reduce the size. If you can't do it that's fine. It's not that important. ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)



In File:Dubbing films in Europe1.png and File:Dubbing in Europe 1.png, could you translate this new legend into Polish?

   Belgium: The Flemish speaking region occasionally produces its own dialect dubbing versions, otherwise solely subtitles. The French speaking region of Wallonia and the German speaking region of East Belgium use exclusively a full-cast dubbing, both for films and for TV series.

Yours sincerely, A2D2 (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for translating the text for File:Dubbing films in Europe1.png and File:Dubbing in Europe 1.png. A2D2 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Gipfel webcam 2017 12 26 10 50 lm.jpg

Thanks for the restore of this file, Ankry. Please restore for the same reason these two files also mentioned in the same discussion.

File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Gipfel webcam 2017 12 20 13 40 lm.jpg
File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Talstation webcam 2017 12 29 14 30 lm.jpg

--HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@HeinrichStuerzl: Please request that here, referring the earlier discussion. This is the right procedure. Ankry (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi Ankry, would you mind signing this close, so that it's clear in the archives? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for noticing that. Ankry (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing this. I totally forgot to check if other files with that name had been deleted in the past. WJBscribe (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kopia Twojej wiadomości do Bonvol- Wikiźródła – e‐mail od użytkownika „TeresaPelka” - - Gmail.png

File:Kopia Twojej wiadomości do Bonvol- Wikiźródła – e‐mail od użytkownika „TeresaPelka” - - Gmail.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Joanna Le (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help! - File:《释名》颠倒的望日望时日月方位由香港青年陈少静发现说明什么?.pdf

Dear Ankry, Pls help me! I'm not promoter and spammer, and the flat earth is Wrong! I don't accept it, and pls help check this: Global_lock_for_User:月立龍头, everyone is equal, and mankind needs to know the truth! Peoples will remember you. Thank you for your help. 陈少静 | 月立龍头 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@月立龍头: I can't read Chinese so I have to rely on Chinese-speaking admins opinions here. COM:NOTHOST not any file can be stored in Commons. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Ankry, Please find the reply as below, thanks your help to save this article in the wiki public domain. It does not match COM: NOTHOST, the name of the article title, like my name, does not mean that I am doing self-promotion. This document already part of the wiki's Public domain, a Knowledge of the Fact and the actual phenomena that take place on our Earth. thank you very much!
Dear Wcam, Pls help me! I'm not promoter and spammer, and the flat earth is Wrong! I don't accept it, and pls help check this: Global_lock_for_User:月立龍头, everyone is equal, and mankind needs to know the truth! Peoples will remember you. Thank you for your help. 這篇文章不是本人寫的!文章的標題顯示在下的姓名不能夠證明本人在自我宣傳,該文件已屬於維基的Public domain,文件描述了一個關於FactKnowledge和實際的現象發生在地球之上,請求您幫忙恢復刪除的文章,衷心感謝您的幫助!謝謝。陈少静 | 月立龍头 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not an admin here so I did not delete your file, nor can I restore it. Sorry. --Wcam (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
陈少静 | 月立龍头 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Guy.lebegue 1986.jpg

Bonjour, un message me parvient disant de m'adresser à vous pour valider la restauration définitive de cette photo. Que vous manque-t-il pour le faire ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kasos fr: I'm sorry, I do not speak French. You can ask User:Framawiki about the details and/or take part in this discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I follow the discussion page.--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

About deleting photos

These photos that you flagged for deletion were there to show those that surface this site how these number plates look like, and that's the purpose of this site to inform people, that falls under fair use, i find it ridiculous that by contributing to this site is considered instead an offense. --DarthLeven (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@DarthLeven: Fair use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons nor claiming photos that you did not made youself as own is. Own work applies only to unpublished photos that you made yourself using your camera.
It is possible, that most of the images are PD as 2D copies of 2D objects. But definitely not Own work and approprite source information is required in such cases. And it is up to uploader to provide accurate information about copyright status, not up to admins. If in doubts, you can ask at COM:VPC. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Four images for review

Dear Admin Ankry,

If you can, please mark or review these Mushroom Observer images uploaded by me. This is a one time courtesy request. Commons has maybe only 1 other image of either mushroom species...which is why I uploaded a second extra image. Like this case

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: No problem. Nice images. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You and Goodnight from Vancouver where its 2:43 AM. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

3 images for review?

Dear Ankry,

Could you please review thes 3 images below that I uploaded please?

Thank You for your time. they are quality high resolution images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for everything and enjoy February 2018. Here in Vancouver, BC, Canada (same time zone as California and Washington State...where Seattle is), its still January 31, 4:47 PM. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


Requests_and_votes/Rlevse has accounts that only ever contributed to Commons for that RFA. How are you certain so quickly that there was no manipulation back in 2007? -- (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fae: This sock did not manipulate this RFA. And I see no other RFA for this user. I think that throwing this way accusations that are only hypothetical is not a good idea. Let's talk about facts, not suspections. I assumed, you just mistyped. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2 more Nico Vega OTRS files?

Hi. I see you confirmed OTRS permission for Nico Vega.jpg. Would that also apply to 2 more Nico Vega files from the same uploader, File:Lead to Light Album Art.jpeg and/or File:"I Believe (Get Over Yourself)" Single Art.jpeg? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: Unsure what you mean: File:Lead to Light Album Art.jpeg seems to be duplicate of File:Lead To Light - Nico Vega album art.jpeg and File:"I Believe (Get Over Yourself)" Single Art.jpeg is not covered by this permission. Ankry (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.--GRuban (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

8 images

Dear Ankry,

Do you have a bit of time to mark or review these images below please? Unfortunately, Commons does not have this species of mushrooms.

Thank You from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all your help. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Sandra Lázaro (

It appears that the ticket number you mentioned that was used to justify deleting these images (ticket:2018012510011129) is not correct. That one was a Polish ticket and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Spanish website nor does it appear to be from Sandra Lázaro. I ran a search through the OTRS system and I'm having trouble finding the actual ticket in question. Would you be able to update the DR to reflect the correct ticket number? That DR is being used in another deletion discussion and I was curious so I went to look at the original ticket to find that it wasn't correct. Just for posterity's sake if you could fix that I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Indeed. Just effect of working on few tickets at once. This is ticket:2018012510003549 in Sister projects:Commons:copyvio. Ankry (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you! I'm pretty sure we all have done that before. I know I have mixed up ticket numbers when doing more than one at a time. --Majora (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg

Hi, mógłbyś odkasować? Powód: Pozdrawiam Electron   15:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Electron: Nie bardzo rozumiem? To, ze mamy w Polsce FoP, nie oznacza, że statua jest PD w Danii. Czy coś przeoczyłem? Ankry (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Poczytaj link do opisu zmian, Polimerek twiedzi, że wprowadzono FOP w Danii. Wierzę mu na słowo, bo nie sprawdzałem, ale... oczywiście możesz to sprawdzić. Electron   15:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
To dajcie link do przepisu i poprawcie tu. Ankry (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. Dałem mu prośbę o wyjaśnienie na pl-wiki, z linkiem skierowanym tutaj. Electron   16:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry - moja pomyłka - FoP w Danii jest od roku, ale tylko na budynki. Faktycznie we wszystkich wikipediach ten plik jest lokalnie trzymany. Z tymże w polskiej Wikipedii opis pliku jest mylącą - bo jak sama statuetka jest w domenie publicznej - to FoP nie jest już potrzebny. Ona jest w domenie publicznej w Danii i w Polsce - ale nie jest wciąż w USA. Polimerek (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Polimerek: A mi się wydaje, że poprzedni opis na plwiki był dobry, a teraz jest źle: prawa w USA wygasły, bo pomnik "opublikowano" w 1913 (w chwili odsłonięcia), natomiast w Danii, gdzie nie ma wolności panoramy dla takich dzieł sztuki, prawa wygasną dopiero w 2030 (70 lat po śmierci autora). Ankry (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm.. no ale skoro tak - to zdjęcie jest do wywalenia w polskiej Wikipedii - bo my przestrzegamy polskiego prawa - a wg polskiego prawa do tego pomnika nie wygasły prawa majątkowe, a polski FoP działa tylko w odniesieniu do utworów znajdujących na terenie RP albo będących autorstwa obywatela RP. Tutaj to ani autor pomnika ani autor zdjęcia nie jest obywatelem RP. To samo dotyczy też wielu innych zdjęć z tej kategorii: w:pl:Kategoria:Lokalnie załadowane pliki. Z tymże to już chyba dyskusja nie tutaj, tylko w Wikipedii... Polimerek (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Polimerek: Polskie prawo autorskie nie dzieli prace na "polskie" i "zagraniczne", więc polski FOP jest stosowany na terenie RP dla wszystkich prac wszystkich autorów. Zresztą jest to zgodne z równym traktowaniem przez prawo i niedyskryminacją autorów zagranicznych. Electron   23:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

3 images

Dear Admin Ankry,

Would you have time to mark 3 images here only?

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I guess you are too busy to mark images. That's OK. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

1 images

dear Ankry I am writing to ask you if I could kindly check this small aristocratic portrait made by Cesare Aretusi (1549-1612) ???

--Egualem (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Egualem: Feel free to reupload if this is OK. Ankry (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the confirmation, but unfortunately I can not make a request on Commons: Undeletion requests, because the user jeff eliminates the requests without just justifications, in fact in the discussion page of the entry is underway the following issue, of which the user jeff can not pronounce himself without real justifications--Egualem (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Obrazy Włodzimierza Kuglera

Witam. Poproszono mnie o pomoc w przywróceniu "niesłusznie" usuniętych plików: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Darek.rybak Pan Grzegorz Cisowski chciał rozbudować artykuł o polskim malarzu Włodzimierzu Kugler. Zdjęcia zostały dodane na Commons. Nie wiem jaka została dodana licencja. Faktem jest, że zdjęcia zostały usunięte po dyskusji. Zapewne dodający pliki nie zwrócił uwagi na komunikaty o wyjaśnienie licencji i możliwość usunięcia. Pan Cisowski twierdzi, że zdjęcia zostały wykonane na jego zlecenie i wykorzystane później w wydanym przez niego albumie Włodzimierz Kugler, 1882-1946 : malarstwo i grafika (opis w Wordcat)

Nie miał umowy z fotografem na prawa majątkowe, więc zasugerowałem jej spisanie. P. Cisowski chciałby ponownie dodać zdjęcia obrazów do Commons i wykorzystać część z nich w Wikipedii. Wiem jak wystawić zezwolenie na wykorzystanie i wysłać do OTRS. Nie wiem tylko czy dodawać ponownie zdjęcia, czy istnieje możliwość przywrócenia usuniętych. -- Geralt Riv (*talk) 09:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geralt Riv: Wszystkie ilustracje (zarówno zdjęcia, jak i obrazy) zawierały informację, że autor jest nieznany. Na opisy nikt w takiej sytuacji nie patrzy, informacje o autorze/dacie powstania/źródle/licencji muszą być we właściwych polach. W przypadku dwuwymiarowych prac malarskich, z punktu widzenia zasad obowiązujących na Commons, istotne jest jedynie autorstwo obrazu. Spróbuję się tym zająć, ale ze względu na to że jest ich sporo, nie obiecuję, że dzisiaj.
W razie czego, właściwa procedura, to zgłoszenie do COM:UDR z wyjaśnieniem statusu prawnego i dokładna listą skasowanych plików. Zdjęcia nadal wymagają informacji o fotografie lub dowodu ich opublikowania przed 1989. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Dostałem informację od p. Cisowskiego, że w dniu dzisiejszym podpisał umowę o przeniesieniu autorskich praw majątkowych do 37 fotografii wykorzystanych w w/w katalogu. Jeżeli uda się przywrócić skasowane pliki wystąpię z zezwoleniem na wykorzystanie ich w WC. Jest jeszcze sprawa znaczka pocztowego wydanego przez Pocztę Polską z wykorzystaniem obrazu Kuglera, ale to raczej nie podlega dyskusji. Dziękuję za pomoc. Geralt Riv (*talk) 20:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geralt Riv: Odtworzyłem część obrazów, w każdym razie te, gdzie nie było żadnych wątpliwości. Zasadą WC jest, że zamieszczone utwory muszą być PD w kraju pochodzenia (zakładam, ze w Polsce) i w USA. O ile według polskiego prawa, prawa autorskie do obrazów już wygasły, o tyle według amerykańskiego, w przypadku autorów zmarłych po 31.12.1945 nie jest to takie jasne ze względu na URAA. Na pewno w domenie publicznej są prace powstałe przez 1.1.1923; natomiast w przypadku późniejszych, ich status zależy od tego, gdzie i kiedy zostały po raz pierwszy opublikowane (zaprezentowane) w sposób, który można udowodnić. Dlatego mogą być w odniesieniu do nich potrzebne dodatkowe informacje.

Zgodnie z zasadami przyjętymi na WC, dwuwymiarowe zdjęcie dwuwymiarowej pracy z zasady nie jest osobnym utworem, więc przyjmuje się, że fotografowi nie przysługują w tym przypadku prawa autorskie. Przynajmniej tak jest wg prawa USA, polskie prawo nie jest w tym względzie jasne.

Odnośnie wycinków prasowych: może być potrzebna informacja o ich autorach (którzy napisali zamieszczony tekst), a dokładniej: czy i kiedy zmarli. Jeśli były anonimowe (nie podpisane), to też jest to istotna informacja. Podobnie w przypadku zdjęcia; jeśli nie jest nigdzie podpisane istotna jest data pierwszej udokumentowanej jego publikacji.

Co do katalogu: trzeba by sprawdzić daty śmierci wszystkich autorów, których prace są w nim prezentowane.

Odnośnie odbitki ze Słownika: prawa na pewno ma Irena Balowa i być może wydawca. Bez ich pisemnej zgody nie można odtworzyć. Są na tej stronie również fragmenty tekstów innych autorów.

W odniesieniu do znaczków mogą być wątpliwości czy nie ma do nich praw Poczta. Rzecz do wyjaśnienia. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pomożesz wyjaśnić jeszcze licencję poniższych obrazów:
  • File:O_ŚWICIE_W_PUSZCZY_1932.jpg i File:RYŚ_I_SARNA_1936.jpg - obrazy wystawiane były na wystawie Tow. Miłośników Sztuki w Kielcach w roku 1936.
  • File:ZALOTY_1929.jpg (1929) od 1945 do 1952 znajdował się w Muzeum Polskim w Rapperswil (Szwajcaria) - informacja znajduje się w Słowniku Artystów Polskich, tom IV, str. 344, wydawnictwo OSSOLINEUM
  • pozostałe obrazy z lat 1929-1936 (Files_uploaded_by_Darek.rybak) były wystawione dopiero w 1996 r. przez Tow. Przyjaciół Sztuk Pięknych w Krakowie (to na potrzeby tej wystawy p. Cichowski stworzył katalog, ma też autorskie prawa majątkowe do zdjęć)
Jaką licencją określić:
  • zdjęcie malarza pochodzące z albumu rodzinnego wykonane w 1932 przez jego brata Stefana Kuglera
  • zdjęcie rodzinnego majątku w Mstyczowie z albumu rodzinnego wykonane w 1909 r., autor nieznany

-- Geralt Riv (*talk) 15:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geralt Riv: z upublicznionymi po raz pierwszy w latach 1923-2003 może być problem w kwestii prawa autorskiego w USA (patrz ta tabela); czyli prawdopodobnie bez pisemnej zgody spadkobierców malarza na publikację jego dzieł na wolnej licencji się nie obejdzie Inna sprawa, że taka zgoda będzie działać wyłącznie w oparciu o prawo w USA; w Polsce prawa autorskie wygasły. Co do zdjęcia autorstwa Stefana Kuglera: trzeba ustalić, czy żyje, czy zmarł, jeśli zmarł to kiedy i uzyskać odpowiednią zgodę jego lub jego spadkobierców (chyba, że zmarł przed 1946). Co do zdjęcia majątku: trzeba określić, kiedy zostało po raz pierwszy opublikowane; jeśli przed 1989, to można je zamieścić wskazując miejsce publikacji; jeśli później, to dopiero 70 albo 95 lat po roku w którym je po raz pierwszy opublikowano. Z drugiej strony, niepublikowane nigdzie zdjęcie zrobione w 1909 roku, będzie PD w USA w 2020. Ankry (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Dlaczego "chyba, że zmarł przed 1946"? 70 lat po śmierci to 1948. Stefan Kugler zmarł 6 lipca 1947. Chyba wystarczy {{PD-old-auto}} z parametrem deathyear= 1947. Mylę się? -- Geralt Riv (*talk) 06:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Could you please wait before closing requests? This file is most probably in the public domain, so let people do the research. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure of undeletion requests. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Codo ostatnich przeniesien user:Ahonc i jego bota AHbot

Witaj! Przepraszam za błędy językowe. Proszę zobaczyć [1] oraz [2]. Na terytorium obecnej Ukrainy istnieją kościoły zwane po polsku jako kościół p.w. Wniebowzięcia Najświętszej Maryi Panny (w języku angielskim en:Assumption of Mary translate in ukrainian as uk:Внебовзяття Пресвятої Діви Марії). Ponieważ większa część Ukraińców nie jest rzymo-katolikami, oni po prostu nie wiedzą różnicy między tymi nazwami. Dla nich wszystko jedno czy Wniebowzięcie, czy Zaśnięcie. Ponieważ większa część źródeł na ten temat w języku ukraińśkim napisana jeszcze za czasów radzieckich oraz współczesnymi autorami-dyletantami, temu niektóre użytkowniki, którzy nie chcą wedzić coś więcej na ten temat uważają za lepsze pisać błędne nazwy костел Успіння zamiast костел Внебовзяття.

en:Assumption of Mary translate in ukrainian as uk:Внебовзяття Пресвятої Діви Марії (you can check). Category was named Church of the Assumption in Yazlovets. en:Dormition of the Mother of God translate in ukrainian as uk:Успіння Богородиці. Therefore all theese files must be renamed to Внебовзяття (Assumption).

Mam z user:Ahonc z tego powodu konflikt w tak zwanej Ukrwiki (mowię tak zwanej ponieważ zgodnie z zasadami Ukwiki, pożądane jest, aby stosować się do obecnej pisowni, która jest tylko pochodzącą sowieckich ukraińskich pisowien).

Proszę o intwrwencję. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: Obawiam, się że nic nie mogę w tej sprawie zrobić. Jeżeli nazwa Успіння funkcjonuje w oficjalnych dokumentach, to nie można jej zakwestionować bez oparcia się na innych dokumentach, podających inną nazwę (Внебовзяття), np. wydane przez parafię, diecezję, autorów innych publikacji, czy choćby o jakąś tabliczkę z nazwą. Zarówno w Wikipedii, jak i tutaj przy nazewnictwie trzeba się opierać na jakichś materiałach źródłowych, a nie wyłącznie na słownych argumentach. Choćby wskazanie jakiegoś artykułu w prasie, że istnieje spór odnośnie nazwy. Niestety, jeśli o korygowanie błędnych nazw w przestrzeni publicznej nikt nie walczy, to będą się one przenosić do Wikipedii i nic na to nie poradzimy. Ankry (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Jednak to jest oczywisty błąd, by rzymsko-katolicki kościół był konsekrowany jako kościół p.w. Zasnięcia Najświętszej Maryi Panny (proszę zwrócic uwagę, że większa część tych kościółów zostały zbudowani przez Polaków). We wszystkich źródłach w języku polskim jest tylko taka nazwa - kościół Wniebowzięcia Najświętszej Maryi Panny. Jest takie źródło. Codo kościoła Wniebowzięcia w Jazłowcu jest takie źródło --Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Krassotkin mówi, że jest tutaj jakiś forum gdzie mógłbym omówić tę kwestię z innymi użytkownikami. Jednak na jakiej stronie to jest? Pozdrawiam. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Myślę, że chodzi o COM:VP. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there was discussion about naming of this church in ukwiki. Community decides that 'Успіння' is correct name because there is huge majority of using 'Успіння'. After the closing of discussion there with leaving name 'Успіння' user Бучач-Львів decides to rename images and change descriptions here to 'Внебовзяття'.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Anatoliy: Thanks for pointing that. I missed that the previous name was not the original one, assigned by the uploader. I think, that in such controversioal cases, uploader assigned names should be preferred. And the other name may be added some way as a used alternative in the description. What do you think of this? Ankry (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, COM:FR has 6 criteria, but what priority for them? It one side we have criterion one: 'At the original uploader’s request', but criterion four states: 'To harmonize the names of a set of images: so that only one part of all names differs'. Per criterion one we should rename to 'Внебовзяття' by uploader request, but per criterion four we should rename to 'Успіння' (to harmonize with other names). So, what priority here: criterion one or criterion four?--Anatoliy (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ankry. Wynik tej diskusji w tak zwanej ukrwiki jest śmieszny ponieważ został podsumowany przez wikipedystę, który w ogóle nie rozumie tematu (proszę zobaczyć utworzone przez niego artykuły). Do tej pory artykuł nie zawiera żadnego autorytatywnego źródła w języku ukraińskim, który nosiłby taki tytył jak to jest dziś [3] (to jedna z realii ukrwiki). --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Without any doubt - criterion four. Because Assumption isn't Dormition. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Бучач-Львів: Zasadą jest, że w przypadku jakichkolwiek kontrowersji, należy pozostać przy nazwie nadanej przez autora. Nic nie stoi na przeszkodzie, by samemu zrobić ładne zdjęcia i wgrać je pod własną nazwą. Natomiast w opisie, można wspomnieć, że są kontrowersje odnośnie nazwy, zwłaszcza, jeśli na obie jest jakieś źródło (patrz dyskusja Ahonca). Ważne by zrobić to w sposób neutralny, nie dyskredytujący żadnej z nich. Ja ukraińskiego nie znam, więc tego nie zrobię. Ankry (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Inni wikipedysci skłonili mnie do otwarcia dyskusji. Czy tak jest? na jakiej stronie ta dyskusja trwa? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there were three discussions about Костел Внебовзяття/Успіння in different cities/towns: uk:Вікіпедія:Перейменування статей/Костьол Успіння Богородиці (Умань) → Костел Успіння Пресвятої Діви Марії (Умань), uk:Вікіпедія:Перейменування статей/Костел Успіння Пречистої Діви Марії (Отинія) → Костел Внебовзяття Пресвятої Діви Марії (Отинія), uk:Вікіпедія:Перейменування статей/Костел домініканців (Язловець) → Костел Успіння Діви Марії (Язловець). And in all of them decision were to name 'Костел Успіння'.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ankry. Ahonc. All of these so-called discussions are actually born of the fact that in Ukraine they are very poorly versed in the Catholic tradition and many people without hesitation rewrite still Soviet sources. And the part of Roman Catholic priests, in order to make it easier for believers to understand the peculiarities of the Roman tradition, unfortunately use the Orthodox terminology, creating confusion. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ahonc, Бучач-Львів: I looked at the "voting" you pointed above and I can't see any clear consensus (around 80% as it is considered consensus in most Wikimedia projects) concerning the name. So IMO, the pages points out that the naming is controversioal here. And, as we support ANY point of view in Wikimedia Commons, I see no reason do avoid any of the names (both seem to be used) in image names or their descriptions. I suggest to leave the decission concerning file names to the initial uploaders, and allow both names to be used in descriptions (together, as alternative names, not one instead of the other) if anybody wishes so. Ankry (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Witaj! Przepraszam, nie chciałem agitować, chciałem zwrócić uwagę oraz zrozumieć opinię Polaka. Dzięnkuję serdecznie za szczerą odpowiedź! Pozdrawiam! --Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What voting? There is not voting on that page, there is discussion.--Anatoliy (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Ahonc. The source you mentioned about the monuments of the Ternopil region is a clearly obsolete version of the Soviet type with obvious mistakes both theological and orthographic. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It's your private opinion. Community decided that it is good source.--Anatoliy (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In fact, quite the contrary - this is your opinion, Ahonc. The Ukrainian community donot understand at all in the subject and is going about you, but you are manipulating facts and abuse of rights. How many administrators of so-called ukrwiki (in fact postsoviet wiki). --Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuriootpa high school logo.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuriootpa high school logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 02:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of PD-old-assumed

Please avoid using {{PD-old-assumed}} instead of a correct license. In the case of Biskupi sufragani.jpg you included a date of death over 100 years ago making this irrelevant. Thanks -- (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@: Author death date is unknown in this case. We know only about his active work period (fl. = floruit ). So PD-old-100 is definitely unjustified here. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Then logically the PD-old-assumed must also be unusable for this print. If a terminus floruit of 1890 is verified, then it seems pretty likely they continued to live in 'retirement' until 1898. You could work out a different template suitable for local law. -- (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@: PD-old-assumed say nothing about death date. And everything concerning this person can only be assumed, I am affraid. It is unlikely, that he was born after 1848, but it can only be assumed. It is unlikely that he retired in 1890, but it can only be assumed. It is unlikely that he lived in 1948, but it can only be assumed. I do not see a more appropriate template. Feel free to nominate this for deletion basing on COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Irena Kaczmarczyk.jpg

Ponownie proszę o pomoc. Chodzi o zdjęcie File:Irena Kaczmarczyk.jpg. Poddane jest pod dyskusję o usunięciu. Z autorem zdjęcia skontaktowała mnie sama p. Kaczmarczyk. Były dwie opcje, przeniesienie praw majątkowych na p. Kaczmarczyk lub samodzielne dodanie zdjęcia do Commons. Trochę się natrudziłem zanim wyjaśniłem dlaczego na Commons a nie na Wikipedię. Autor zdjęcia, p. Andrzej Makuch umieścił je samodzielnie i oznaczył jako praca własna, na co mogę przedstawić korespondencję jaką z nim przeprowadziłem poprzez pocztę e-mail. Usunąłem znak wodny jako niezgodny z zaleceniami. Nie zwróciłem uwagi na pełny exif i nie przeniosłem tam danych ze znaku. Z tego co widzę w exifie jest adres e-mail autora, można poprosić go o dodatkowe wyjaśnienia (z tego adresu była też prowadzona korespondencja p. Makucha ze mną). Nie wiem czy sam zobaczy, że plik poddany jest pod dyskusję o usunięciu -- Geralt Riv (*talk) 10:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geralt Riv: Z tego co widzę, ktoś zwrócił uwagę, że zdjęcie było już gdzieś publikowane. W przypadku zdjęć publikowanych wcześniej (przed zamieszczeniem na Commons) w serwisach, które nie są na wolnej licencji, potrzebna jest zgoda autora. Zgoda taka jest zazwyczaj potrzebna również w przypadku innych zdjęć profesjonalnych. Szablon {{own}} należy stosować wyłącznie w przypadku zdjęć, które zostały wykonane w celu zamieszczenia na Commons i nie były nigdzie wcześniej publikowane.
Więcej informacji o udzielaniu zgody i wymaganiach można znaleźć na stronie COM:OTRS. Zgoda winna być przysłana bezpośrednio przez autora lub innego właściciela praw autorskich (który potrafi te prawa udokumentować) z identyfikowalnego adresu e-mail. Przysyłający może być poproszony o dodatkowe wyjaśnienia.
Niestety, w najbliższym czasie jestem zajęty poza wiki, więc niewiele pomogę. Ankry (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Czyli do tego wystarczy standardowa zgoda autora wysłana przez OTRS. Już mu wysyłam. -- Geralt Riv (*talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Polskie banknoty

Hi! Mógłbyś odtworzyć polskie banknoty, wydane przed 1948, spis:

i kategorię: Category:Banknotes of Poland (1944-1950).

O co chodzi, znajdziesz tutaj -> Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

Ciekawe, że jak do kasowania to biegną na wyprzódki, ale potem to nikt z tych kasowaczy nie poczuwa się już do żadnego obowiązku śledzenia sprawy...

Pozdrawiam Electron   11:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Electron: przeniosłem twój wniosek do COM:UDR. Kontynuuj, proszę, dyskusję tam. Ankry (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No dzięki, ale coś taki zachowawczy nagleś się zrobił? Dyskusje z userami, którzy nie mają zielonego pojęcia na temat PA do naszych pieniędzy nie są raczej przyjemne i pouczające. Electron   09:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Nie chce się angażować w kontrowersyjne dyskusje, zwłaszcza dotyczące URAA. Dla mnie te banknoty są {{PD-Poland}} i rok nie ma znaczenia. Ale najwyraźniej ten pogląd nie znalazł poparcia. `Ankry (talk)
Masz rację, ale NBP uzurpuje sobie jakieś prawa autorskie (nie wiadomo zresztą na jakiej podstawie, w świetle naszego PA są to raczej oficjalne dokumenty, znaki i symbole. Tak czy owak, te wydane przed 70 latu (nawet uwzględniając ich zastrzeżenia) są już PD. A dyskusje o naszym PA z inastrańcami to często jest jak gadanie z daltonistą o kolorach... Jałowe i mało pouczające. Więc traktuję to jak pisanie na Berdyczów. Electron   10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Electron: Proponuję w tej sytuacji załadować je na plwiki (jeśli ci na nich zależy) i nie przejmować się opiniami na Commons. Ankry (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Można by, lepszy rydz niż nic, ale trzeba je najpierw odkasować czasowo tutaj i skopiować pliki i istotne dane na pl-wiki. Tak więc robota dla admina... Electron   09:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing DR's

Don't forget to close deletion requests after deleting a file, I have done it here for you :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Hello, hope you do will. Can you please take a look on this? --Alaa :)..! 14:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@علاء: They seems o be photos made in public space. But likely to be deleted as COM:DW due to no FoP in Azerbaijan. Feel free to nominate; I will not handle this today as I am busy elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


Proszę rzuć okiem na te trzy pliki załadowane bez pozwolenia autora. Dodałem im szablon no permission, ale zostały wycofane przez najprawdopodobniej pacynkę osoby, które je załadowała.

--Fallaner (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Po pierwsze - nazywanie mnie "Pacynką" zakrawa na bezczelność :P. Dobrze - wiem co to tutaj oznacza; nie znam żadnych pacynek, własnych też nie mam :). @Fallaner wówczas nie sprawdził - ale to był środek nocy i niewiele było jeszcze wiadomo - także z mojej strony.
@Ankry - Jezu, no przecież ja tu zaraz osiwieję :); jakie "Username policy" (dobra, przeczytałem, ale co jest outside of Commons' scope już niezbyt mam ochotę, i czas). Wyjaśnijmy więc może tutaj; krótko, konkretnie i po polsku, jaki jest problem w obu kwestiach (username i to scope) - w tym konkretnym przypadku, OK? --Jasc PL (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jasc PL: Krótko i zwięźle: konta są z zasady osobiste, przypisane do konkretnych osób. Sugerowanie, że operatorem konta jest jakaś grupa osób lub instytucja jest niezgodne z zasadami. A używanie nazwy jakiejkolwiek instytucji jako nazwy konta jest traktowane jako niedozwolona reklama. Mam nadzieję, że teraz jest jasno i precyzyjnie.
Jest jednak jeszcze jedna sprawa: określenie najprawdopodobniej pacynkę jest jedynie podejrzeniem. Natomiast określenie zakrawa na bezczelność jest na granicy ataku osobistego. Używanie takich sformułowań jest w projektach Wikimedia niedopuszczalne, nawet, jeśli ktoś stawia wobec ciebie poważne zarzuty. Poczytaj sobie o zasadzie COM:AGF i czuj się ostrzeżony, że takie zachowanie może być podstawą blokady. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Eeehh... ustalmy jedno - albo zależy nam na wartościowych materiałach które aktualnie nie są, i raczej nie będą dla nas dostępne - albo mamy to kompletnie w nosie? Albo działamy konstruktywnie i zależy nam na rozwoju - albo wolimy "kisić się" w sosie naszych zasad i regulaminów, i cała reszta nie jest nam już do niczego potrzebna.
Widzę że lubisz tworzyć sztuczne problemy; niedozwolona reklama?? - mówimy o nazwie użytkownika typu "PepsiCoca", "Mercedes", "Tesco", czy skrócie zrozumiałym jedynie dla bardzo wąskiej grupy ludzi? Mieli sobie wybrać nazwę "Basia1986" albo "Patrycja xD"? Tylko dzięki mojej sugestii, że to wiele ułatwi, poświęcili czas na założenie konta tutaj, by - mam nadzieję - samodzielnie uploadować zdjęcia z kolejnych edycji FETY - rozumiesz to? Może moja nazwa użytkownika też jest "nielegalna", bo - "Jasc" to (była) nazwa znanej firmy produkującej oprogramowanie graficzne - aktualnie marka Corel Corp.?
"Bezczelność": nie wierzę że nie masz kompletnie poczucia humoru; raczej miałeś mnóstwo pracy i zbyt mało czasu na doczytanie / zrozumienie kontekstu: "bezczelność :P" - teraz wszystko jasne? COM:AGF? - zdaje się, że to działa w obie strony, prawda?
Po takich rozmowach zaczynam mieć dość - mam nadzieję że tylko chwilowo. Pozdrawiam, --Jasc PL (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi Ankry, after getting no objections at two different discussion venues, I decided to update this template according to the actual wording of the relevant law. German copyright law does not distinguish between federal, state or communal administrations when it comes to copyright, but official works issued by any level of adminitration are PD. Can you please check the Polish translation of the template and correct it if necessary? De728631 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: It seems to be OK. Ankry (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Dobrze. :-) Thanks for checking. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

do usunięcia

Nie bardzo mi wychodzi wstawianie grafik do usunięcia. A chciałem zgłosić następujące z powodu fatalnej ich jakości: File:Basketball foul 1.JPG, File:Basketball foul 2.JPG, File:Potrojenie.JPG, File:Blad krokow.JPG, File:Basketball-rzut.JPG. Wyobraź sobie, że autor tych grafik wrzuca je do artykułów na Wikipedii, które są zgłoszone do Czywiesza! Pozdrawiam i proszę o pomoc, Gdarin (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Z racji tego, że są to zdjęcia mojego autorstwa, proszę o kontakt ze mną na pl-wiki, zanim zostaną podjęte jakieś działania. Mariusz Swornóg (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gdarin, Mariusz Swornóg: Zgadzam się, że użyteczność takich zdjęć dla Wikipedii jest znikoma. W wersji pełnoekranowej wyglądają koszmarnie nawet na smartfonie. Natomiast, jeśli wikipedyści zdecydują, że powinny być używane z braku lepszego, to nie widzę podstaw, by je usuwać z Commons. Zdjęcia niskiej rozdzielczości usuwamy z Commons, gdy nie są używane, nie można ich zastąpić lepszymi i ta właśnie mała rozdzielczość jest przyczyno znikomej użyteczności zdjęcia dla kogokolwiek w przyszłości. Dyskusję na Wikipedii zostawiam wikipedystom. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Premysl Vanke, Czech Wikipedie


I don´t agree with your interference on the deleted some photos of the paintings). Once again I wold like to stress, that the page is dedicated to mine father, next mont he will celebrate his 95 birthdays. I am nearly 60 years old and developing of this page on Wikipedia was one of mine present to him. Maybe you don´t understand well, how are "autor rights" or copyrights understood in the families of artists. All pictures and other subjects, made by mine father are owned by him, me, my wife, my son.... mine family. So we have absolute right to publish or not to publish anything. Of course, because I am not so skilled in web designing, I wroted wrong labels to the photos before I published them on internet. You, as more experienced user could be more kind and not stylysed yourself to the position of judge and inquisitor, and help me to made it better.

I am really curious, how will be reaction of my old father in the moment I will tell him about some Mr. Ankry, who (in mine opinion) violated mine work and his rights, to be known as a artist.

Regards, --Dobřichovický2 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dobřichovický2: I did not intend to edit in Czech Wikipedia (maybe some automated edits appeared while I clesed the deledion requests and deleted images); feel free to revert them if you wish. But Wikimedia Commonsis a separate project and we have strict rules about images that can be stored here. Declaring to be the author of a work that is a work made by somebody else (regardles whether it is work of your father, son, or a stranger) is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons rules and not acceptable here. Moreover, if a user wishes to upload a work made by somebody else, then this uploader (who is anonymous for us) must provide a proof that the author (who is generally not anonymous) decides to freely license his work. And according to copyright law such declaration can be made only by the real copyright owner (not by his son) and must be in written form (otherwise it is void). If there is no such declaration already published somewhere, it seems to me that the only way to restore the images is to follow COM:OTRS instructions, where Czech-speaking agents can help.
If you disagree with my decission, you may ask another Wikimedia Commons admin to review my decission and/or prove that there is already an evidence that the image are free at COM:UDR.
Note also, that the owner of a copyrighted painting has not the right to make its copy freely licensed. Unless he/she has a special agreement that allows this or the copyright expired (70 years after the painters death). You likely can publish an image ot the painting, but not under a free license that allows anybody else (who is not the painting's owner) to use it for any purpose. And a free license is required in Wikimedia Commons.
If an OTRS agent receives (and accepts) a free license permission directly from the painter or his heirs, the images will be restored. Ankry (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting a file

Hi. Is it possible for you as a Commons administrator to delete this file? A user has uploaded this file again, thus I want the version that I uploaded to be deleted. Many thanks. Keivan.fTalk 04:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. As a side question, what would be the appropriate copyright tag for that file then? Because the uploader (Queensland State Archives) had released the file to be in the public domain. There are also other files marked with the phrase "no known copyright restrictions". What tag should be used for those files? Keivan.fTalk 05:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: No idea. I think it is up to the author's decission. I do not think 1983 photo can be free of copyright and the archive cannot be the author and is unlikely that they are the copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Ankry. I have received notification that you have sent me a message. I can not find it. Bengt Nyman (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bengt Nyman: I reverted vandalim on your talk page only, leaving no extra message there. And send no message via wiki. Ankry (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

W:pl:Krzysztof Wójcik (dziennikarz)

Dzień dobry.

Proszę o opinię ws wgrania kolejnego zdjęcia do ww hasła autorstwa fotografa Piotra Wachnika. P. Krzysztof Wójcik zamówił u Piotra Wachnika serię zdjęć do wykorzystania w mediach, jest ich właścicielem i używa ich do własnej promocji. Czy po wgraniu fotografii w wysokiej rozdzielczości będzie uwzględniona zgoda (do permissions) fotografa?


Artur Andrzej (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

To zależy jakie dokumenty/informacje zostaną przesłane do OTRS i przez kogo. Musimy mieć pewność, że albo a) fotograf przekazał prawa autorskie osobie udzielającej zgody albo b) że zgoda została przesłana OSOBIŚCIE przez fotografa. Procedurę OTRS rzadko daje się zamknąć na podstawie jednego maila; czasem trzeba podać dodatkowe wyjaśnienia lub udokumentować pewne fakty. Musimy mieć pewność, że faktu udzielenia zgody nie da się w przyszłości podważyć, np. poprzez stwierdzenie, że nie została udzielona przez rzeczywistego autora. Ankry (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Elisa Izaurralde picture

Hi. You deleted a photo of Elisa Izaurralde that I re-uploaded. I re-uploaded it because although I emailed the permissions information I forgot to tag it as such. I thought I did it right this time? I’m new to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, sorry. Please tell me what I need to do to get this fixed. Thanks Biochemlife (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Biochemlife (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Biochemlife: The image will be restored when the permission is accepted. No need to reupload. This is against Wikimedia Commons rules. Ankry (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Sorry - I didn't know if it would be found without the OP tag that I forgot to include originally, so I reuploaded it with the tag - is there any way to follow up to make sure that the permissions process is still active? Sorry for going against any rules - I'm new and still trying to figure this all out. Thanks Biochemlife (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Serbia

Is this ok? ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС: Unfortunately I am busy elsewhere and cannot handle your case in near future. Please contact other admins, preferably via COM:ANB. You can point out discussions at this talk page there. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. I have finished with reducing the size. When you find time, please upload it over the current one. ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

File:جاسم السلطان.jpg

This is not a violation of any copyright because the owner of the photo him self granted me access to use this photo on his wikipedia page.

and I already sent this as an e-mail template to wikipedia permissions e-mail

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Khaled Aly (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Omar Khaled Aly: Only OTRS agents can verify your statement. I am not one of them. We need a clear evidence of free license from the real copyright owner, not a declaration from an anonymous Wikimedia user (anybody here is anonymous).
Your declaration maight be enough, if you publish a photo that you made yourself and that was never published elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Omar Khaled Aly: If "the owner of the photo" is not the photographer, we also need some evidence that he/she is the actual owner (eg. a copy of the agreement concerning the copyright transfer). So uploading here an already published image is long and complex process. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry:: What If the owner of the photo don't have access to this agreement in the mean time (I mean during the next month) so what should I do ? Omar Khaled Aly (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Omar Khaled Aly Omar Khaled Aly (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) 08/07/2018
@Omar Khaled Aly: The answer is simple then: just don't use this photo in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Blessed John Paul II Church (interior1), Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

Jakiś problem ? Jaki ? Czy tylko tak sobie z nadmiaru wolnego czasu ? :) Zetpe0202 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zetpe0202: Opisałem wszystko w DR. Tam skomentuj, jeśli się nie zgadzasz z tym co napisałem. Naruszanie prawa autorskiego nie jest i nigdy nie było wspierane na Commons. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • O nie. Jaki konkretnie paragraf polskiego prawa autorskiego naruszyłem. KONKRETNIE. Jaka podstawa prawna. To co piszesz to ogólniki. I wygląda to na zasadę BO MNIE SIĘ TAK WYDAJE. A tego typu zdjęć są w polskiej Wiki tysiące. Zetpe0202 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Zetpe0202: Po pierwsze, nie akceptuję dyskusji prowadzonej w takim tonie;
    po drugie, to nie JA powinienem ci wykazać gdzie naruszasz prawo (i zasady Commons), ale to TY masz obowiązek wykazać, że masz prawo publikować zdjęcia utworów, które raczej twoje nie są (architektura, mozajki); twoje zdjęcie jest utworem zależnym, do którego zapewne nie masz wyłącznych praw (a jeśli masz, powinieneś to wykazać);
    po trzecie wreszcie, jeśli sam nie potrafisz znaleźć: Art. 2 pkt. 2. Nie masz prawa fotografować cudzych utworów i uważać fotografii za utwory wyłącznie własne (poza ściśle określonymi w ustawie wyjątkami jak dozwolony użytek czy FoP).
    Według mnie COM:DM ani COM:FoP nie mają tu zastosowania. Ale możesz próbować dowodzić w dyskusji, że jest inaczej. Ankry (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Tam nie ma mowy o budynkach i ich wnętrzach. To są wnętrza budynków a nie zdjęcia tylko mozaik. Bo nawet nie są tak opisane. Chyba przesadziłeś. Zetpe0202 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I jak najbardziej ma zastosowanie Freedom of panorama. Zetpe0202 (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Na jakiej podstawie tak twierdzisz? Wnętrza kościołów zaliczasz do dróg, ulic, placów czy ogrodów? Zwróć uwagę, że wyjątków zawartych w ustawie nie można traktować rozszerzająco. Polecam też COM:Freedom of panorama#Poland. Ocenę czy przesadziłem zostawmy innym. Ograniczmy się do argumentów merytorycznych. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Zetpe0202: Zwróć uwagę, że dyskusja tutaj z punktu widzenia zachowania lub skasowania tego zdjęcia nie ma sensu. To nie mnie musisz przekonać, że nie mam racji, ale administratora, który będzie zamykał ten DR. Moja rola, polegająca na wyrażeniu wątpliwości prawno autorskich się tak skończyła. Możesz pisać tam po polsku, ktoś przetłumaczy, jeśli będzie trzeba. Ankry (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of permission

Hi Ankry. Recently I uploaded these four files (1, 2, 2, 4) to the Commons. They are all taken from Flickr and all of them are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic, yet one user claims that evidence of permission is missing. I really don't think that's necessary since the author has already published them with appropriate license. He has also nominated these two files (1, 2) for deletion which I have found from the same source. He claims that the files cannot be found at the given link which is totally wrong, and the dates and metadata for them are already available. I just wanted to know your opinion on this matter and see whether these files can be kept or not. Keivan.fTalk 14:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: That may be a mistake. The right way IMO is to convert that to DR and explain there why the permission request are not reasonable in your opinion. Ankry (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Japierdolewszystkozajete (talk · contribs)

Could you please take a look on this user's name? I may be mistaken, but it seems to contain swearing. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Zdjęcie ekranu telewizyjnego

Ale dlaczego nie? Pozdrawiam MZW 10:06 15 nov 2018

Prawa autorskie producenta, który nie udzielił licencji na wykorzystanie komercyjne. Ankry (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

File:K. Wybranowski - Dziedzictwo.djvu

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 23:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Obraz Bagieńskiego

Cześć. Od wczoraj można wrzucać obrazy Stanisława Bagieńskiego co też uczyniłem tworząc kategorię. Na rosyjskiej stronie o artyście widnieje jego obraz pod tytułem „Zasadzka” ale oznaczony jest na czerwono więc wrzucić do kategorii go nie sposób – próbowałem ale bez rezultatu tym bardziej że jest po rosyjsku. Najlepiej byłoby usunąć ten plik bo znalazłem taki sam o większej rozdzielczości i chcę go dodać do kategorii Bagieńskiego. Czy Ty jako administrator możesz usunąć ten plik? Jeśli nie to co można zrobić w tej sytuacji aby usunąć ten plik? --Gungir1983 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gungir1983: A na jakiej podstawie sądzisz, że jestem administratorem rosyjskiej Wikipedii? On jest tam załadowany lokalnie i tylko tamtejsi administratorzy mogą go usunąć. Wydaje mi się, że nie ma przeszkód, by go wrzucić na Commons. Ankry (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nie zrozumieliśmy się – pisząc że jesteś administratorem miałem na myśli to że jesteś doskonale obeznany z plikami graficznymi na wiki :) Dzięki za wyjaśnienie. Wrzucić można ale wolałbym wrzucić ten sam obraz tylko że w wyższej rozdzielczości a nie byłoby sensu żeby były dwa te same obrazy prawda? Co proponujesz w tej sytuacji? --Gungir1983 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gungir1983: wrzucić w wyższej na Commons, a potem zgłosić na ruwiki do usunięcia jako duplikat obrazu z Commons. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Obraz zaraz wrzucę ale ze zgłoszeniem będzie problem bo nie znam rosyjskiego. Czy zgłoszenia możesz Ty dokonać? --Gungir1983 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help :)

Hi Ankry! First: Happy New Year! Could you please have a look at abuse filter 182? Suddenly the filter went amok and blocked some actions. I tried my very best to figure out what happened. Somehow I'm missing the error in the filter. Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I got it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Bloddy Nora! I just missed one extra | Urgh.... Need more coffee.... Sorry for the interruption --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Should it ever be active for createaccount action? Ankry (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, I think Steinsplitter added that. HHubi is a sockmaster, so, maybe better. What do you think? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Album zasłużonych Polaków wieku XIX t.1

Bardzo dziękuję i przepraszam za dodanie pracy. Sam nie wiem jak mi się udało tego nie zauważyć. --Fallaner (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


I noticed you tagged File:Chris_Leung_Yin_Chung.jpg. The file has been subject to and might require reconsideration. Considering the pattern of the user's contributions (see the above link and Special:DeletedContributions/Gm_King), this looks a bit questionable to me, too. I'm not sure if I want to go straight to a DR yet, but I thought you might want to have a closer look and perhaps reconsider your tagging. Thank you. --whym (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Whym: Feel free to take steps you find appropriate here. I have no access to OTRS at the moment and I do not remember this case. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'll see what I can do, then. Thanks. whym (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Sorry for not noticing the warning on Commons since I have only checked jawp to see if it could be transferred to Commons. I will double-check this in the future. WQL (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


:P Hehe, I've spent hole afternoon answering old tickets. Sorry about the come-and-go. Thanks for your job and the patience... --Ganímedes (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: np. Ankry (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

"Thank You" for your quick actions that you had taken to close and remove the deletion tag for the following uploaded Wikimedia Commons file.


--Historianbuff (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

María Emma Mejía

Hi. Last night you undeleted these files as my request. Uploader admits he is not the owner (most all are from UN photographer or have got no metadata) so I've request speedy for them. Since the uploader admits he "confuses" and uploaded mixed files (owned and no-owned), I think it should better to take another look to his contrbs. As he's got over 70 files of the same, I'm suspecting it could have a conflict of interest in this matter (perhaps spam?). I'll take a look this afternoon, with more time. Just FYI. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Juan Guaidó restored version.jpg

File:Juan Guaidó restored version.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Re:File:南京东路偶遇!超激动 (窦骁).jpg ‎

Hi Ankry!

I would like to inform you that I am not related to the undeletion request for the file above. The author of the undeletion request was Puramyun31 and I might have left an unsigned comment when I deleted a duplicate undeletion request I made for the Quezon Memorial.

That's all! Hopefully Puramyun31 had been notified too and will take care of the license info location for his undeleted image.

Markoolio97 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 2

Hi, I was going to close this, but I see that you already did it. So thanks. There are 2 remaining images in Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 2. Should we keep them? If not, do we need another discussion? They were not deleted, but I uploaded a new version, and I have hidden the personal information. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: I think it is up to the uploader if he wishes the images to be deleted or not. So I would suggest not taking any actions unless initiated by the author. Ankry (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, less he touches these files, better it is. Otherwise, we have to clean the logs. He should not have created the initial requests, but asked others to do it for him. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Oh, he can request that via OTRS or so... I do not see copyright problem here. And courtesy deletion should be made on a request of an involved party. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, deletion of files with PDM tag is not 'out of process', it is the standard action that has been in place already for years. If you can replace it by a valid tag, be my guest, but files with the PDM tag still on it are considered to be missing a valid license and get deleted, there are no exceptions to this. And it's normal that the uploader gets no notification, because it's the uploader who placed the PDM tag. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: The mentioned files had a valid license tag. The PDM tag was an extra one. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


File:USS San Carlos seaplane tender G72576.jpg & File:Series of Tubes - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg still show as redlinked to me. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I restored the second and completed and updated the source information in accordance with the research of Carl Lindberg. Jcb (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Done now. I had to leave in the middle of the operation. @Jcb: If you think that the 1st photo does not qualify as PD-USGov, feel free to nominate in a DR. But this does not qualify for speedy. Ankry (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Images removed

The licences for the images is being changed so I must ask for these images to be re-instated to wikipedia, this will aid in locating which album each is from to aid in the changing of the copyright's.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Moylesy98: After licenses are changed, we can restore the images. Just notify in COM:UDR. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Images removed

The photographs that were taken down earlier can now be added back onto Wikipedia as the licences for these has been changed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


It's the Alzheimer :P Thanks for your patience. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Adam Natanek - człowiek, artysta, pedagog (2017).jpg

Cześć, czy ten plik (okładka książki) nie podpada pod NPA? Gdarin (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gdarin: Oczywiście, że podpada. A co najmniej wymaga zgody via OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Osmand auf Samsung Galaxy S Advance (Hamburg).jpg

Hello Ankry, can you please send me this file then via mail? It was my own work. Unfortunately i can't find it on my old drive anymore. --Alexrk2 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: I don't understand, why other files from the same DR had been restored then. But otherwise I was long enough here to not wonder about anything. That's sad and that's the reason, why I don't contribute more to Wikimedia. It's just to bothersome to see such things happen again and again :( --Alexrk2 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Alexrk2: For an answer to your question you should ask Jim or Majora. To get the image via email, send me an email via wiki and I will send you the image in a response. Images cannot be sent via wiki and I do not know your email address. Ankry (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


I'm not the one raising expectations, but the very contrary. And not, I'm not gonna rant about this thing in the VP (what should I gather consensus for, exactly?). It will just be an element (the inability to simply admit an error: Tagging for deletion an image claiming we'd require sculptor's permission when it was plainly stated the bust was located in a Spanish park; and eleven days later justifying the deletion? (I'm not really sure) with the fact the newbie didn't answer the question about who was the sculptor (?), when the very first thing they said was ...they were the photographer (not even Kafka could have written it better) that I will take into account in the future. For the rest, I didn't know that, in the opinion of many sysops, the EXIF data are mandatory in 2019 when uploading a picture, and the lack of them a OTRS-binding-issue, whether the image is found in the internet or not, whether the uploader has lied to us before, or not (..). So thanks for notifying me that (truly), I didn't know PRP having such a predominance over AGF was a so widespread approach: it's useful info, that I'll take into account too when closing requests. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Strakhov: Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the DW doubts were related to low res / missing EXIF suggesting that the photo was cropped from another work, not concerning sculpture and FoP. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, the uploader was questioned about sculptor's identity (14:57 6 mar 2019), the image tagged for deletion one minute later, apparently for that reason (14:58 6 mar 2019) and finally deleted (00:05 17 mar 2019) without answer from the uploader. Nah, no problem. I think we should put ourselves in newbies' shoes more often (and be able to admit mistakes), but I should probably have been a bit less rude here. If there is consensus to demand the EXIF in this case... so be it. Strakhov (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:JoeDickson MPP OfficialHeadshot Ajax 001.jpg

Hi! The statement is "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce this photo in whole or in part". This allows for modifications.--Roy17 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: you can discuss this in COM:VPC, but my opinion is that "reproducing in part" is not the only form of derivative works that we need to be allowed. It seems to me that the permission allows only cropping. Ankry (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jose Ledezma (cropped).jpg not needed

Please delete this DR and revert edits to File:Jose Ledezma (cropped).jpg, if the source file has been restored, then the tag is no longer applicable, don't need DR.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mr Eazi.png

Hi Ankry, I apologize for getting the images mixed up. I was referring to File:Mr Eazi.png instead of File:Mr. Eazi.jpg. You can clearly see the only difference is the image type. I thought File:Mr. Eazi.png was deleted. Versace1608 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Versace1608: no problem. Ankry (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RobertDonley2018.jpg deletion

Thank you for your comments about the robertdonley2018.jpg deletion. I know proper copyright was sent in and I'm not sure how to contact the person who has denied this copyright. Can you help? --Elizdonley (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anybody denied. Ticket was sent on 2019-01-12 and the agent-volunteer noticed the permission was not sent from an official, trackable email address. So it was incorrect and the ticket could not be processed fast. Standard processing time is about 200 days at the moment as there are many such request and our volunteers are overloaded. If you do not want to wait, my the only advice is not to use a photo that was already published without evidence of free license. Our main goal is to support authors, so if you upload a photo you did yourself, you are welcome. Otherwise the procedure is complex for legal reasons. Ankry (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, so many time... This weekend I've dedicated to shake-shake-shake the queue. It only remains 50 tickets between 200 and 175 days backlog. Unfortunately, it seems there are few OTRS agents active.
@Elizdonley: Permission has been granted. Sorry about delay. Regards both. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

THank you! So should I upload the pic again or will someone else readd it to the the page? --Elizdonley (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elizdonley: You should not; see File:RobertDonley2018.jpg. Ankry (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Elizdonley (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


The permission letter for the file (for its open acess, usage) Manne1.jpg was sent to on March 21, 2019. I used this file for this article in Armenian Wikipedia:Մաննե . --Ղուկասյան Մարո (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ղուկասյան Մարո: This is a general, English language queue which is overloaded. And the number of OTRS volunteers is quite small relatively to number of permission tickets. You need to be prepared to 5-7 month delay (or even longer if the permission does not fit requirements, eg. sent from a non-official email address). Ankry (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (talk)

RE: RLM1.jpg deleted by you.

What do you mean about this: (1) information about its freely licensed status at the initial publication site?

The initial publication site are the verificated social networks of this person.

I send the picture to put it in his social networks and then the press take it to use it.

Tell me what information do you need please.

Thanks. --Lpenotti (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This means free license declaration on the author's (photographer's) site. The subject of the photo is unlikely to have copyright, Unless (a) it is a selfie, (b) they have a copyright transfer contract with the photographer and can prove that or, (c) yhey are the photographer's regular employer. If none of them can be proved, COM:OTRS is the only way. And it take months... An alternative is that the photographer provides a photo that was never published anywhere (then on-wiki license declaration is OK; bot only then). Ankry (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests File:RLM2.jpg

The same arguments that send you for the RLM1.jpg deletion I send you to this proposal. Thanks.--Lpenotti (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Crimean status referendum Ballot boxes.jpg

Hi. It is very unfortunate to see the discussion closed without real answer to my question. Do I understand correctly that the only problem is confirming that videos from UTR News were indeed available on YouTube under a Creative Commons license at this time? I would happily look for evidence but for this I should not what kind of evidence to look for. Thanks — NickK (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@NickK: I think that if an admin declares will to review the license, I may support undeletion. But I did not notice that anybody declared that near your request. Also no other admin seemed to support your request. I have nothing more to say in this matter. And requests cannot be kept there forever. They are generally closed after few days if there's no clear support by at least one admin. Ankry (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not really interested in going admin-shopping, thus I didn't ping any admin. Maybe I was wrong and admin-shopping is encouraged here but from what I have seen so far usually it is not. The issue is that if you can undelete if another admin reviews the license, that admin will also undelete themselves in order to review the license...
What I am interested in is understanding what went wrong. I am regularly uploading images from external sources and this is the first time such thing happens. I check files for copyright violations when I upload them, I make sure they are adequately described and attributed and have a proper license at the time of upload. I can hardly control what will happen 5 years later, but so far the fact that everything was fine at the time of upload was a valid reason not to delete the file. Not this time, so I want to know what is different here and on which point I should bring additional proof. I do not want to believe there is any politics here, but when a clearly Russian user nominates my upload for deletion and a clearly Russian admin from Crimea deletes it exactly on the 5th anniversary of annexation of Crimea, this seems like the best explanation — NickK (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion requests

Hi! Yesterday I requested the removal of two files (PR tertiary 2R.svg and PR secondary 2.svg) and then I retracted. I need you to help me cancel the removal of both files. If you look at the discussions on both nomination pages, you will notice that another user and I are against the deletion of both files, so the discussion should have ended. I would like you to clarify anything I still do not know about the process of deleting files and undeletion of them. Thanks in advance! Yamil Rivera (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yarfpr: |The deletion discussion once started, should remain open for at least a week. You can declare there that you refrain from your request and why, but as another user commented already, the discussion cannot be just closed. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-05#photos_from_MTur_Destinos : tem permissão de uso livre e por tempo indeterminado para uso total e irrestrito e gratuito em praça nacional e internacional.--Roy17 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Synchrotron, zdjęcia nie tylko plakatów

Zdjęcia są umieszczone z odpowiednią licencją w serwisie flickr: czy to wystarczy? Borys Kozielski (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Borys Kozielski: Wystarczyłoby, gdyby mieć pewność że umieścił je tab autor tych plakatów i użytych w nich fotografii. Bo tylko on ma prawo decydować o licencji. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiem o tym, ale prawa autorskie zostały przekazane dyrekcji Synchrotronu, która zgodziła się na zamieszczenie w Wikimedia Commons. Mogę postarać się o dokument na tę zgodę, ale potrzebuję wzoru Borys Kozielski (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Borys Kozielski: Wzór i adres do wysyłki są na stronie: Commons:OTRS/pl. Najlepiej, jakby sami wysłali z oficjalnego UJ-owskiego adresu, z kopią do ciebie. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, to niech znikną Borys Kozielski (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: File:Sobibór extermination camp (crop).jpg

Hi, Ankry. Do you have an opinion about the copyright status of this 1944 Polish photograph, File:Sobibór extermination camp (crop).jpg, which is a crop of File:Sobibór_extermination_camp_(05).JPG? Obviously the current licenses are bad, since the work is a derivative, but I'm confused about both the Polish and US copyright of the underlying image. I can't find any information about its publication history. The physical photograph is owned by the Ghetto Fighters' House (see [5]). There's a copy at the USHMM[6] given to them by Misha Lev, but the source is the Ghetto Fighters’ House. The copyright notice on that latter page states "Agency Agreement".

This photograph is the reason for my query at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Pre-1994_Polish_photographs. --Rrburke (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke: It seems to me that this photo may be OK because of {{FoP-Poland}}. However, I do not think we can say anything more when we know nothing about its earlier publications. I would tend to suggest that {{PD-Poland}} might be applicable if the physical photo has no copyright notice on the reverse (I think it has not, but it is hard to prove that). Ankry (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In the interest of centralizing discussion, I posted the question about the photograph here as well. --Rrburke (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Image versions issue on File:Isabel dos Santos.jpg

Sorry to bother you, but it looks like when this file was restored, an older image with the same name was restored as well. I just wanted to let you know OTRS cannot vouch for the previous version's copyright release, as the version I have a release statement for is only the current one. I recommend deleting the previous version if possible, but I'll leave that decision to you. Thanks for your help! Coffee // have a cup // 06:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Coffee: thx, deleted. Ankry (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

deleted double faile PavelMukhin98 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


Saudações. Sobre o pedido de reposição, eu sou leigo nisso mas creio que a ausência do EXIF naqueles dois arquivos restantes (1, 2) seja por um zoom adicional que eu dei antes de upar as imagens, pra melhorar o enquadramento. Eu posso tirar novas fotos, se for necessário. João Justiceiro (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@João Justiceiro: Zwracając się bezpośrednio do użytkownika, należy to robić w języku, który dany użytkownik rozumie lub poprosić kogoś o przetłumaczenie. Języki, w jakich należy się komunikować z danym użytkownikiem są zwykle określone za pomocą #babel na jego stronie użytkownika. Autotranslatory są często zawodne i prowadzą do nieporozumień.

Discussion closure

I hope you realize that the deletion request here was about whether or not the image was hosted on a third party site. The image obviously did not come directly from NOAA as the image is smaller than the preview here (an example storm) and the normal size image. This means the image must have come from a third party site. The image could be under copyright if it was modified in any way. Sites such as tropicaltidbits are under copyright. Unless the user clarifies on where the image was taken from, it should be either deleted or replaced with an image directly from NOAA as a precautionary measure. Hurricane Noah (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: nobody supported the deletion. Ankry (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Actress Joanna Pickering.jpg

Hello Ankry. File:Actress Joanna Pickering.jpg has an unrelated image in the history. Please redelete the history before 04:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC). Thanks — JJMC89(T·C) 07:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Treintañeras Cañeras.jpg

"Uploader is not the author per " How come it's a copyright violation? The upload form explicitly asks if what you're uploading is your own work, which it is, and if you have the rights to it, which i do. --WikiCMDW (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@WikiCMDW: Claiming authorship while not being the author is in violation of copyright law. Authorship is non-transferrable. Also, Creative Commons licenses require to attribute the author; so it is also violation of the license. Non-author cannot grant a license unless copyright is transferred in a contract. Ankry (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

How do you know who the author is, and that therefore it isn't me then? --WikiCMDW (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@WikiCMDW: I do not know who is. And hoping, that will be explained in the DR. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)