User talk:Denniss/Archive 2

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.

Contents

Template:PD-USGov

See Template_talk:PD-USGov, and study copyright law!

Support...

Danke für die Hilfe... -- High Contrast 09:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rammohan.jpg

Hi, you tagged this painting as "PD-Art". I have retagged it as a copyvio since the artist died in 1977. Thuresson 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Löschthinweis

Danke für deinen Hinweis! Ich werde in Zukunft, für die versehentlich doppelt hochgeladenen Bilder, den neuen Löschthinweis verwenden.

P.S. Ich kannte ihn bisher nicht --Uwe W. 09:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrator nomination

I would like to ask you a favor to accept this nomination. Thank you for all great job on Commons! --EugeneZelenko 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for nomination and yes I accept. Admin status makes things easier with removing copyvios and we have too many images tagged as Unknown for too long. --Denniss 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Is there a format in the commons for category discussion akin to WP's CFD pages? Searching through the help, I can't find any such forum. I definitely do NOT intend to engage anyone in an edit war (although I do feel a bit put off by you immediately reverting my work without even asking what I was doing...even if I was completely wrong!) I do however feel that the structure in the ship categories leaves much to be desired, as it has many of the problems that we've had to work through and have pretty much overcome on the WP side. I'd like your help on this one, if you do not mind. Thanks! Josh 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert your work but I modified it to fit in the existing category structure. --Denniss 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's cool, but I wish there was a better place to discuss these matters...I hate stepping on other people's toes! I was hoping that you might know of such a place. In lieu of it, I'll use the talk page on Category:Ships, but I'm afraid the traffic won't be enough for concensus. Any thoughts? Josh 02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Try COM:VP, a lot of traffic over there --Denniss 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted duplicates

Ping. I replied at Commons:Village pump#Template:Deleted duplicate. The template has date tagging now. User:dbenbenn 21:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande - roman road - ships of Japan

Hi, I am Flamarande and I noticed that you reverted the deletion of the content of the article "Roman road". Well, perhaps I should have explained it better. It is easier and simpler to organize images under categories. All one has to do is to write down the proper category in the image. To write down every image inside of an article is simply harder. If one tries to change it, it becomes quite difficult. I requested to turn the article Roman road into a redirect to Category:Roman roads at the village pump/main page. Hope you agree with my reasons. Flamarande 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Noch ein anderer Deutscher, Gott, ihr seid überall. :)

Roman road is a well organized article and it should be kept. Maps of the roman empire was a different thing because it only lists all available maps without much further explanation or sorting by location. Also you should not delete articles, it may well be other wikis link to them now having a dead link with them deleted. Just change these articles/listing to a redirect --Denniss 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, I am a bit confused. So you don´t mind if I change the article "Roman road" into a simple redirect to Category:Roman roads? Because that is what I allready want to do.Flamarande 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As said the road article is good and is worth to be kept. Articles like the map article, looking like all images from the cat merged into an article without much structure, intro, interwiki are to be improved or replaced/redirected by/to a cat. --Denniss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, sorry for the delay in answering (I am human, and I fear that I need some sleep). The problem was that my brother turned off the main computer, which is in his room, or I would allready improved and finished, and you wouldn´t see my half-finished work.

I think that having a Category:Ships of Japan and then having a similar Category called Category:Naval ships of Japan is a bit reduntant. It is simply easier to place two subs inside of "Ships of Japan" the 1st called "Japanese Imperial Navy" (for all ships before 1947) and the 2nd for the new Category:Japanese Maritime Defense Force (I think there is such a category allready). Of course that the issue has to be explained for the average user, but that is alltoo easily done.

I was trying to organize the diffrent pictures of the "Japanese Imperial Navy" under the "Category:Japanese Imperial Navy" and then place all the images of the Japanese aircraft carriers under the "Sub-category: Japanese Aircraft carriers". In the near future I plan to give every single "Japanese aircraft carrier" its own category, in which the proper articles and images can be listed and to use the allready exising ones. I plan to put the allready created articles inside of the proper categories. For example, a article about the "Japanese Imperial Navy" will be easily found in "Category:Japanese Imperial Navy". An article about the Yamato will be easily found in Category:Yamato which in turm be a subcategrory of Category:Japanese Destroyers wich in turn will be a Sub of "Japanase Imperial Navy" which will be a Sub of "Ships of Japan". A single class of Imperial Japanese Aircraft Carriers (or something similar) can alltoo easily be placed inside of this schema. Its looks complicated, but it is really easy to use.

I am not planning to delete any existing article, unless they are about the same subject. I am planning to sort them and the pictures to the correct category as I have done inside of the Category:Romans

I am still new here, I operate mainly in the english wiki and used to go from time to time "here" to see if there were any good images. Three days ago, I noticed the enormous mess in Category:Romans and just decided to improve it. I even made the Category:Roman navy. Please take a look at both of them. I was amazed how easy it was done, so I simply decided to continue. I don´t want to step on any toes, and I am sorry if I did. Flamarande 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC) PS: The redirect works, I think. Click on "Naval Ships fo Japan". It will lead you to the "Ships of Japan" as intended.

You are to fast for me! :D

Just noticed that the pages about runes and rock carvings from Norway are somewhat limited at Commons. There are some images taken by me at english Wikipedia, and unfortunately I didn't return to move them to Commons. My error.

There are also a few images from the rest of the field as the stone stands atop of an area with other artifacts. Further vest in Valdres, in Vang municipality, there are also an other runestone.

An other rune stone I have taken picture of is located in the graveyard of the en:Sister churches.

John Erling Blad (no) 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alexander von Humboldt ship all sails.jpg

Du hast bei o.g. Bild zwei Kategorien entfernt: [1]
Passt das Bild dort nicht hinein? Und welche andere Kategorie wäre treffend? Jetzt ist das Bild in keiner Kategorie mehr. Gruß Thgoiter 11:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Schau mal hier: Alexander von Humboldt (ship). Der Artikel ist bereits in den passenden Kategorien. Nicht nötig das alles doppelt zu haben. Bilder müssen nicht in Kategorien sein besonders wenn sie schon mittels passenden Artikel drin sind. Nur wenn Bilder nirgends verlinkt sind sollten sie entweder zu einer passenden Kategorie bzw Artikel hinzugefügt werden. --Denniss 12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, alles klar. Gruß Thgoiter 15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Stegosaurus Struct.jpg

Du hast das Bild von der Liste der Schnelllöschungen gestrichen. Falls Dir eine Ausnahmegenehmigung des Naturkundlichen Museums von New York City vorliegt, bitte trage diese im Bild ein. Danke. Ich selbst war im Museum und kenne das Exponat, da auch ich Fotos im Museum gemacht habe und dort nach einer Lizenz für Wikipedia nachgefragt habe, weiß ich, dass es diese nicht für gewerbliche Anwendungen generell gibt. Siehe hierzu auch meinen Link beim Löschantrag. Gruß --89.49.233.146 11:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Vollkommen schnuppe was das Museum sagt, das Copyright liegt beim Ersteller des Bildes und das Museum kann und darf ihm nicht verbieten damit zu machen was er will. Wenn dann müssen sie das fotografieren komplett untersagen. --Denniss 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wenn das Dein Ernst ist und Du zu Deiner Meinung stehst, dann schicke bitte an die Wikipedia eine Erklärung mit Deiner Adresse, dass Du die volle Haftung für dieses Aussage übernimmst und ich lade 150 Bilder vom Museum hoch. --89.49.233.146 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wir hatten schon ähnliche Fälle mit Bildern vom Deutschen Museum in München mit eben der Erklärung die ich Dir auch gab. --Denniss 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Mag schon sein, aber Du kannst doch nicht das Deutsche Recht auf amerikanische Museen anwenden. --89.49.221.202 09:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Es geht nicht um deutsches oder amerikanisches Recht, es geht darum das der Knipser auch das Copyright an seinen Bildern hat udn das Museum da nicht reinreden kann. Wenn sie das wollen müssen sie das Knipsen generell verbieten. --Denniss 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Es geht ja auch nicht um das Copyright, dieses liegt zweifelsfrei bei Fotografen, sondern es geht darum, das dem Einsteller (oder Wikiepdia) eine Klage über entgangenen Gewinn droht. Im übrigen kann das Museum die Fotografieerlaunis so einschränken wie das Museum das will. --89.49.218.214 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

???

Bin ja neugierig: Wie kommst Du jetzt auf meine User_page und in diese Diskussion  ?? --gildemax 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Über Arnomanes Diskussionsseite, hab dann einfach mal meinen Senf dazugegeben..... --Denniss

User talk:Orgullomoore#Bot error

Hi Denniss,

Your bot replaced the Category:Country locator maps on several images with Category:Locator maps for countries but this cat is not existing. Please have a look what happened there! See Image:Europe location BG.png as example. --Denniss 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm responsible for asking Orgullobot to move these maps; I've since realised that Orgullbot doesn't create new categories itself (perhaps this is a necessary limitation; am enquiring) but you should find Category:Locator maps for countries now exists. Sorry for the hiatus. Best wishes, David Kernow 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image.Andrè Weil 2.jpg

Hi Denniss. I have to notice you that i took this photo from this site, which has a lot of mathematicians' images. I think that they are all in PD-old, 'cause of the age. But i'm not 100% sure. All i know i wrote in the page (Copyright information)I uploaded other photo from the site, please tell me if, in the end, they can't be here. And forgive me for my bad english :) Thanks Aubrey 00:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SVGs

SVGs aren't always better than PNGs. Please only use the superceded template if the SVG is actually BETTER. — Omegatron 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan Intl B747 Images

Hi,

You removed two of the B747-240BM images from the Pakistan Intl page, if you check the source which i uploaded. The photographer allows the use of this photograph to be used under the [cc-by-nc-sa-2.0] license. I dont see what the problem is ?

Here is the link to the first B747 image; http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_bren/120906500/in/set-72057594094569348/

Look on the right hand side below "Addition Information". Click on the circle with CC, this means it can be used under the licence of the one i used. This is the page that should open when you click on the circle with the cc in the middle;

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

I shall revert your edits unless, you can clarify why you have placed the images as deletion.

Thankyou--Fast track 21:48 05 June 2006.

Non-commercial licenses are not allowed here, please read and understand Commons:Licensing --Denniss 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Coa romania.png

Use {{duplicate}} if image is exactly the same. That was not the case with these two images. I noticed you changed it from redundant to duplicate. This image is in use in multiple wikiprojects. Thanks. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

EC maps

You've tagged a bunch of EC maps (e.g. Image:EC map of poland.gif) as {{noncommercial}}. In going through the speedy-deletable tagged images, I found these and investigated. The site seems to indicate that attribution is the only redistribution requirement and does not mention any noncommercial-only restriction. Do you know where you got the impression that there is a noncommercial requirement? Morven 05:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have tagged them better as nonderivative, remember the license says only reproduction but not modification or even commercial use (required as per Commons:Licensing. You should ask Brion Vibber why he installed Copyright feee use instead of Attribution he tried to install. --Denniss 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kategorien oder nicht?

Hallo Denniss, kannst du mir bitte die Änderungen bei meinen Bildern erklären. Bei manchen hast du die Kategorie gelöscht, bei anderen hinzugefügt. Wann sollen die Bilder kategorisiert werden und wann nicht? Viele Grüße, JuergenL 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nun ja, bei genauerem hinsehen wirst Du festellen das ich meist Bilder zu Airlines hinzugefügt habe da sie nur beim Flugzeughersteller gelistet waren (oder andersrum). Ich muß mich die nächsten Tagen mal wieder um die Airlines kümmern und da kann es nicht schaden ein paar Bilder mehr zu haben. MfG --Denniss 20:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniol

Danke für den Hinweis! --ALE! 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Opel Commdore.JPG

Hi. Recently you marked the Image:Opel Commdore.JPG for speedy deletion due to bad name duplicity. I have compared both images and these are two completly different photos. I'm afraid it is not a duplicity. --Zirland 06:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed a tag set by the original uploader --Denniss 09:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cadiz-logo.jpg

This image I did upload from en-wiki at 17:06, 21 September 2005 with the description: Seal of city of Cadiz, Spain. Hercules between the pillars of Hercules. ''Hercules Fundator Gadium Dominatorque'' from en:wiki, where was as {{coatofarms}}

As you can see in the history of the file here, at February 10th, 2006 User:Gabri-co changed the description,
from:

== Licensing ==     
from en:wiki     
{{coatofarms}}

to:

== Licensing ==
{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}

It means Gabri-co was the original author of this picture, not me.

The description should be changed to a proper one:

{{GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}
author:  [[User:Gabri-co]]

and I did it.

But by the way, I hope somebody will re-draw this for svg format and the problem will be solved once and for all.

Best regards Julo 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Gabri-Co is the author of this file, uploader at en was different and no source was given there, too. --Denniss 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? Simply, I do not have any reason not to trust him. Ask him about this edition of February 10th: why did he do what he did. Julo 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AMD images

Hello !

Seeing the images of AMD and your comment there [2], I feel a littel bit uncertain : the AMD page [3] say

"Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use. When downloading pictures , you are agreeing to the above condition. "

Tha would qualify as Public Domain, or at least as Copyright, all rights granted, would it not ? Rama 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed the essential part above this statement:
  1. Low-resolution pictures (for use in websites)
  2. High resolution pictures (for use in print publications)
this is a restriction not accepted in Commons, this sounds more like fair use (Commons is a website and thus not allowed to use high res versions). Images released for the press are usually only accepted if free of copyright or free from restrictions regarding third party use. --Denniss 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
ok ~Pyb 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert back on the AMD images

Speedy delete is for obvious copyright violations. These images are not obvious, and should thus not be speedied. If you want to trial them, nominate them at the regular Commons:Deletion requests.

Thanks, Fred Chess 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tank

Thank you for correcting the name of the Pzkpfw IV tank. --Orlovic 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Frage

Ist schon bei meinen photos alles OK...alles selbst fotografiert. Habe noch mehrere seine Photos, aber jemand anders hat sie in commons hochgeladen. Geht es machen, das sie in meiner galerie Sind? --Mirek 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg and Image:Ano.jpg

Hello Denniss,

I reverted your edits in these two images. They are listed at Commons:Deletion requests, if you want to keep them you should vote there, not remove the deletion tags. Gruß --Kjetil_r 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My recent mass tagging of images for deletion

I have listed the four images (three images of human penises and one image of a human male anus) because they are frequently used in vandalism on the various Wikimedia projects, frequently today in Wikipedia's featured article en:Bulbasaur where the images of the penises were inserted in the article by many vandals, and even in templates used on the article. Even though these pictures can be used by any editors on any Wikimedia project, the increased vandalism to the various pages warranted my tagging of the images. Ryulong 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As said in the image revert, it's not our problem if they are used by vandals. AFAIK the wiki has a blocklist for images, consider adding them if they are not used elsewhere in the specific project. --Denniss 10:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian stamps

The Russian Federation's Federal Law on the Postal Communication defines a postage stamp as

государственные знаки почтовой оплаты - почтовые марки и иные знаки, наносимые на почтовые отправления и подтверждающие оплату услуг почтовой связи; [4]
the state signs of post payment - post stamps and other signs, applied to the post sendings and those confirming the payment of services to postal communication; [5] (emphasis mine)

Do you find this an adequate justification that Russian and USSR-issued postage stamps are in the public domain? Cheers, R. Koot 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello? R. Koot 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

revert bei a340

hallo denniss,

könntest du mir bitte schnellstmöglich meine fehler aufzählen und mir sagen, wie ich das stattdessen lösen soll? Die Autoren der Bilder haben mir nämlich erlaubt, die fotos auf wikipedia zu verwenden, lediglich mit der bitte, ihren namen zu nennen und in einem fall die copyrights dem urheber zu garantieren. --My name ♪♫♪ +- 13:44, 12. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Category:Airlines of Spain

What's bad with it? Why do you remove its tag? Specially as it is the only cat where those images are. Platonides 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All images I removed are available via specific airline articles in this cat. No need to have them in a general airline cat + specific article. --Denniss 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Category:Transport in Taiwan

Hello,

You are wrong. Category:Transportation in Taiwan does not follow the standard Commons category naming conventions, because “transportation” is not an english term (nor an international term), but used only in North America (see w:Transport and Category talk:Transportation). --Juiced lemon 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing cat?

Hi. Why did you remove the "Armored fighting vehicles" category from an image of a tank? Jkelly 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the image at M4 Sherman or not ? If yes then no need to have it also in a general/higher level AFV cat. --Denniss 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Denniss obviously meant to ask if you saw the image in Category:M4 Sherman, where it is more specifically referenced by its model type. Since it is in a Category, not an Article, we can do things such as query for pictures of Shermans used by the French, Israelis, or British. Or even by searching for all armored fighting vehicles on display at the Canadian Memorial Museum [6]. At least I that is what I think Denniss must have meant to say. -Mak 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image Tagging Image:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) preps.JPG

I am not sure exactly what you mean here by the copyright stauts being unclear. This image is from a site whose mainpage states at the very bottom,"Please note that all photos on this website are - unless otherwise stated - official US Navy photos. This does not include the pictures of the cruise patches and scans of cruise books." It should therefore be in the public domain, since the image does not appear in a section otherwise marked as "other than USN" photos. TomStar81 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you forgot to add this somewhat important notice as you uploaded this image ? Remember the uploader has to add all relevant source information he has. --Denniss 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I will add this source as well, then. For future reference, since I am new to the commons, does the author field have to specify an actual person behind the camera, or just the entity responsible for the photo? TomStar81 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aberdeenshire scenery.jpg

Hi Denniss, just wondering how you know that this is a change-of-license situation and not an uploader mistake?

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Article: Alexander von Humboldt (ship)

{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 2px solid #777; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | '''Image deletion notification''' || [[:Image:Alexander von Humboldt (ship)]] 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 [[Commons:Deletion requests#Image:Alexander von Humboldt (ship)|its entry]].<br/> <small>If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the ''file'' may be deleted, your ''hard work'' (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.</small><br/> In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! <center>{{Template:Idw/lang}}</center> |} Klugschnacker 06:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm wrong. I want to delete the article, not a image. I have categorised the images from the article. I'm searching... Klugschnacker 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A340-Bild der Gulf Air

Sorry, ich habe schon wieder den falschen Baustein in dieses Bild rein...das nächste mal wird's besser! --My name 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

B&H Airlines

Find me online from where I copied the image. There is no place, I advise that you remove the copyright tag, I clearly stated that it was drawn by myself and friends, if you want me I'll make a vector (.svg) file. Thanks, Kseferovic 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Design is copyrighted even if you draw it yourself from the original source. --Denniss 09:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So, what can I do? Isn't there a copyright template that states "the image is a copyrighted logo"? Thanks, Kseferovic 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No, as said these Logos are not usable on Commons. --Denniss 11:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont remove categories from images

Galleries don't replace categories. They supplement it. As long as there is no consensus on this issue, please dont remove categories. Actions like yours have upset lots of people, many whom no longer wish to contribute to Commons. So please revert the removing of categories. ZorroIII 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:800px-Crj705.jpg

Hast Du mal 'ne Quelle für das Bild ? Sieht irgendwie verdächtig nach einem Promofoto des Herstellers oder der Airline aus. Photoshop in den Metadaten sehen auch irgendwie verdächtig aus. --Denniss 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Da hast du recht, ich habe mich damals auch drüber gewundert, war aber zu dieser zeit (ist ja schon zwei monate her) noch nicht sehr bewandert mit den lizenzen; als ich es war, habe ich das Bild bereits vergessen gehabt.
Das ursprüngliche bild auf der englischen Wikipedia besteht nicht mehr, wie ich gerade festgestellt habe. Vielleicht solltest du also einen Löschantrag stellen, ich weiß noch nicht, wie das auf common geht. --My name 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tatsächlich copyvio von der Air Canada homepage, siehe Deletion log der en wiki. --Denniss 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Me109-G6_1.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Me109-G6_1.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Fred Chess 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ESA images

I'm aware of the copyright issues with hubblesite images that are co-credited to ESA. I would not have uploaded the Orion image had I not found it also on spacetelescope.org, which is run by the ESA and states that the particular images found there are copyright-free, which would mean the non-commercial question does not apply. I'd prefer not to see these listed as simple speedy deletions, and will therefore put this on Deletion requests for others to decide. --Davepape 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kategorie Aircraft gelöscht

Wieso nimmst du bei Image:Iljuschin Il-76TD.jpg und Image:A300 Zero G.jpg die Kategorie Aircraft raus? Also Panzer sind das ja nicht, oder? --Borsi112 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Weil das eine übergeordnete Kategorie ist die in der Regel nicht mit Flugzeugbildern verstopft werden sollte (sondern deren Unterkategorien) und durch Verlinkung via spezialisiertem Artikel sowieso überflüssig wurde. Siehe Abschnitt Links in der Bildbeschreibung. --Denniss 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Please also see Categories and Galleries (revisited). Siebrand 12:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kraweel.jpg = Category:Passat?

Was soll das Bild Image:Kraweel.jpg in der Kategorie Passat? --Botaurus stellaris 13:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Schau mal was dort hinten rechts zu sehen ist .... Sieht irgendwie verdächtig nach der Passat aus. Und da wir nicht so viele Bilder von ihr haben sollte das drin bleiben. --Denniss 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:6430.jpg

i use the copyright tag due to the fact that this pic had a water mark.This webiste allow it's contents to used unless this watermark remon on the image so pl remove that tag.Yousaf465

RV Image:Epipactis helleborine.jpg

Why did you revert me edits, the two images are different. If you examine them one is sharper than the other, deletion requests should be used to decide which one is best. They should then be merged into one image upload history. I have reverted your reversion. Lcarsdata 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Helmutkaplan.jpg

I've written an email to Wikimedia that both the photograph and Helmut Kaplan himself said their OK. If you want to prove that, here are the contact data:

  • Helmut Kaplan: Kaplan@vegetarismus.org <Kaplan@vegetarismus.org>
  • Photograph: Fotostudio Schachner, Makartplatz 8, 5020 Salzburg, Tel. 0662-885801, Fax 0662-885801. Antifaschist 666 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deine Reverts

Hallo Denniss,

warum revertest Du meine Edits bezüglich der Kategorisierung von Airlines?

Grüße --MB-one 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bunte Götter

Hello, I understand your concern about the copyright tag. But here's the thing : you ask "who created the sculpture ?", and I can answer "some anonymous 4th c. BC Greek artist". What you have here are copies of ancient sculptures, which are scientific restitutions of the original design, not new art. However, I will write to the German team who made this study to ask them about this matter. Marsyas 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Georg II Griechenland.jpg

Hallo Dennis! Wieso sollte das Bild eines griechischen Monarchen aus den 1940er Jahren das Werk des Federal Government sein? Viele Grüße, --Polarlys 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Junkers Ju87.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Junkers Ju87.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from BryanBot. 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me

Não entendo o que me dissestes, por favor, tu terias como me explicares com riqueza de detalhes o que queres me dizer-me? Não estou a entender uma só palavra. Muito obrigado pela ajuda que podes ser capaz de me dar. Bom trabalho! E parabéns pelas grande cultura e realização que tens disseminado e demonstrado no Commons! Os mais sinceras e grandes, enormes cumprimentos! Angeloleithold 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

reverts

Can you tell me why you revert my chances in T-34, T-26 and BT tank ?. I. e. now, after your edit in category Category:World War II tanks we have Category:T-34 and T-34, what was a classic double.--Pmgpmg 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sopwith.Camel in flying.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Sopwith.Camel in flying.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Megapixie 06:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Challenger2.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Challenger2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Madmax32 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ab 212.jpg

Hallo,

Du hattest mir einen Löschhinweis gegeben. Leider habe ich in den Commons noch nicht soviel gemacht und gerade nicht gefunden, wo ich denn jetzt die Quellenangaben noch nachreichen kann (gibt es hier sowas wie die Löschlisten in der deutschen Wiki?). Unter den Lizenzen habe ich jetzt den Originaltext aus dem Foto reinkopiert. Ich hoffe das reicht aus. Falls Du Dich fragst woher der kommt: Link zum Bundesheer anklicken, Bild anklicken, dann vergrößern und rechte Maustaste klicken, da öffnet sich dann ein Fenster mit dem Text.

Ansonsten bitte mich hier oder in der deutschen Wiki (gleicher Nick) nochmal anschreiben, Danke

--Wiki-Chris 10:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Das Bild kann in den Commons nicht genutzt werden da eine kommerzielle Nutzung ausgeschlossen wird. Setze außerdem bitte keine Lizenz die nicht auch im Original vorliegt denn von GFDL ist dort nirgends die Rede. --Denniss 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, dann habe ich das wohl falsch interpretiert. --Wiki-Chris 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:787rollout.jpg

Hello, Dear Denniss

You removed the copyright violation tag from this image citing the image is different from Flickr's. However, the person who took the picture, Matt B., believes it was taken from Flicker. His request for clarification is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Affierro The uploader, Affierro has not responded to this request. If the image were different Affierro should defend himself, not somebody else. If you look closely thousands of people are in the exact same positions in the two images, I think they are the same picture.--Yasobara 04:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interwikiverlinkungen bei Bildern

Hallo, diese Verlinkungen nach dem Muster [[de:Image:{{PAGENAME}}]] machen sehr wohl Sinn, da dadurch ersichtlich ist, in welchen wikis das jeweilige Bild bereits verwendet wird. Aufgrund der unregelmäßigen Verfügbarkeit der entsprechenden anderen externen Wikitools ("usage") erleichtert dies die Arbeit. mfg --Herrick 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Im Gegenteil, das macht gar keinen Sinn es sei denn ein Editor in der jeweiligen nationalen Wiki ändert auch jedesmal das Bild hier wenn es in der nationelen Wiki neu genutzt oder wieder ungenutzt ist. Meines wissens nach ist diese interwiki-Verlinkung auch unerwünscht (war mal auf VP oder ist in irgendeiner Policy). --Denniss 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Diese Verlinkung ist die beste Möglichkeit, das jeweilige Bild innerhalb der verschiedenen Wikis zuzuordnen und vermeidet Mehrarbeit. Die Usage-Funktion funktioniert nur innerhalb der gallery der jeweiligen Nutzer wirklich, ist oft "out of order" und kein wirklicher Ersatz. Im Gegensatz zu dir bin ich von einem Admin darauf angesprochen worden, dass dies die einzig wünschenswerte und effektive Art der interwiki-Verlinkung zu einem Bild ist. Und seit drei Jahren funktioniert es. Nenn' mir doch einfach den Link, der deines Wissens nach innerhalb der Village pump oder "irgendeiner" policy zu finden ist. --Herrick 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon jets

Are you sure? Reading Commons:Derivative works I'm in a heavy doubt. I think it's the same case that, for example, the artwork on a Coke can, frequently uploaded and quickly deleted. --Dodo 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:National Guardsman NGM-v31-p347.jpg

Hi Denniss, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to Image:National Guardsman NGM-v31-p347.jpg and uploaded your modified version as Image:National Guardsman NGM-v31-p347 cleaned.jpg, so that the image remains unmodified for reference purposes on Wikisource. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff

Hi. What was the point of this edit? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable edit/possible vandalism removed --Denniss 01:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IWM archives

I'm sorry to hear you say that. Bad form by the way for not letting me know that you were trying to have my images deleted. Please at least have the courtesy to follow procedure next time. But I forgive you. The Imperial War Museum releases its images into the public domain. Most of them are crown copyright. The images in these cases are a bit more ambiguous I'll grant you. But in many cases the author is not known or the information is not conveyed on the listings, where they often merely list 'Royal Navy Official Photographer' rather than a specific name, because the specific name was not recorded or has since been lost. In deference to you, I have no problem with using {{PD-author|authorname}} which should sort the matter out. Is that acceptable to you? --Benea 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but they hold the copyright I'm afraid. If you wish to challenge the right of the Imperial War Museum to release images into the Public Domain, please take it up specifically with them. At the moment, those images are sufficiently tagged. Please stop reverting them. --Benea 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
For example, the situation with these images is not that the specific photographer has released them into the public domain, the images are collected under copyright by the IWM and then released by them. --Benea 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
From the relevent IWM statement "The images featured on this site are subject to Crown Copyright protection unless otherwise indicated...Where Crown Copyright does not exist, this will always be stated." From the specific entries "Access: Unrestricted". The Imperial War Museum has released them under crown copyright, which with them being over 50 years old, has placed them in the public domain. If you want to challenge their right to do this without knowing the original author, then that is a matter that should be taken up with them. I'm going to remove the speedy templates for deletion, as this clearly is not a clear cut case. Please do not restore them until the matter has been settled. --Benea 21:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't know how to play with copyright then please don't play with it. The IWM has no copyright over these images as they clearly don't know who's the author. They can claim Crown Copyright only (or release them as free) if these image were made by a UK citizen or maybe a Commonwealth member. This is clearly not the case here. Images were made by german citizen so the standard protection applies to them. As a second note, these images have been removed from Commons more than once for exact this reason. --Denniss 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, reread what I have written. They have been released by the Imperial War Museum. Your contention that they have no right to do this is just that, your contention. I'm afraid that everything is up to date and above board with these images and their tagging. If you believe that the Imperial War Museum should not have released these images then you must take it up with them, as at the moment they exist under Crown copyright and are very much in the public domain. If you would like this situation changing, please I beg you, apply to them to have it sorted, do not assume that you are automatically right. Also please do not be so uncivil to assume that I do not know what I am talking about, or accuse me with "playing" with copyright. I understand that you believe that German copyright laws should apply, but again that is only your opinion that they should, the evidence is clear that they do not. These images are public domain. I notice that you have again restored those tags despite this ongoing dispute. I will remove them and if you restore them then I will report the matter, because I honestly believe that you are letting your perceptions in this instance cloud your judgement as to the facts of the matter. --Benea 23:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry if I'm coming across as a bit riled, I guess I haven't had a cup of tea for too long. I'm glad to see that you're happy to follow procedure though and I hope we can clarify this matter. --Benea 23:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not vandalise images uploaded from WWII in Color website

Do not revert the copyright status of the images which have been loaded in to the Wiki Common which I have spent converting from the website WWII in Color. These images fail to cite any source of the image or the copyright status. As indicated on the website, unless a copyright status is listed--these images are not for use for public domain.
I saw that there was an old template used for licensing for the use of the image tamptles for WWII in Color website but this template is now obsolete and is no longer valid. It is fair to say that at least some of the images were indeed copyrighted from various websites and the copyright righted
FAQ for WWII in Color

Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions).
Most of the images in the gallery are products of government works and therefore are required to be in the public domain by copyright law. However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law.

-TabooTikiGod 21:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First I do not vandalize. Second, those images I reverted clearly came from Government sources (US Air Force or british forces) so they are valid. You may have noticed I did not revert your changes on the english Wiki ragarding german aircraft not clearly made by allied troops (many of them are of german origin). --Denniss 11:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image you deleted is PD

Just like this one you uploaded a couple of years ago; Image:ME 262 2.jpg which I am guessing you found on a USAF website. (The Bismarck image came from a Navy website.) Anynobody 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Bismarck image came from a nyvy website. But it was not made by a US Navy official nor by a Royal Navy official and is of german origin. The author, if he is really known, did not release this image as PD and without knowing the original author this image is not PD. Those images from the US Navy historical center had all been deleted if not of US Navy, Royal Navy or similar government sources with copyright protection expired. The Me 262 image is clearly of US Air Force origin as it's marked with their FE (Foreign evaluation) number used for captured aircraft. --Denniss 02:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Image:Oude_man.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Oude_man.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jellobie 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:F-15 vertical deploy.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--carol 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oude man origineel.JPG

Image deletion warning Image:Oude man origineel.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 07:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, du hast einige (alle) Flugzeugtypen aus der Category:Delta wings gelöscht. Warum? Ich habe das erst mal rückgängig gemacht. Ich bitte um Diskussion auf Category talk:Delta wings. Hältst du die Kategorie für überflüssig oder meine Zuordnung für falsch? Gruß!--Werneuchen 13:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Harpoon-block-II-launch.jpg

Hi Denniss/Archive 2
I've contacted Wernher if he knows where he has taken the picture from...
Let's see if he knows it..
hf D-Kuru 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image redirects are now valid

I notice you tagged for deletion a redirect I created. The software was recently updated so that redirects to image pages work properly, so redirects are now the standard way to deal with duplicate files and no longer need to be deleted. See Commons:Village_pump#Image_redirects. Cheers--Ragesoss 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One reason for redirects is as an alternative to universally replacing duplicate files. So if there are two of the same image with different names, then we can use redirects instead of having to choose one and substitute it on every single wiki where its used. Another use for redirects is so that a wiki can use a more descriptive, language-specific filename without having a duplicate file. The case you mentioned, that filename is (or at least was) being used on at least one wiki.--Ragesoss 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:P-8 Poseidon Diagram.jpg

This image is not fair use. The Navy source website specifically states "RELEASED" and is therefore public domain. Work done by a contractor for the government/Navy is owned by the government/Navy and therefore the license is justifiably public domain. I have restored the image (since it was deleted) and reverted your edit. I believe I had this discussion on Wikipedia with the image at perhaps IFD if you wish to search there for it. MECUtalk 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. It explicitely states image is courtesy of Boeing thus it's fair use as are their other press images. The "Approved for public release" just means it's not classified. --Denniss 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Image:Tiger_I_model.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Tiger_I_model.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

MichaelMaggs 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--141.84.69.20 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Heinkel He 219

Thank you for adding comment to images 1 and 2. I've made this model some years ago, and unfortunately I've forgotten why I have made souch strange radar configuration. According to my knowledge the model is A-5/R1, the three-seater configuration that you've been talking about is A-5/R4. I shall correct the model and probably post new images. --xJaM (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The A-5 designation was solely reserved for a three-seater version but it's not really clear whether it reached production or not. As of the end of November 1944 the He 219 A-0 and A-2 were out of production and replaced by the A-7 on the assembly line. There was no A-5 in production then nor was it ordered. As for the radar on your model, the center antenna looks to me like an optional FuG 218 antenna delivered with the model kit but there's no confirmation this radar was ever used on the He 219. He 219 always used FuG 220, some prototypes may have had FuG 212. Also an A-5 would be of late 1944 and thus not carrying the parallel FuG 220 antenna but the diagonal version. --Denniss (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand about A-5. So, perhaps here there are some false information. It says:
  • A-5/R1 - identical to the A-2/R1 ...,
    A-5/R2 - identical to A-5/R1, but powered by 2 × DB 603E,
    A-5/R3 - equal to the A-5/R1, but powered by 2 × DB 603Aa, and finally
    A-5/R4 - this version had a third crewmember, situated in a raised, stepped cockpit section ...
I also have to check about FuG 220/218. --xJaM (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of myths and false information in books or on websites regarding the He 219 especially regarding the production versions. There were only three versions in production, the A-0, A-2 and A-7, with the A-0 having the highest number produced with at least 104 accepted by Luftwaffe (maybe even more as some wer eused as prototypes), then the A-2 with 85 (some may have been taken for A-5 modification as the only know A-5 had serial numbers from the A-2 blocks). Number of A-7 build/accepted is not clearly know but total He 219 accepted by Luftwaffe was at least 268. --Denniss (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Then also Revell sells myths and false information. Here's the cover of its 1:72 kit (4116), which clearly states the configuration A-5/R1 :-). Image also shows parallel vertical antennas. Also here's an image of He 219 A-5 (#290060), flown to Freeman Field, Indiana for flight testing. I guess this is normal configuration, not solely a three-seater version. But Michael Reimer says it is basically A-5 prototype based on A-2, as you've said. --xJaM (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Never trust information from model kits builders like Revell. The "A-5" shown on the second link is in fact an A-0 (290000 is an A-0 block) and may have been an A-5 prototype or not. As for the antenna look at this old style and this new style antenna setup (new style should be a 45-degree-angled setup). The angled antennas were neccesary to optimize for the usable FuG 220 frequencies as some frequencies were blocked after a fully equipped Ju 88 G-1 night fighter landed by error in England in July 1944. Thus a late-1944 type like an A-5 would have the angled setup. --Denniss (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grb Bihac.PNG

Sorry, but no matter what the uploader on en: says, this is not actually a case of fair use, but one of PD-Gov. It's just rather difficult to figure out correct license tags for flags, coats of arms, seals etc. when there are only standard tags for the US and Western European countries. Regards --20percent (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for the catch on Image:Henry7Chapel_15.jpg. I was finishing a batch of Flickrreviews and had just gotten the image undeleted, so I missed the poor sizing. Anyways, I appreciate it! --jonny-mt 01:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


About Image:Jr-east e4p21 pokemon.jpg

(ja.) 私は、なぜImage:Jr-east e4p21 pokemon.jpgが削除対象なのか、理解できません。詳しい説明を要求します。

(en.) I cannot understand why Image:Jr-east e4p21 pokemon.jpg is a candidate for deletion. Please explain in detail to me. D-SSTK (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

About Image:Humphrey Bogart jeune.jpg

This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.

--Bonnot (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the image is PD? Do you know the author and his time of death ? --Denniss (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::Why do you think the image is not PD? Do you know the author and his time of death? (Humphrey Bogart, 1899 - 1957) (jeune = young) --Bonnot (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Tachado por mí. --Bonnot (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cyclone Helen 3941.jpg‎

Their reason for deletion is BS. Image:Cyclone Helen 3941.jpg‎ along with the others were taken by me! That night I went out to the Dripstone Cliffs to watch the power fail all over Darwin and to see what it's (Cyclonic winds) like, those photo were taken on the way back! Bidgee (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

28 cm Krupp at Oscarsborg, Norwegen

Hi Denniss, Can you have a look at this picture. I have suggested a change of filename. Gruss KjellG (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Schleswig Holstein firing Gdynia 13.09.1939.jpg

Hello,

The source is given, and it is mentioned that the author is unknown. If you think that this is not sufficient, please open a proper deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PD-Poland requires a known author or a proof it was first published in Poland. This image is another example of the PD-Poland misuse on Commons. --Denniss (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

called to arms related photos

Hi Dennis,

I believe you have requested for my pictures of "Called To Arms" to be removed. The photos that I uploaded are completely my own and though I do not hold an official copyright over them I do not see a problem with a personal photo that was taken being uploaded to public domain. am i missing something?

Image:0 rev9 006.jpg

Hi Denniss, Think you made a little mess here and now the uploader is lost and needs your help. Tekstman (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your help Tekstman. I mailed the photographer asking whether we could use one of his pics and wrote him the following: "On Wikipedia we do not use copyright restrictions though: people who visit our website are free to download, edit etc. everything used on it. Hopefully this is not an objection to you and we may use one of your pictures." He replied: "I am happy for you to use my image." This was quoted on the Dutch talk page of the picture and there was never any problem. But whoever transferred it to Commons did not transfer the talk page too. I hope this helps? --62.131.180.58 11:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Polish Soldier Chad.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:RPG7.jpg premission is here and it states that Polish Ministry gave the premission to use their pictures as long as they are attributed. --Qrpkk (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename request

Hi, is it possible to rename a this Image:Hellenic Police BK-117.jpg to the correct Image:Hellenic Police EC-135.jpg. I've mistaken the type. Found your name in the trusted users list. Thanks a lot and sorry for the trouble. --Alaniaris (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Retagged with rename. --Denniss (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GM promotional images

Hello Dennis, I See you marked the images I've been uploading as possible copyright violation. In my knowledge the promotional images from Car Companies are free distributable. If not can you let me know? RedBill (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they are to be classified as fair use and are not acceptable at Commons unless you get a permission to use them under a freely distributable license like GFDL or Creative Commons (not noncommercial or nonderivative versions of this license). --Denniss (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. An e-mail directly from GM-Marketing for instance where the let me know I can use the given image should do as license? RedBill (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Commons:OTRS might help. --Denniss (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Image:F-20.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:F-20.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

schlendrian •λ• 11:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Win7 Photos

The Win7 pic that u delete was a photo of a image in a television in the PDC conference. I thing is valid --Sotcr (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of copyrighted software = fair use = not allowed on Commons. --Denniss (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Martin B-57A Canberra 061025-F-1234P-004.jpg & Image:Martin B-57A Canberra 061025-F-1234P-008.jpg

Hello! I see you have indicated that the abovementioned images originate from the U.S. Air Force. However, according to Commons:Licensing#License_information, images should contain information sufficient for others to verify the licence status. Would you be able to provide a link to verify that they are indeed from the U.S. Air Force? Thanks, RedCoat 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1)

Look at the image metadata. 2) The unusual combination of numbers and letters indicates a US Government source. 3) Try http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil 4) Those images change their location quite often so links tend to be nonfunctional after some years (or even months) --Denniss (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Said in the title really. Thanks for your work in tagging many images. Would you be considering an RfA at all - there is always work to be done. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Statues tintin snowy.jpg

I oppose the deletion of the corresponding image, this is why I created this subpage to discuss it. You may be right, but please write a reason for a deletion. --Pah777 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Naval ships of the United States

Category discussion notification Category:Naval ships of the United States and Category:United States Navy ships have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

-- Jmabel ! talk 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio notifications for uploaders

Hello Denniss. Thank you for your help with tagging the copyright violations on Wikipedia Commons. Please don't forget to appropriately notify the uploaders as well. Thanks --Kimsə (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:8FamousPersianPeople.jpg

Thank you for your concern, Denniss. It seems the peoblem of Image:8FamousPersianPeople.jpg has been solved.--Raayen (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Atomium

Hello Dennis, sorry for this fault I realized the error too late. As regards --Prosopee (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's a very sad copyright situation. I'd love to see some Atomium images here but currently it's not possible. --Denniss (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Jagdtiger 2.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jagdtiger 2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. High Contrast (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariana Airlines

Hello, Denniss!

I recently uploaded an image of "lake ariana" in Sofia, Bulgaria as "File:Ariana.jpg", which appeared to have already been used as a file name by yourself for a boeing 757 photo. now, i don't know if my image erased your image, or if your image was obsolete, or if your image was supposed to have a longer name that you accidentally omitted (as your other one is called "File:Ariana Afghan A310-300.jpg", for example)???

in any case, i am sorry if i have messed anything up (i do not understand WHY wikimedia allowed my image to be uploaded if you already had one with the same name??), and will work with you to correct the problem, if there is a problem. perhaps i have misunderstood something?

ps. 1) you are clearly more experienced: why is it that when i now search Wikimedia Commons for my picture, it does not appear ANYWHERE in the list on the results page?! (i can only find it by typing in the PRECISE filename, but not if i only type in the keyword)

2) and why is it that when i go to my new image via the Lake Ariana article in wikipedia i am told that ONLY that article links to it, but when i go to it directly through wikipedia commons, i am told that only YOUR airline article links to it?!

3) and why are some pictures named "Image:...", others "File:..." etc? does it make a difference?

please help, as this is most confusing (this is my first ever image upload)

thank you, and i await your reply! Aryadne (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(Aryadne requested me to answer here)
File:Ariana.jpg (made and uploaded by Aryadne)
Hello Aryadne!
1.) -
2.) Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Ariana.jpg gives Ariana Afghan Airlines
3.) "File" is new because it is more universal (we have multimedia, too). You can use both, but you're asked to use the new term.
The mess would not have occured if you'd stick to the guidelines such as "use a descriptive and concise filename"(Special:Upload), e.g. "Lake Ariana, Sofia - overview seen from West.jpg"
At first, I thought to have an explanation: You or Denniss checked the box "this replaces and existing file" BUT there's no record in the file (both in the history and down at the image overview in the bottom of the file page). Gotta ask an Admin or the Commons:Village pump. It's very bad to have a picture of a lake in the gallery page of an airline. I hope this problem will be solved soon. See you around, --Mattes (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The original file was deleted but somehow stayed in the gallery. Thus it reappeared in the gallery with the image you uploaded using a "historic" name. --Denniss (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, guys, and sorry again for the inconvenience!

i am glad you have managed to replace the old image, Denniss! and i will be sure to use more specific names henceforth.

However, i still have two queries - i will rephrase them, as i see now how strangely i worded them yesterday!

1. at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Ariana.jpg only the Commons links are shown, while at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Ariana.jpg only the Wikipedia links are shown. Is there a universal place that shows ALL the places where this image might be used? for if it is used in other language wikipedias, how would you know - it would be unpractical to search EVERY ONE, wouldn't it? (i am not asking about this image particularly, but generally about wikimedia features).

2. why is it that when i searched for "Ariana" in the Commons search box yesterday, this particular image did not appear anywhere in the results? (it does now, but i do not see any major new additions to the file information that anyone has made to warrant this). i thought the filename "Ariana.jpg" and description "Lake in Sofia, Bulgaria" should be enough for the search to find it. is it that the commons database simply needed several hours to catch up with the new info?

Again, thank you and i await your reply! Aryadne (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

about images I've uploaded

Hi Denniss,

The image I've uploaded (Mana_imdb.jpg) is my property and I have uploaded to my IMDB account. Why am I not allowed to upload it to Wikipedia?

Thank you.

--Gwapobluebird (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Image:SU-85 (5).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:Image:SU-85 (5).jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Kam Solusar (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:ARMAGA_Mystic_cover.jpg

hello! I am the auther and owner of this picture, because I play in this band ARMAGA, and this is the cover of oue new album! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ARMAGA_Mystic_cover.jpg

here you can see it: http://www.armaga.ru/discography/mystic

I'm Andrey Vasiunin, guitarist of this band!

Thanks a lot!!!