User talk:Denniss/Archive 6

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.


Questions about uploading

Hello Denniss. How are you? I hope you are doing fine. I have been a member of Turkish and English Wikipedia for a long time but I recently became active here. Since you are an administrator here, I am hoping I can consult you regarding a question: I uploaded photos to Commons, some recent photos and some from my archives. In 2 years or 5 years from now on how can you know that what I uploaded is the original one? I mean right now noone uses them in any web site yet but some people will eventually use them. Then how can I prove they were originally uploaded by me so that they wont be deleted from Commons 5 years later? Thank you very much in advance. Mimar77 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingo York in Kategorie Pankow

Hallo, mal abgesehen von dem ausstehenden Löschantrag ist Ingo York 2011 nicht Mitglied von Pankow. Siehe auch: de:Pankow_(Band)#2004_bis_heute. Gruß --Blueser2805 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Er war mal Mitglied und hat auf diesem Konzert offensichtlich mit Pankow gespielt. --Denniss (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to reopen discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png

Hi Denniss,

Since you did not close the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png discussion correctly, it was perfectly okay for me to revert your edit and reopen the discussion. You wrote that you felt this to be a clear case for "Keep". I don't see how you could come to this decision at all. If anything, I would see the outcome of the discussion as "Delete", but I hoped for more people to jump in and provide hard evidence in one way or the other. I am worried that your closure as "Keep" will bring legal trouble to the WMF when Facebook's legal department will stumble upon them, and this is likely to happen sooner or later. As a German you should be well aware of Facebook's legal action against site owners using their Like button in ways not allowed by them. You provided your personal opinion that these files may be too simple to be copyrighted. You further stated that Facebook did not design these icons, although it was an established fact in the discussion that these icons are direct copies from Facebook's site. Since you brought up the topic of prior art, I asked you to provide some examples so we could bring down Facebook's trademark claims on these designs, but you didn't brought forward any, unfortunately. Some of the participants in the discussion sort of stepped back half-way saying that they cannot provide more than their mere opinion, and that while they would like these files to be kept they didn't really knew if this would be okay legally. Those who really tried to establish an educated opinion based on laws and the text available on Facebook's site recommended to delete the files. I suggested, that someone should ask Facebook for permission to use these files, or simply to design our own set of icons unrelated to the Facebook ones, but noone did so far. However, it is the burden of those who upload or want to keep stuff to provide evidence that it is okay to keep those files. Therefore I ask you to reopen the discussion or change the result to "Delete". And please address the questions I raised in the discussion. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I commented on that discussion, I'm horning in here a little bit: Can you provide any citation that Facebook has ever actually sued (and won) over the use of this little thumbs-up blurb? Or are you merely concerned about what "might happen"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
While this is part of the discussion that should take place in the reopened deletion request discussion, Facebook (or its legal representatives) has been acting against numerous site owners who used their Like button in "incorrect" ways since early 2011. In all cases I am aware off, the claims were based on various trade laws. In most of these case, they issued a call for order (Abmahnung) and the site owners had to immediately change their behaviour accordingly, pay a "service" fee (typically in the several thousands for small sites) and sign a restrictive covenant/cease and desist agreement secured by a penalty (strafbewährte Unterlassungserklärung) (typically in the ten-thousands for small sites). This is the normal process if the parties want to avoid a law suit, because of the higher costs and risks involved, however, there were also various law suits with diverse results. I'm not in the position to summarize the outcome of the various incidents without thorough research, but for a quick overview that this is not hypothetical problem we could simply ignore, please check Google with keywords such as "Facebook Like Abmahnung", "Facebook Like Unterlassungserklärung", "Facebook Like LG", "Facebook Like OLG" (LG = Landesgericht, OLG = Oberlandesgericht), and you will find plenty of examples. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you have some specific links on hand where actually Facebook was active against websites/companies using facebook-like buttons? I was only able to find company vs company actions because the data transfer to Facebook was not mentioned at the webpages using the button (had to be noted in the Impressum). --Denniss (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think these All Media examples are related to our case, they are more about what needs to be mentioned in the impressum and privacy policies. Related are cases, where the Facebook buttons are not used in the way allowed by Facebook. For a start, please read the press releases of Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz (ULD), which state that the normal Facebook Like button usage on web-pages (that is, as recommended by Facebook ;-) is in violation with German laws (Telemediengesetz (TMG) and Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG)). Since our WP Like/Dislike templates do *not* use the Facebook icons to transfer any data to Facebook at all, this in itself would not be related to our case, however, the very same fact makes us violate Facebook's license terms at the same time (see below)...
When site owners tried to circumvent these legal problems and trick Facebook's license using the Like button in ways not recommended (by disabling the transfer of "tracking data", but still allowing to "like" external events/topics with Facebook (for example by falling back to a two-click button solution), Facebook's legal department claimed that they were violating Facebook's license and issued threats ranging from reinvokation of licenses, blocking sites/apps/users to penalty fees. Some of the parties involved were "" (a well-known publisher of various technology-related magazines including c't) and "" (a huge public radio and television broadcaster), and you can find well documented case histories there.
Since Wikipedia's use of the Facebook Like buttons in the Like/Dislike templates is not even remotely related to the way intended by Facebook (and shouldn't be either), we clearly violate their license terms. We can avoid this is by using Facebook's original active scripting solution for it's intended purposes (we don't want to do that for obvious reasons), changing the icons to something unrelated to Facebook (my suggestion), or deleting them. Simply ignoring these real world issues is not an option.
Therefore, I again ask you to reconsider and delete those icons to avoid trouble for the WMF (as was also suggested by admin Fæ in the discussion) or at the minimum reopen the discussion. This extended discussion should have taken place in the original deletion request discussion, not here.
In closing, I'd like to point out that the burden to provide evidence that it is okay to keep the contents is with those who upload or want to keep the stuff. Still, I have addressed the various questions raised in the discussion in some detail, wheras you still did not answered my question in regard to your prior art statement. Therefore it is difficult to not come to the conclusion that the discussion was not closed based on legal insight but personal preference... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
For your convenience, here is a link into the debate at heise regarding their 2-click derivative of the Facebook Like button: [1]. It's not the most up-to-date article, but it has some further links to various interesting background articles. This article supports my view that Facebook will see our use of their Like button as a violation of their rights, if they will happen to stumble upon it. First, we must not make copies of their designs and upload them elsewhere, declaring them as public domain (a legal concept which does not exist in many countries outside the US), in particular not on Commons. Second, while we could use local copies of the Facebook Like button within the bounds of their license and with proper attributation to their license terms, we must not use them in any way not allowed by Facebook. Facebook makes it very clear on their policy page (see deletion discussion) that we must not create Facebook Like-button look-alikes, neither on visual nor on functional level. Our Dislike derivation is a visual look-alike, and our usage of the Like and Dislike icons in the {{Like}} and {{Dislike}} templates in the English Wikipedia is a usability look-alike of Facebook's social media plugin for a completely different purpose. So, by keeping these icons we are risking that Facebook will block Wikipedia (no direct harm for Wikipedia, but for users who use Wikipedia through Facebook) or even provoke legal action against the WMF (as explained already). Do you really want to knowingly risk creating potential trouble for the WMF?
On a different note, I'm still looking forward to an answer to my question regarding your prior-art statements (which were repeated in your closing summary of the deletion request discussion), for which you did not provide any evidence so far, unfortunately. If you can find some evidence of another party using Facebook's Like button before Facebook (or at least name the party you had in mind when issuing your statements, so that we could collaborate on searching for evidence), we would not have to worry too much unless Facebook bought the design from that prior owner. However, so far these claims remain unsupported statements, and therefore are void. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Japan and Template:Ja2

Hello, Denniss. Thank you for your work. I noticed you had reverted my update on Template:FoP-Japan and Template:Ja2. However, you can't categorize them in the category Category:コモンズ・テンプレート because the category can't be used any longer. Could you check both the pages and the category? If you need to revert, then please make sure everything is perfectly correct without any conflicts. Thank you for your help. --SantaClaus (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/archive 10#タチコマ robot

Does this count as being granted since the bot was approved for the task? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think not--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Do I need to file a new request? What do I need to do? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If the files are unchanged from the Flickr version why not use the standard Flickrreview template? AFAIR a bot needs to have file reviewer rights to become an accepted review tag. A null-edit from your useraccount will probably not accepted, I suggest changing the tag to a standard flickrreview tag to have the review bot do its work. --Denniss (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
As the bot now has a reviewer flag please sign the added Flickrreview template with the robot signature and not your own. You are currently creating shedloads of work (for me) as your signature is detected as invalid. --Denniss (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem was due to a config file error I corrected today. The issue is already fixed through bot such as this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it has not been fixed, even the latest uploads likw this one are still signed with your signature. --Denniss (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I see the bots signature. I am a bit confused. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Frisch rassiert.jpg

Hi. I have restored this file as I feel your speedy deletion was out of process. I have added better categories to the image. Note that the file was kept at DR (albeit not a scope-based DR) only last month. If you wish to have it deleted, please do so via DR, not just speedy. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of free license photo (due to me adding wrong license).

It seems like you deleted a photo where I had filled in the wrong license. The photo was for the article and the picture was: - which is free to use (see beneath photo). Is it possible to get it back? I'm still new to Wiki so I don't understand all this with licenses yet. Thanks in advance. UPDATE: emailed Wiki and they'll fix this for me. --Metaldemolition (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Denniss. When you have time, could you control A, B, C, D. I think they are very clear cases. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

About the image CAÑIZARES2012.jpg

Dear Denniss. Could you please check out if the license permission of the image CAÑIZARES2012.jpg (which is used at Juan Manuel Cañizares is OK? I have just added the License information, but as I am a very new editor of Wikipedia, I'm not sure if it is correct. Thank you very much for your advice and comment. --MOGURA (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

vous avez supprimé mon compte abedel (you delete my accompt abedel why???)

Hello Denniss, you delete my accompt "abedel" and i don't know why. I'am mosaist artist and i put some pieces of mosaisc on wikimedia commons. what's the problem about? thanks Anne

Why did you…

Hi Denniss,
I'd like to understand why you decided to delete this file. The discussion took place on this page: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Candle 2009 08 30.gif four months ago. I'm not here to contest your decision (at least not immediatly :) but mainly to understand your reasons, because I wanted to use this photograph on my blog with the following caption: CC-by-3.0 : свеча в темноте par HECTOP MAXHO, but I would be sure I can. Thanks, --Wikinade (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Google image search came up with multiple hits in even larger resolutions, the uploaders was a one-time account so the image became even more suspect. --Denniss (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for responding. I shall not reuse this image. Regards, --Wikinade (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This User

I just noticed a small unusual thing about 3 of this user's images. It may be something or nothing at all. This user has only a few images on Commons and some have no camera metadata but in the three that do, they have 3 different cameras. See this:

These are the only images with camera metadata recorded on Commons or flickr. Do you think the images are probably ‘own work’? The uploader has a few other images with no metadata--it would be interesting to see if a Google search finds any hits before they were uploaded. If not, I assume that its probably OK. Unfortunately, I'm not experienced here and all I use is TinEye which is very limited. If you think they are all copyvios, feel free to take whatever action you think is necessary. But if they're OK, just let me know below. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Flickr images is from Getty images, taken by one of their own photographers. See [2] --Denniss (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: That was what I suspected. The uploader is taking images from other websites. Thanks for taking action. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

All photo deleted

I find all my photo are deleted? why is that? i can upload to flickr to? we decide only some photo to release officially

again sorry my english

Dongshin425 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For your information, Dongshin425 started a discussion at COM:HD#User:Denniss about this matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The flickr account dongshin425 is an account created by some fan, the account soley consists of stolen photos collected[3] from various[4] sources[5]. Note for the last example: This flickr abuser even removes watermarks, the pink cirlce light on the right side is not longer a circle, the photo is manipulated for flickr uploading without traitorous watermarks. There is nothing good with this flickr guy. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Agência Brasil/doc

Hi Denniss,

I undid your protection of Template:Agência Brasil/doc, as this is not a « widely used template », and I do not really see why we should prevent users from editing a documentation page.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

About description of photo

Hello, i would like to as you some questions. Can anybody else change description of my photos? Check this please im the author of picture, but the user delete his identity as he wants. If i dont have rights to add description on my own photo, why should i add photos to Wikimedia? i will be waiting for your answer. Thx --Gomada (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Denniss. First of all could you control Category talk:Kurdistan ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Gelöschtes Logo (Fräkmündt)

Hallo Denniss,

hab gerade gesehen, dass du das Logo von Fräkmündt gelöscht hast. Da kam bei mir die Frage auf, "wiso"? Der Uploader Lienert Meiri verfügt doch über das Nutzungsrecht des Logos und auch des Hintergrundes der Logo-Datei, es war also nie eine ORTS-Freigabe nötig, siehe hier: [6] kannst du also bitte das Logo wieder herstellen? Danke und Lg, --Trollhead (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

License of File:Postosuchus BW.jpg and alikes

Hi Denniss. May I ask you what makes you sure that Nobu Tamura from the site (from where the photos came) is the same person that is the user ArthurWeasley (talk · contribs) here? Or there is another reason for removing the {{copyvio}} mark, ie, what makes you belive that the images in are licensed under CC or GFDL? Regards. --Stegop (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd appreciate if you answer my question above, not much because I intend to argue with you, but because I want to understand your criteria so I won't use the tag {{copyvio}} wrongly. Thank you very much. Regards. --Stegop (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Melanie Fronckowiak.jpg

HI there. Not having access to deleted images, I can't verify that this image, which I just found on Flickr and uploaded because it has the correct license, is the one you deleted earlier for "license laundering". Is it? If it is, you have my apologies. If it isn't, please disregard this message. Best wishes, --Mareklug talk 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a Flickr account used for white-washing stolen images. Sadly the Flickr upload bot does not track our bad users list. --Denniss (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Flag File

I saw that you deleted the flag at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mexico stateflags Distrito Federal large size.png, under that deletion reasoning, shouldn't File:Mexico stateflags Distrito Federal.png be deleted as well? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Dennis. In Germany, is this file PD ? Takabeg (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not without source, at least it's not PD-USGov. With a lot of goodwill it may be PD-Italy, if it was really made in 1942 it may become Anonymous-EU in 2013. --Denniss (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Now what do I have to do ? Takabeg (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image license mistake and a separate matter with questions

Hello Denniss, I am sorry about uploading that lunar eclipse photo from Flickr, the one that you deleted. I checked the license, and see that it is CC/by-nc-nd/2.0 which isn't the same as CC/by-nc/2.0. I'm wondering, is it necessary for a Flickr, or other image, to be CC/by/2.0, or is CC/by-nc/2.0 adequate? (The newest version is 3.0, I realize, but often that hasn't been updated). If you don't know the answer, or are not the appropriate person to ask, please disregard.

Separate matter

The official seal for the U.S. House of Representatives is here on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not sure if it should be here. Yes, works of the U.S. Government are PD, but official seals are not. At least, not the ones I've checked on. I wanted to decorate my hobby blog with the NORAD seal, as it is cute, but when I checked, I saw that it was not PD, nor are city or state seals, nor are agency seals, nor military regiments etc. The seal for the U.S. Senate is also here. Might that be a problem too?

The reason this is troubling me, well, the reason it came to my attention, is because I was reading an article on the New York Stock Exchange website this morning, and noticed that the seal was included in the article. The source was given as Wikipedia. However, the article was about an NYSE visit to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives, not an endorsement BY the U.S. House of Representatives! (If there was an endorsement, NYSE would have been able to obtain the image of the seal directly from the U.S. House of Representatives). I don't care about that so much, as it is the NYSE's responsibility to use images and seals correctly! But if it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, then it is our concern. I will return with URLs and further details. Or just refer me to the correct place, although my hesitation is somewhat due to the fact that I don't speak any of the languages of the Wikipedia's where the image is located. Thank you for any help you can provide. --FeralOink (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Flickr: nc (noncommercial) and nd (non-derivative) are restrictions incompatible with Commons. CC-by and CC-by-sa are OK even if they are of an older type than the current 3.0 versions. I do not really have a lot of information regarding copyright status of seals but the linked one missed the insignia warning template about possible usage restrctions. --Denniss (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Cure (Logo).png

Would you mind explaining why you closed this deletion discussion as keep? The only 2 editors involved in the discussion (myself included) !voted for deletion, I gave clear reasons why the image doesn't qualify as pd-text, and a proposed close of "delete" sat for almost 3 weeks with no further input. Yet somehow you interpreted that at "keep"? I think that calls for some explanation. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the change. Thanks for following up. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Restore image

Hi, can you please restore File:Kit_left_arm_DFBII_1012.png? File is in use. --Stryn (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That was actually just a redirect to a deleted image. Both restored now and replacement command issued to Commons Delinker. --Denniss (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Heron Tower London Dec 23 2010.jpg

Hi for this image: File:Heron Tower London Dec 23 2010.jpg there is a permission link that clearly grants permission for the image hosted at this web page. This was requested by the blogger at en:WP:FFU. If you want to see an email , you should ask Nick Donnelly Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

DRs to be closed as withdrawn.

Thanks: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BadgeAKA2.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask laying.JPG--GrapedApe (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Arkin speedy lacking any details

There was no explanation for the speedy deletion of File:Alan-Arkin - signed.jpg. Can you please give the reasons why this was speedy deleted, including any reasons why the detailed description with legal citations justifying its PD status were not disputed? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not Alan Arkin but his son Adam, image clearly not of the given timeframe. Be always careful if you rely on secondary sources. --Denniss (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Authorship question

You recently tagged some files of a user for dating problems. Many of the user's uploads list "studio" as an author without stating which one or having the name appear in the uploads. Am not able to see how copyright tags can be determined without someone knowing this. Was going to start tagging them but want to be certain I'm not creating needless work for people here. Thanks, We hope (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't rely on third party claims those photos were issued by the studios without copyright notice - we need proof/confirmation. This requires an unaltered image from both front and back. --Denniss (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, then I'll start tagging the files that are "studio". There are probably going to be quite a few. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Have tagged the June 2012 uploads, but there are a lot more just like this with earlier dates. Trying not to tag bomb and to give the user a chance to correct what he can from this lot. We hope (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete Files

hello Dennis please help me to permanently delete my files uploaded and if possible permanently delete my account. My Files uploaded are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo del Municipio.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristo del Petrolero.png Commons:Deletion requests/File:Refineria.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Refineria2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Refineria.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Atardecer Rio Magdalena Puente.jpg The reason is personal and also the pictures are not of my authorship. Thanks so much.

MiszaBot archiving problem

If you take a look at my talk page there are two entries on the very top the bot doesn't archive. I'd like to know why. I can archive them manually but I want to know the reason. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the reason for the 2008 entry on top is the unsigned template in a strange format, try to just use unsigned + the IP. I have not really an idea why the second section is not archived. Maybe because of the user renaming and the signing user doesn't exist anymore (for a program looking at the user database)? --Denniss (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi! Could You take a look: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imeeages.jpg. Thanks! --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Files deleted. --Denniss (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi, this file that you eliminated is in the same OTRS permission sent for this. I received the confirmation messange, but i do not know why the staff did not aproved it, cause all pics were sent together in same OTRS. +PrinceWilly 16:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please ask the OTRS member who tagged the other image, may have just been missed. --Denniss (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Requested

Denniss, OTRS has received a request to delete File:Grief_Research_World_Map.JPG this file, which you already tagged for deletion on July 4. (OTRS Ticket No. 2012070510007449) As discretion is the better part of valor, may I suggest prompt deletion? Geoff Who, me? 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Gone. --Denniss (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response! Cheers, Geoff Who, me? 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kauno Arena, 2011 m. balandžio mėn.jpg

Could you have a look an comment there pls. thx. --JuTa 20:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Verification requested for multiple images deleted without recourse

You have deleted a number of images under the premise, "failure to comply with license requirements - no verification possible without having access to uncropped front and back side of the image." Can you direct me to the source of that rule? I believe most of the images deleted showed the full uncropped front in its original upload state, and most were subsequently cropped. When a reverse-side image was available by the source, it was included. If not, or if the source claimed that there wes no other visible writing, it was not included. Your implied rule is that an image of the reverse side is absolutely required to verify a photo for copyright.

In addition, your rationale was mostly the same on all images deleted: "Missing essential information such as license, permission or source." However, they too were all PD and all had a source, although the photographer was unknown. My understanding is that anonymous sources are acceptable. Is that not true?

In at least one other image deleted today, your rationale was "incomplete photo, impossible to verify there was no copyright claim." However, verifying a copyright is not "impossible," as searches are available online, and the image description, I believe, stated that no copyright was found after such search.

I also noticed that many of the images deleted today were not previously tagged and may have been summarily deleted. Can you check on those and explain how that can happen without giving the uploader either notice or an opportunity to cure any defects?

Related to the above, you have mostly tagged the PD images with Template:No permission since. As I replied to one such tag, it seemed to be irrelevant to PD images, since the tag requires "proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file . . ." The tag also states, "Please provide evidence of permission . . . ," which also seems irrelevant for the same reasons.

It was also pointed out that the tag, erroneous or not, does not allow for any response by others, inlcuding the uploader. It is a "summary" type of tag, which apparently allows anyone to summarily move to delete an image without discussion. Is that the intent? If not, where are replies supposed to take place? You can reply here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous works are possible but only after a long period of time has gone by (for the EU it seems to be 70+1 year). For the special copyright excemption PD-US-no notice we need proof that there was indeed no copyright notice or an insufficient notice. --Denniss (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Almost all the images were U.S. origin, not EU. Since you are declaring that an uncropped original publicity image without a copyright is insufficient, what kind of proof are you referring to? Also, are you able to answer any of the questions posted, since I don't want to upload images against clear WP guidelines? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The EU regulation was just an example. You as the uploader have to prove the image in question was published without or with an insufficient copyright notice. The only way to do this is to upload uncropped images of the front and the back. That's enough to comply with the special license as you proved the missing/insufficient copyright statement. --Denniss (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, you are declaring that a copy of the front of an uncropped photo is not enough. Can you point me to any guideline for that? And will you answer the other questions, all of which seem important in the case of such mass deletions.? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
How shall anyone confirm there was no copyright notice attached to this photo if one doesn't know all details? There's no way to ensure the license is valid if one doesn't know what's on the backside of such a photo. BTW there's no need to inform the uploader about those deletions as you obviously falied to comply with the given license, some files even had no link to verify at least the claim of the online source. --Denniss (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you've no doubt read the film still article about publicity photos and public domain, you are aware that "publicity photos" are traditionally public domain. You are also the first and only editor to absolutely require a photo of the reverse side, which except in extremely rare cases is either blank or had text about the actor or film. I don't recall ever seeing a copyright on the reverse side. After years of uploading many such images, with no one ever demanding to see the reverse, except when it was available, you seem to be creating a new rule unilaterally. In any case, if you were concerned about any existing copyright, you could have done a copyright search online or requested that the uploader do one for verification.
Regarding your assumption that I "obviously failed to comply with the given license," that is disputed, mainly because your tag, Template:No permission since, which requests "proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file . . ." is totally irrelevant to PD images, as mentioned earlier (latest example deletion: here. BTW, your opinion that "there's no need to inform the uploader about those deletions," is valid assuming that there is also no need to use "common courtesy" dealing with other editors.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
By all this I wonder, how it is possible for you to know that there is no copyright notice without having a look at the backside? Your general declaration regarding "publicity photos" is worthless. It applies to many but not all cases, so evidence for every single case is required. Second, it seems that the origin of the claim that something is a publicity photo is you, your personal opinion. Without a reliable source this claim is useless. A reliable source is easy to provide since this publications exist in a physical form, so its extremly easy to provide a reference to the physical publication (reference to an archive or library). --Martin H. (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To Wikiwatcher1-You would do well to apply "common courtesy" when making statements about conversations at Commons. We hope (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See also en:WP:MCQ#Back of photo copyright notices, en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 July 8 and en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 July 9. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Denniss, you also need to be aware of this. Have tried not to mention it here because it's an en.WP issue. We hope (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To We hope, do your past comments relate to any of the above: "Notifying uploader of deletion nominations"? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blohm & Voss Bv 142.jpg

I know I nominated this file as suspect, but closing as delete within a minute of the Deletion Request being posted does seem a bit quick, and doesn't seem to give any time for any response from the uploader or anyone else. Although unlikely, there could have been solutions for the issues - someone may have been able to better identify where it was first published, and it is possible that it could have been published in the US within 30 days.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, most of the uploaders other images look suspect to me - template:PD-CzechGov appears to me to have been misused.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted because I deleted exact the same image some days ago. Currently deleting some of those mistagged files. --Denniss (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, it was fair enough to speedy the image, although it might have been good top make it clearer in the deletion justification that it was a recreation of a previously deleted file. I suppose I was a bit shocked considering the normal glacial pace of deletion discussions here on Commons.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing DRs early

Hi. I don't understand why you are closing DRs that were only opened yesterday. They are supposed to run for at least a week, aren't they? And I'm sure there are more than enough old DRs for you to close, if you want to reduce the backlog.
In particular, I'd like you to reopen Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gohe007‎ (as I already mentioned here). Thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep something open that's an absolutely clear case, we are not responsible for image shifting on source websites. --Denniss (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, there's no rush either, and I see no harm in waiting a week. DRs should only be speedily closed if they should have been speedy deletions in the first place (i.e. meet the criteria for speedy deletion). As for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gohe007‎, the simple fact that I'm asking you to reopen it should be justification enough; I'm telling you that I wanted to discuss this case, this is what DRs are for, so I don't see why you would prevent me from doing that. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss so no need to reopen. Speedy closing is valid for obvious cases. --Denniss (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, COM:AN#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gohe007‎. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleting VPT Photos?

Hi, I am trying to add photos to our company page, VPT Inc., and you are deleting them as I add them, before I can link them. Please undelete them! Thanks.

I'm curious to know why you deleted the image files I uploaded yesterday- there were a series of 4 office location shots which are free for use. The images were shots from Jacksonville, Conroe, Stabio, and Rostock. Please undelete or let me know why you felt compelled to delete them. Thanks --Starchless (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SaifuddinGraphique.jpg

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my images

How dare you delete my images when they had been fully sourced and referenced to the correct website, I know for a fact that you have not even checked to see if those images were wrong, you just deleted everything on mass. I can understand if you had looked over them but you evidently had not, so what gives you the right to delete all the images that I uploaded legitimatly!

STOP DELETING MY IMAGES, I have worked so hard and long to upload all those images, so why have you just deleted everything. You have given me no reason as to why my images are being deleted especially when I have sourced, referenced and attributed them correctly. I would like you to revert the deletion or I will be making complaints to other administrators!

My images have sources please stop your abusive attack on my images! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Óscar Cardozo Paragay.jpg


Kannst du einen nachvollziehbaren Grund für deine Löschentscheidung angeben? --High Contrast (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


I'm an artist, and I've put some picture of my artwork. All these picture are my own work. Could youplease explain to me why did you disactivate it and how i can proove it ?, please go to my website on thanks


Hello, thank you to explain your reasons before delete files, there's no copyright violations in the file shown in the title. --Glabb (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Hello, can you delete file "Los secretos de Albión: édalis y elpoder mestizo".Is a book, by is not my own work; copyright violation


Hi Denniss, hope you're well. Just thought you might be interested in the discussion above. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hansen Dee Ford (talk · contribs)

Hi. Thanks for blocking Hansen Dee Ford, but it looks like you forgot to notify them of their block. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Couette rotational rheometer - Plate and plate - Cone and plate system.jpg

Hallo Denniss. Hast du dich verklickt oder verguckt? Überdies ist es ein Affront für solche Situationen die Rollback-Funktion zu benutzen. --Leyo 15:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC) PS. Siehe dazu de:Vorlage:Hinweis Zurücksetzen.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers (2).jpg

Just a heads up that I have reopened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers (2).jpg as it was closed a little too early. Whilst the licencing issue (CC-BY-NC) is correct in that it was licenced with a Commons compatible licence at the time it was uploaded to Commons, the question remains whether the IDF has the right to issue licences at all in relation to these 4 images. russavia (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a picture about Coca-Cola

Hi! I received a message about the deletion of a picture made by myself: Coca-Cola, anunci.jpg, but I couldn't see anything about the discussion because the picture does'nt exist anymore. What is the reason of this deletion? --Enfo (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I insist on: what is the reason of this deletion? --Enfo (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Follow the link on your talk page to the deletion request page and you'll see the reason. --Denniss (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but what does it mean "derivate work of a Coca–Cola advertising"? This one or this other one are not the same case as mine? --Enfo (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read and understand Commons:Derivative works --Denniss (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canoe Slalom - Kynan Maley.jpg

Hello. Please do not revert a closure of a DR, the file was kept as it is licensed properly and presently there's no other reason to delete it, resulting in my speedy keep closure. Thanks. --Addihockey10 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In follow-up, please do not use the roll-back tool on the good-faith actions of fellow users. It exists purely to make the reversion of vandalism easier, and use on community members is exceptionally rude. If you are ever to revert a fellow community member, you must either manually revert or use the 'undo' button and give a reason, ideally both in the edit summary and on the page's Talk: page, and in best practice, with a note on the reverted user's talk page too. James F. (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Уважаемый Denniss! Огромная просьба! Прежде чем удалять, подумайте, а не лучше ли помочь в оформлении! Мы здесь занимаемся одним делом. Собираем информацию, а не уничтожаем её! Если Вы против... Напишите мне лично. И я постараюсь всё исправить! Информация сейчас на вес золота! Её иногда лучше удалить, но это проще всего! А вот найти - не так уж и просто! Поэтому, огромная просьба - просто общаться, а не набирать очки в удалении - типа Вы самый умный! Спасибо, если Вам достало интеллекта прочитать это и не брызгать ненавистью робота ко всем и вся! Заранее благодарна! Юллия!

2 deleted templates and multiple files

The other day you deleted Template:DougGreen and Template:GiulioMancin, and the photos that used the template. Just wondering if you have OTRS access, and whether you checked the tickets in question before deleting them? Because both tickets were closed successfully, the OTRS agent simply forgot to update the template here. Luckily the total number of photos deleted is small, however, the range of projects they were on is potentially larger. Could you please direct Commons Delinker to undo the deletion of these photos from articles and usage across our projects. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Denniss, could you please let me know if you are OTRS and whether you checked the OTRS tickets in question before deleting these templates. I am trying to understand how and why they were deleted, and what steps were taken to check on the ticket status beforehand. Thanks, russavia (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Denniss, this is the 3rd request for a response from you in this regard. Can you please advise whether you confirmed the OTRS ticket; you don't have the OTRS flag so it is unknown whether you have OTRS access. And how you came to delete the temples and images in question. If you don't have OTRS access, and didn't take steps to check it prior to the deletions, one could question why our admins are deleting files which they can't verify permissions for, and whether it is worthwhile encouraging admins to apply for OTRS access. russavia (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please kick the butt of the OTRS agent who improperly handled this ticked, not the one who had done a lot of cleanup work by deleting images tagged as OTRS received for nearly one year. Some time ago we had a bot tagging such files with a no permission tag to get rid of them (or proper OTRS tagging) but it doesn't work anymore. And sorry for missing your earlier notices. --Denniss (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 162 Jaguar (front).JPG

Hi, could you tell me why you deleted this file please? It is from a postcard from 1940, there is no photographers name on the back, and it is not stamped copyright. There is no image in the wiki entry for Messerschmitt Bf 162, why can't I add this picture please?



Commons:Deletion requests/File:Namyelüs.jpg

I was the nom, so obviously I agree with closing this as a delete. However, I don't see any reason why you closed it early (August 2 nom, August 6 closure). I think the principal reason we allow a week for all DRs except obvious copyvios is that some of our editors are here only one day a week and we want to ensure that they get a chance to comment. Or am I missing something here? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep out-of-scope images from someone doing nonsense edits. Several other images of this user were out of scope and unused so I got rid of them all. --Denniss (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that out of scope images are a nuisance, but policy does not give us much leeway:
"In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier."
Aside from the question of following policy rather than making our own rules, a fraction -- perhaps 5-10% -- of images that are tagged as out-of-scope turn out to be notable people. It costs nothing to keep the nuisances the full seven days and if it allows a "keep" of an occasional useful image, it should be honored. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

License changes

hello Deniss :) please (if you know italian languages) look here: [[8]] motive for the changes ;) if problem contact me :) --Pava (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ducati situations

Hello, I saw the nth edit war on the category ducats, because this time the action is by your hand you would be kind enough to support your reasons? and please explain why instead of arguing here and find a consensus, prefer to work for edit-war? are months that invite users to a dialogue. Most likely I can not figure out what the situation, you would be kind enough to explain it? thank --Pava (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


There is a flicker account which i own. I have uploaded an image of deigo maradona with my own camera with all rights reserved and donated the other one to commons to use in Wikipedia. Now they requested a deletion [9] which is just a waste of time and it's not acceptable. I need your opinion and help please.--Neogeolegend (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe this has already been answered at the DR, releasing the image under CC-by-sa here at Commons or at Flickr means the same - usable for everyone respecting the license conditions. There's no wikipedia-only CC license. I suggest you either change the license at Flickr to cc-by-sa or send a usage permission to Commons:OTRS. --Denniss (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
ok dennis, i have change to some rights reserved fro share alike in flicker after it was all rights, you can see. Why they still arguing about it.--Neogeolegend (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dennis again, the image at my flicker account changed toAttribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). The argument about the deletion request is useless now.--Neogeolegend (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean Dennis that is OK to all right reserved in flicker and here in commons with cc! since am the uploader at both accounts!.--Neogeolegend (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
hello dennis would you please answer my inquiry above just few words. thanks.--Neogeolegend (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Final Fantasy XII Collector's Edition.jpg

This file is equal to File:Final Fantasy XII Collector's Edition.jpg ? If so I will ask for delete it on 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Although freely licensed by the Flickr user, the copyright belongs to the game publisher/artwork designer and only those are able to release it under a free license. --Denniss (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


User:NIKO-MKD1 unlawfully removes a template "filedesc" (ex. [10]). His all images - copivo from Look him all images - These images should be removed. --Agent001 (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-deletable image

File:Dalquhandy farm roadend - - 459775.jpg is still visible even after you repeatedly deleted it. Purging didn't make any difference either. I've never seen this before - any idea what's going on? Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume a wiki software update broke something again or just a plain hardware failure. See also broken/corrupted images here. Even uploading another image on top of it is impossible - The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/1/13/" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends --Denniss (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a known bug. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ouch! That is not good... Rd232 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Kha BNisan in Nahla.jpg

Please do delete this image. I have simply copied from enwiki. The original uploader is very unlikely to get a permission.--Rafy (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Bee-gathering pollen yellow-flower-macro.jpg

Wo genau ist das Problem? Unter der Seite steht doch deutlich cc-by-sa und "You may use these Free Nature Pictures and Photographs of waterfalls, creeks, forests, trees, flowers, wildlife, mountains and other beautiful wonders of God's creation according to our Free images policy". -- Rillke(q?) 22:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ach, möglicherweise hast Du Template:Forestwander gelesen. Ok. Der eine Upload ist auch von mir, genauso wie das Benutzerkonto. Dann wollte Forestwander aber einen anderen Bot Namen. Entschuldige die Störung, ich werden {{no permission}} jetzt entfernen. Grüße -- Rillke(q?) 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lisa Fissneider photos

The OTRS ticket of the photos is charged to User:Vituzzu. I contacted him to solve the problem. --Vale93b (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass DR archiving

I'd love to help with manually archiving these. I've only been an admin for a couple days though, so I want to make sure I know how to do it. Do I just cut and paste these to the bottom of the corresponding day's archive? Thanks. INeverCry 17:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've archived most of August 5 by cut and paste. INeverCry 02:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've archived all the closed mass drs from 5 Aug to 10 Aug. I'll start doing this on a regular basis whenever I have time. The cut and paste method is very fast and easy, so I hope it's ok. INeverCry 02:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed your question. Cut and past is easy if only those non-archivable types are left but if the page contains a multitude of open and closed DR it'll take a lot of time. --Denniss (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:IMG 1062.JPG

Hi. Because this edit? Érico Wouters msg 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The image was there for several years and there's no need to delete this redirect. We always need to remember that re-users of Commons images may rely on these old sourcenames. --Denniss (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Has no tributaries. The tributaries are in the user domain, and the deletion of the page helps show what needs to be moved (see:User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/Useless file names 20100407).Érico Wouters msg 03:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation - question

Hi Denniss

I am relatively new to writing/editing on wikipedia so I just wanted to double check somehting with you as you removed an image from a recent article I wrote (

I had been in touch with the communications team at Europeana beforehand to confirm what logo I could use and they sent me the link to a selection of logos. One of which I then published under the article on their organisation (see here

I was wondering what you could suggest I now do if this is in breach of the copyright rules?

Look forward to hearing from you.


Per Terms of use all website content is under a noncommercial license. You need explicit permission to upload them with a Commons-compatible license. --Denniss (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for your reply. As I mentioned I did receive explicit permission from the Europeana office to use the logo on the wikipedia page.

"We give you full authority to use the Europeana logo and do what you choose to with it." I can forward the email correspondence as proof of that if necessary? I have since tried to give the logo I uploaded a CC lisense but I have been unable to update this to the already exiting file? Do you have any advise as to how to do so?

Many thanks in advance for your help. --Sarahmcseveny

Re: Flickrreview

Du kannst mir auf Deutsch schreiben, wie man auf meiner Seite leicht sieht. Ist das eine Vorlage, die du auf meine Diskussionsseite kopiert hast? Bitte gib mir ein Beispiel, wo ich etwas falsch gemacht habe - ich glaube ehrlich gesagt du hast dir nicht ein Bild davon angeschaut. Keines der Bilder, die der Bot gemeldet hat, sind von mir falsch behandelt worden. Vielleicht sollte der Bot verstehen lernen, nicht Leute zu melden, die Aufräumarbeiten machen. Danke Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Die korrekte Benutzung der Vorlage ist {{flickrreview|YourUsername|Date}} und nicht das von Dir benutzte {{Flickrreview|1=Hekerui|2=2012-08-23}}. Aufgrund eines fehlenden Maintainers kann der Bot nicht an die sonst übliche Syntax mit 1= usw angepasst werden und spuckt solche Schreibweisen immer als Fehler aus. Deshalb auch der Hinweis auf das Review script, das nicht nur für Flickr gedacht ist. --Denniss (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Bitte sehr. Tut mir Leid, dass ich nicht so positiv reagiert hab, ich war eher sauer darauf, dass Leute es nicht schaffen die richtigen Lizenzen zu nutzen wenn sie Bilder von Flickr nehmen. Und dass merkt kein Bot, leider. Gruß Hekerui (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré - Archange St Michel .jpg

Deutsch: [Google Translator]:

Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré -. St Michel Archange Jpg zeigt deutlich die Autorin, Charlyne @ N04 /, wie in .

So ist es zum Mangel an klaren Hinweis des Autors falsch.
Português: Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré - Archange St Michel .jpg indica claramente a autora, Charlyne , como pode ser conferido em . Assim é incorreto apagar por falta de indicação de autor.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Характерные оценки размеров для различных классов малых тел.jpg

Von den Autoren der Datei sind Б. М. Шустова, Л. В. Рыхлова, und der Quelle - das Buch "Астероидно-кометная опасность: вчера, сегодня, завтра". Das alles wird in der Abteilung "Kurze Beschreibung" angewiesen.Rinby (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

deletion of File:OCEANA Live.jpg and File:OCEANA Live @ Festival Rock En Seine.jpg

Dear Denniss. Could you please explain why the two images have been deleted although they have OTRS permission? Thank you. --Krd 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No OTRS, just a Flickrreview. Flickr account is used for Flickrwashing so images gone. --Denniss (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, there is valid OTRS permission in ticket:2012010410008461 since January 2012, as mentioned in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-01. Please restore the images. Thank you. --Krd 10:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zirides Extnsion Maximale.PNG

Hello, I would like to undrstand how do you consider that the map File:Zirides Extnsion Maximale.PNG has to be deleted? Sorry, but it is a map that I -entirely- made by myself and the the information it contained was based on an map, I can't see any valid reason to delete it, especially based on the explanation given on the deletion request by the user Dzlinker.

Thanks in advance for your answer. --Omar-toons (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just closed the DR as the file was deleted. Please ask the deleting Admin Fastily. --Denniss (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama files

I suppose you are not aware of this. Many of the files from Bollywood Hungama have been removed by the site before they could be checked by admins or reviewers. We don't find it nice to notify uploader (mostly User:Boseritwik) for such missing sources and fill their talkpage with notices. Hence on similar lines of Flicker a category Category:Bollywood Hungama images not found is used. Reviewer or admins tag images with this category and then some admin does the final check and keeps or deletes them. This is with ref to you recent edits like this for example. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Phoebe Jane Tonkin

Hey Dennis i dont know how to put a photo on this wiki.Can you do it? Can you put this foto? Thankss!!! Fran~

That's impossible because this image is marked with "All rights Reserved" --Denniss (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Lee Jones photo

The Tommy Lee Jones photo is public domain because it was published without a copyright notice before 1977. Not sure how I can "prove" that... do you want a PDF of the entire yearbook, so that you can see for yourself there's no copyright notice?Chowbok (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Um... can you respond to this?—Chowbok (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

my file beckyplugged

why did you delete it? some of us are new here and just becuase things arent done perfectly doesnt warrant them being deleted.

Johnny Depp image with your approval

This was just created en:File:JohnnyDeppByArnoldWells2011.jpg. I notice that your approval appeared at the time the file was created. Just checking that something is not amiss. No need to reply. Thanks en:user talk:Jim1138

why were the last three pictures deleted?

The pictres you removed didn't violate any copy rights.. --Kendite (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • those pictures were free and in the public domain because their copy rights have expired in Yemen. There is no original owner for the photo i uploaded yesterday. I want an explanation because i stopped uploading non free content but the pictures i uploaded yesterday were free --Kendite (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete this picture (Doan Valley - Yemen.jpg)? How was that a violation of any copy rights? i own this picture or yo are just deleting everything i upload? --Kendite (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

i just reloaded a photo you deleted and it's MINE![11]. [12]. I uploaded some pictres when i first started using commons because i didn't know the policy but why are you deleting pics i own? pics in the public domain in Yemen that its copy rights expires in 10 years! --Kendite (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Widely used template

Are you sure? Multichill (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please try again with the master template, protection has been done to prevent vandalism to the doc page of a zillion-use master template. --Denniss (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Lena Katina In San Francisco.jpg

I hope this image is OK. You tagged a nearly identical image by the same uploader (notice on talkpage) as having no source a few days ago. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, a Flickr user claiming to be something like an official representation with only five uploads? Sounds fishy. --Denniss (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. It passed flickr review--but of course it would pass flickrreview if no one was watching. Its up to you to decide if the image is OK as an experienced Admin. Its 2:30 AM in Western Canada where I am. So, I have to go to bed. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Further digging led to the conclusion it's a Flickrwashing account, all images deleted and Flickr user marked as untrusted. --Denniss (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Need help with license

Hello! I've seen that youv'e deleted all of my images on wikipedia commons. I understand that but I don't know how to continue with uploading without have my images deleted. I understand that it have somethinh with the license, but I have no idea how to find out what license an image is :( can ypu please help me and give som tips or something? The last hing I want is to get blocked, I just don't understand better :( Tord Grejder (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Easy, only upload images you created yourself (taking with your cam, copying/scanning from elsewhere is NOT own work) or images from other sources with a clearly visible/verifyable free license. --Denniss (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Now I've seen that you or somebody else deleted my two latest upploads for no reason. I'd filled in the necesary licenes and everything and it still get deleted, why??? I need a really good explanation here Tord Grejder (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I deleted these images because the source site did not have the free use image policy you claimed. See [13] and [14]. --Denniss (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)



please stop erasing my category tags.

i do ALOT of work in categorization, & just because i have not yet created a particular category-page, does not mean that i am not going to do so. your recent edits have undone work that i will now have to do over again.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please create categories first to avoid these problems in the future. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi, you've cleaned File:Tiboum.jpg, another file was uploaded by the same user for creating a fake character on the french encyclopedia (see File:Stas.jpg). Thank you. --SamuelFreli (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


Can you explain why you deleted File:Gibraltar Town.jpg? Thanks Victuallers (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

100% duplicate of another image you uploaded. --Denniss (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you deleted the photos uploaded for me?

Reason ?

Can you explain this your revert ? This gallery is consisted of single image. Takabeg (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

cat restores

Hallo Denniss, warum hat du Category:Media missing permission as of 25 August 2012 und 2 weitere wiederhergestellt? Sie sind lt. Kat.namen doch "abgelaufen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Weil zu der Zeit noch Bilder drin waren. --Denniss (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


I can't understand why you wiped the pictures? --Le DanGereux (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not work of the uploader at uk wikipedia, they are bound to german copyright and still copyrighted. --Denniss (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Then make sure that this program [15] is going to show what is copyright and what is not! Otherwise, it is very confusing! --Le DanGereux (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You just need commons sense to identify bocus licenses, especially smaller wikis do not really control what users upload. --Denniss (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
After reaching 70 years of WWII, they will be able to be used as commons file. Or not? -- Le DanGereux (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright period ends 70 years after the death of the author. --Denniss (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The authors of most of the photos are long dead, I think! -- Le DanGereux (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
May be but do you know how long they lived? They may have lived well into the 1970ies so protection still lasts several years. --Denniss (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hast die Deutsche archiv die Daten und die Namen der Fotografen nicht!? Es sollte irgendwo geschrieben wurden, oder nicht! -- Le DanGereux (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Image Source

Hi Desnniss, I just corrected the source of the image I uploaded - File:Montagem de Franca-SP.jpg -. Can you verify if its now correct please? I am the owner of the image, I myself created it.

Thanks, --Brakeater (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You just added another license, we need the source of every image used in this compilation. If these source images are your own work, please upload them as well and link to them from the compilation. We have too many compilations tagged as own work which aren't own work (other than slapping the images together). --Denniss (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I got it! Thank you! --Brakeater (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Denniss, I did the requested changes, could you check if everything is okay now? Thanks again. --Brakeater (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you really, really sure these source images are your own work (own work = you took it with your camera)? I get a lot of hits in image search engines suggesting these images were just taken from other websites. That's called a copyright violation. --Denniss (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Untrusted flickr users

It is my understanding images from facebook are not allowed. Is that so? Regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/07#File:David_Archuleta_Press_Conference_2012.jpg, where you commmented, where is the untrusted flickr users list and how do you add them? PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Questionable Flickr images - I'll look at this users's contributions but first impression is that all files are from facebook. --Denniss (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Newer images may be fine but a lot of the older stuff is from facebook so added to untrusted list. --Denniss (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Krasnovodsk collage.jpg

Я заполнил информацию о файле! --AltynAsyr (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Vernon Coaker.jpg

I am therefore writing to quite a few editors to show how you are abusing your position by ignoring what other editors have to say which is disgraceful. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Your deletion justification for this file is not supported by any of the documentation that was linked to during the discussion. It looks almost as if you just made up a reason, which is clearly not the case. Could you please amend the deletion discussion to the evidence for your determination that an HMSO-directed body can now magically use a licence not otherwise available to it (note: this would generally need a new, enabling Act of Parliament; feel free to link to said Act). James F. (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Note, I'm not really interested to discuss with a lomg-term sockpuppeteer (see en:User:Slytherining Around32) but to clarify: Images have been posted with Crown Copyright and noncommercial restriction and I have not seen any link stating that those restrictions are ignored and become a vanilla OGL if they also have a noncommercial GL. I will continue to delete images of unknown source where the sock did not provide a source for the highres image - a low-res version of this image under a possible OGL license is irrelevant here. --Denniss (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with Jdforrester who is also an administrator, Dennisss you have ignored other editors views and deleted an image which was allowed under the OGL as the hi-res image was taken by the same department! I think you should read up about the Open Government Licence as you evidently do not understand how it works! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Türkmenbaşy şäheri.jpg File:Türkmenbaşy şäheriň halkara aeroporty.JPG

Its my profile in Flickr!--AltynAsyr (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then please release them under a free license or send a usage permission to COM:OTRS --Denniss (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


FYI. Thought you might be interested. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Exactly what information is missing? The source for the two files you have tagged is the 1948 edition of the University's student run yearbook. There are no copyright notices or symbols in the yearbook, and a search of copyright registration databases yielded no results. There is also no author listed for the two photographs. Falcon8765 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you see a proper license on the image page ? --Denniss (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mario Knezovic 2-Picasa

Könntest du bitte hier lesen  : Template:Mario_Knezovic_2-Picasa

alles erklärt???

Warum ist dort keine Lizenzvorlage eingebunden? Why is there no license tag in use? Just OTRS is not sufficient. --Denniss (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


I have added the licence. Ad Meskens (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Yes, I had indeed forgotten about your request. Sorry about that, I'll leave the username out for now.--Strainu (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my picture

You deleted my picture "Tørstadvatnet". I'm the one who took that picture, so there is no way that i break any copyright rules. Yes, its on panoramio, but that doesn't matter. A lot of people was looking forward to take part in this article

If that's your Panoramio account the forward a usage permission to COM:OTRS (mention filename here and at Panoramio). Otherwise the image will be deleted again. --Denniss (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yum Yum Hornblower

This is just to alert you to the fact that User:Yum Yum Hornblower, who you blocked, is currently loading a large number of images directly to english wikipedia. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Will be blocked soon over there, report was already filed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron --Denniss (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with licencing and uploading

Hello, I own and uploaded this image,_Mexico_2012.jpg, i already sent the email communication granting permission, I would like to know what do i have to do so this image can be added to this article, It was added once but deleted I just want to know what i'm doing wrong... since the image has everything to do with that article's topic.

Problems with the Scriabin files

Hi, I've found out you've tagged some of my files for deletion. Like this one: File:Scriabin--Sonata-5-Cover--RMV.png. What's wrong?? Scriabin died in 1915 and these works were published in his lifetime. I know these files are PD in the US. I worked in the IMSLP for a long period. Could you please untag them?. Thanks.--Fauban (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

sock account of aparhan reuploaded copyvio photo

remember this photo you deleted?

he reuploaded it with a sock account

he claims that "(Photo was made with a Monolog Camera in 2004. Later it was scanned with Photoshop in 2005 and digitalized in 2010) - asked per Email"

Unfortunately, photoshop is not a scanning device but a software used to modify the image. If he digitized the image in 2010, that means the image was on a hard copy ie. a physical photograph, which it clearly wasn't since at the previous deletion request i submitted, i noted it went through photoshop.

There is also no such thing as a "monolog camera" after i looked it up on google.

he already uploaded that photo under the false pretenses that he owned it, now that he shifted his story around, which doesn't even make sense when we read it, its copyright violation againMendsetting (talk)

The usage of a sockpuppet is also clearly bad faith.Mendsetting (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

File:TomCruiseAcademyAwards crop flip.jpg - why removed as copyright violation?


You removed this image:

File:TomCruiseAcademyAwards crop flip.jpg

as soon as it was uploaded, as a copyright violation.

I'm not clear on why.

The original image was:


and that's licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Which, if I understand correctly, means it's ok 'to share' and 'to remix' the work, so long as the creator's attribution is preserved (which it was).

So could you explain please what the problem with this image was?

Thanks, --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Admin Barnstar Hires.png Clean up Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up all those "progressive files". --McZusatz (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Ich habe das vorgegebene Wikimedia-Formular zur Freigabe ausgefüllt und an Frau Angela Blattner bei Rheinmetall Air Defence in Zürich zur Bestätigung weitergeleitet. --BBCLCD (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted file

You deleted this file and noted it to be "duplicate" at the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:V2filmlogo.jpg. Can you please also state there of which file it is duplicate? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:バイオシャークゼネラルフーズ ロゴ.jpg‎

Just to make sure: did you consider my comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:バイオシャークゼネラルフーズ ロゴ.jpg‎ and that it was not nominated on the basis of "out of scope"? And, would you delete it even if the copyright concern were resolved? Especially when a 'on hold' request was raised, a bit more explanation on the closure would never hurt, in my opinion. --whym (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Distribution Haplogroup R1b Y-DNA version 2.gif

Hi Denniss, you recently closed the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Distribution Haplogroup R1b Y-DNA version 2.gif. Although I opened it, I'm not comfortable with it being closed without justification, when it seemed to be a borderline case involving a number of issues such as threshold of originality, whether copyleft licenses are automatic, and so on. I'd appreciate it if you could go back and write a more thorough explanation of your conclusion. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi, this 'Marcus Mojo e Austin Wide.jpg', it's waiting for OTRS confirmation. There's a template in the file warning about it. Thanks.+PrinceWilly 15:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Denniss, da er mich auch kontaktiert hatte, hier das direkte Dateilink File:Marcus Mojo e Austin Wide.jpg. Ich denke, dass es gerechtfertigt wäre, sie wiederherzustellen, weil es sonst auch Probleme mit dem Ticket geben kann, wenn der OTRSler selbst kein Admin ist. Wenn es in 1-2 Wochen kein bestätigtes Ticket gibt, sollte sie natürlich wieder gelöscht werden. Natürlich alles unter der Annahme, dass du keine Direktinfo über eine ungültige Genehmigung erhalten hast. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:James Arbuthnot.jpg

You deleted a revision as a copyright violation. Is this the same file as the one discussed at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 30#File:James Arbuthnot2.jpg? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Checkuser requested at en wiki as uploader is an obvious sock. --Denniss (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I see. I assume that the file will be deleted, then. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ass up.jpg

Since you deleted this, you might want to delete the other files from the same flickr stream, and add it to the bad stream list. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


Please upload this again. OTRS allowed. Please do not eliminate images with OTRS pending template before a notice from the volunteers. Thank you. +PrinceWilly 17:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Zhilkin Ivan Vasil2.jpg etc

I added nesesary information about the sourse of this file as well as File:Ermolaev Simon Afanasyevich2.jpg, File:Duhinich Nikifor Emelyan2.jpg, File:Anikin Stepan Vasilyevich2.jpg, File:Aivazov Artemiy Vasilievich2.jpg, File:Zhilkin Ivan Vasil2.jpg. What should I do more? Hunu (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User: АнДрЕй_ПаВлОв

Hi, Denniss. Just FYI, a user you blocked in September has celebrated the end of his/her block by resuming the upload of copyright-violating images from random websites. Rrburke (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi Denniss. I see you frequently on OTRS related issues. Perhaps it's an idea to ask for OTRS access? If you're interested, please go to this page. Trijnsteltalk 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Taye Diggs Elton John Viewing Party.jpg

Can you tell me what the specific problem with this image was? I didn't see any obvious signs of flickrwashing, so what did I miss? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, now that I've gone digging from information in the EXIF I found the photo at Getty Images, but it just didn't jump out at me as suspicious originally. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The Flickr user is known for "borrowing" images from other sources but claim own work on them. Thus it's blacklisted. Sadly the Flickr upload bot can't be accessed to give it some data for users it shouldn't upload anything from. Teh list is at Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Denniss (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about that list. Sorry about the problem upload. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Jim Gray Computing in the 21st Century 2006.jpg and File:Jim Gray on Tenacious 2006.jpg

Hi Denniss. You just deleted the two files mentioned in the subject because of "Flickrwashing: dullhunk is listed at the blacklist". I doubt that this approach is correct. As far as I can tell (Flickr showing the upload date as "This photo was taken on"), the user uploaded both pictures ([16], [17]) on December 15, 2009, and correctly attributes them to be from the book The Fourth Paradigm, which was released in second printing in October 2009 by Jim Gray's employer Microsoft Research under CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence (see low-quality PDF, licence note at the beginning, images on pages xvi and 234 respectively, image credits on page 252 not mentioning any rights reserved (but giving photographers other than Duncan Hull, which besides the upload date is another evidence that Microsoft did not use flickrwashed images accidentally but is the original source). Could you please restore the files or prove me wrong? Thank you. --YMS (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, checked the image credits on page 252: one is from M$ and the other from Tony Hey, both seem to be on the CC license as no "Rights reserved" or similar comment is stated. --Denniss (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your quick response and action! I guess there's no way to automatically revert CommonsDelinker's removals of those images in several Wikipediae and articles? --YMS (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, that was easy enough to revert. --YMS (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup

Hi, Denniss. Please use informative deletion rationales. In that case it is not clear without looking at the logo or the log that there was an SVG version and not copyright violation or vandalism. Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

…sorry, there was npd which I’ve mentioned in my edit summary as “npd”… But that template has a link for deletion which would add a summary, and there is also File:BBC Canada logo.svg. --AVRS (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: File:Ss statendamiiicolor.png

There was no need to delete my colorized Statendam III picture. The author was already more then 70 years dead. You were the last one to edit the picture, and then a month later you deleted it. There was a source, but it seems like that this was edited by Stunkeltje or what ever his name was. I would like to get the image back, with the original source I've written on 11 April 2011. -- 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC) (JetskiTradeCenter)

There was no verifyable source given so deletion was ok. There was more than enough time to add a better/more descriptive source. --Denniss (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Invalid reason. The archive website clearly said that the author died in the early 1930's. Some several years before the picture was taken of Statendam III. There for after 70 years of an authors death the copyright lasts for some years. So the picture is today 83,2 years old. Explain me this then if there was no reliable source given. The deletion was not ok, and I was also not contacted about the deletion of my file. 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (JetskiTradeCenter)
I also want to forgive it that you made this fault, and I hope I see my file coming back online again. Thank you. 17:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: "Godkiller_Walk_Among_Us_limited_edition_dvd.jpg", "Godkiller_Walk_Among_Us_issue_2_cover.pdf"

Please restore these images. These images have been litigated three times already. They have been made available by the rights holder under Copyleft Free Art License 1.3. This is literally the third time these images have been removed, every time they've been restored and I don't understand what makes them so controversial. Proper releases have been provided to OTRS. Please restore, thank you. --Mechagodzilla 21:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It will be restored once a valid permission reaches OTRS but this doesn't seem to be the case here. --Denniss (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As is clearly shown on the Discussion page for the file, permission was sent to OTRS on September 20. Did you not read the Discussion page before deleting? I don't understand your justification. The rights holder has publicly granted permission here [18] so even if it hasn't reached OTRS for whatever reason it's clear in the Discussion page that there's no reason to remove it. --Mechagodzilla 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi You deleted a picture I just uploaded and the picture is my own, I may have choose the wrong settings when I uploaded it - can I try again? Best Regards --Henrikjsson (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted file

I uploaded an image because I am working on a wikipedia page on sandbox. It's a page that once I finish it, I would hope that it passed the notability test to be its own article. The photo i uploaded was "Til-the-sunrise-cover.jpg" and it said that you deleted it because of copyright. I am the owner of the photo and all of its rights. I want the photo to be used. It has been used widely on blog websites and I have no problem with it being used anywhere. So how do I get my file back for use? I dont understand the steps of the "undeletion" process.

EDIT: Also to add, I am the person in the picture. Marisalander (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to undo deletion

Hi there sir, you have filed a deletion to my After School images. I found them in a random sites such as google or any other sites. I've searched thoroughly to where the images came from and I've found out those images were taken from a Korean fan. The author of the images didn't forbid those sites to stop using his/her images to posted on their sites, but instead. He/She let them to use it as in free. I believed it's a free license. I've provided the image source and the author's blog. I put credits I'm not plagiarizing, I plagiarized if I didn't put the source at all. Hoped you understand it, please undo the deletion for the other images that are deleted. I'm not starting a contest here I'm only explaining my side, thanks have a good day.

Alert on deleted content

Hi, Denniss!
I want to let you know you about a user who uploaded the image File:Thecheerleadersestrellatv.jpg, wich is the same that the image File:Etv tcld.jpg that you deleted before for being a screenshot of non-free content. I don't have experience on Commons issues, so I ask you to warn the uploader User:Tcld2011 (who uploaded both images) to stop uploading that content. --K21edgo (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with FlickreviewR bot

Hi Denniss, lets transfer our discussion about FlickreviewR here.

Uploading the highest res image is done on purpose as the Wiki image scalers work fine. Don't revert the images to a lowres version, you may find many of these changes reverted. --Denniss (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, I respect your opinion, but still disagree. I couldn't see any reason to store so gigantic images in the servers (unless they are for a photo contest), and the article performance IS affected when the higher resolution is used. That was the reason which makes me find the problem in the first place. And the collateral effect persist: the image disappears from "My uploads" list, making it difficult to find, now I have to find these images lost on "My contributions" list. I would like to use this image in an article, but will not, because the original medium size I have downloaded, should transfer only 164 Kb over the net, but the high-res will transfer 5.38 Mb... Regards --Marcric (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Image scaled-down to 640px is 57 KiB in size, see [19] --Denniss (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Denniss. Didn't get your point. The image still the same way it was here, and still out of "My uploads" list. It was just an example, in fact I have the same problem with all the Flickr images I have uploaded so far. Could you please clarify? Regards. --Marcric (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Hi Denniss. Thanks for fixing that little DR problem. I can't believe I was beaten by a simple forward slash! Face-wink.svg INeverCry 04:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture --Aanoskaan (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi Denniss, I've dropped notes to Russavia about this template on- and off-wiki and not heard anything back, and I haven't been able to find an OTRS ticket referring to it. Given how long the template has existed, I think we've waited as long as is reasonable for a response, and I would suggest that there's no alternative but to delete it and the files that depend on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No freedom of panorama in France

Dear Denniss,

I'm afraid you made a mistake considering the following deletion request : Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Palais_du_Louvre_2.JPG. The protected monument being the major part or not, it is obvious that it is what was photographed.

Refusing to delete it as it should be according to French law, you make the photographer take a risk (and he can reproach it to you) and a non-free picture stays on Commons, which is really not a good idea...


Remi Mathis (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the warning template that was added to the image. --Denniss (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What the meaning of this? =

For what reason my OWN work - "Funryu" missile picture - has been deleted?!


Fonzeppelin (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Claes Oldenburg Dancing Tools Vitra Weil am Rhein 03-10-2012.jpg

Please do not undelete files deleted under the Commons:Office Actions policy. Those files have been evaluated by legal counsel, and found to not qualify for Freedom of Panorama. If you have questions, you can write to, but please do not undelete. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Then they should actually read german regulations of FoP as they obviously don't know how this works. This is a perfectly legal image, made from a public place. Sometimes one could really think the legal counsel lacks some quality regarding specific copyright lawyers. --Denniss (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There is more discussion of this here Commons:Village_pump#DMCA_Take-Down. --99of9 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please reinstate Godkiller images or show cause

I don't understand why you insist on removing the Godkiller images even though they've been reinstated before and they have OTRS permissions.

I've already contacted Help Desk and they didn't understand why you removed it. Please show cause, as the licensing for the images is very clear and official. File:Godkiller Walk Among Us episode 2 dvd.jpg, File:Godkiller Walk Among Us dvd cover.jpg, File:Godkiller Silent War audiobook cover.jpg --Mechagodzilla 05:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I now see your reasoning and went back and fixed it myself. Thanks. --Mechagodzilla 06:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Krasnovodsk collage.jpg

Какие проблемы? Это все мои собственные фотографии! --AltynAsyr (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Crass logo.svg

Hi there. I don't understand why you removed the tag I placed on this image. The image is attributed to someone other than the uploader with an unsubstantiated claim that it isnot copyrighted. Someone claiming to be the copyright holder had e-mailed OTRS calling it copyright infringement, which is why I flagged the image asking for evidence of permission from the uploader. Did you see something that I didn't? Dominic (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting!

For what reason my OWN work - "Funryu" missile picture - had been deleted?


Fonzeppelin (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think ...

Hi, thank you for correcting my mistake on the Commons Delinker (that seems to be on wikibreak again). What do you think of the many redirects created by this user ? --Foroa (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you block my TRAVADAVE account?!

Why did you block my TRAVADAVE account?! I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER those are MY PHOTOS. I have all the copyrights and licenses I need, I TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS for God's sake. Now i cant upload any photographs because they are getting deleted too.

uploading files

Hi Denniss! I have a problem with uploading images. All the images I upload are from the personal photo album of duet Mania. I'm the one in charge of their wikipedia page so I was given multiple photo files, the rights are held by duet Mania. What do I have to do to keep the files live on wikipedia? And not to be removed by some of the administrators...

File:American Mission Church by Lossing-Barritt.jpg

Could you undelete File:American Mission Church by Lossing-Barritt.jpg? I forgot to upload the image on to it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

General Query

Dear sir hallo. I am an editor on Simple English wikipedia and recently made an article on the Indian-Pakistani poet Hakim Ahmad Shuja. An image was also added for him but this seems toi have now been removed/deleted by yourself. Sir, could you kindly inform me why as it didnt seem to have any licensing/permission problems? From what I read about the photo description etc, it seemed to have been posted and shared by an editor/user quite legitimately? The image was a good one and complimented the article I was working on at Simple Wiki and I would be grateful if we could have it back, please. Thanks, and best regards, Hamneto (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

(talk page stalker) The uploader said that the photo was his, but didn't say how he acquired the copyright. Unfortunately, there are enough people who mistakenly think that physical possession equals copyright that we need to know more than just "this is mine". – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

About Flickr review

Hello, in this edition you reviewed the image, but by mistake also took out the license, so now I have requested a new flickr review for the image. Please check other of your reviews when used "flickrreview script", maybe there are more mistakes like that. Greets :) --UAwiki (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Must have been a bug in the older version of the script, the recent version did not kill the license. --Denniss (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Christmas Tree at Barksdale Air Force Base.jpg

Hey Denniss. I recently corresponded via Flickr message with the person who photographed the image, and I was wondering if I could talk to you about it. He gave me permission in two messages to use it, as long as I didn't try to sell it to anyone. Is there any way that this can be figured out, as the image is something I would like to have on the website. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Noncommercial and nonderivative restrictions are not permitted at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Borja, Dr. Luis Felipe (padre - foto).jpg


Reitero la imagen del Dr. Luis Felipe Borja Pérez es de dominio público, fue tomada hace más de cien años. De dicha imagen existen cuantiosas copias. Consta en museos ecuatorianos, en muchas publicaciones y libros. Hasta un colegio que lleva su nombre la utiliza.

Doy cinco ejemplos donde es utilizada, en web que constan en Internet:

--Julio Durán Borja (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Template:OpenStreetMap

I see you protected {{OpenStreetMap}} because it's a file licensing template. It transcludes {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} which is the actual license template, so you might want to protect that one as well. - Htonl (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notice. --Denniss (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing permission?

Hi. Ich habs mal reverted weil ich es gar nicht nachvollziehen konnte. LG, Amada44  talk to me 15:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello, such a template User:Bourrichon/Credits is no more accepted ? Regards, Bourrichon (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a license template, just an instruction how to credit you. You obviously forgot to add {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the images? --Denniss (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

GNU content from wikicars?

Hi, you have deleted 2 files that I uploaded from wikicars which are licensed as GNU. Can you explain what is wrong with them?

This is to be considered an unreliable source - do you really believe these images were originally made by the user who uploaded them to this site? At least two of the images looked like press images or from a brochure. --Denniss (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought Wikicars was connected to wikipedia?

No, just uses a mediawiki software. --Denniss (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: File source is not properly indicated: File:Arabalı Vapur.JPG

Thanks for the information. File has yes source: Kullanıcı:Selçuk Bağrışen. Best regards. --Cekli829 04:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, original upload history is missing and the license added by you is questionable/dubious/conflicting. I'd call this an improper transfer with lots of information missing. --Denniss (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
OK? Please, see also: [20]. Best regards, --Cekli829 05:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Humanisti Korolaine-Virkajärvi Katri.JPG

Hi Denniss, I noticed you tagged File:Humanisti Korolaine-Virkajärvi Katri.JPG as missing permission last month. What seems to have been the problem with the permission? From what I can tell, the uploader was specified as the author and the file had a valid free license tag. Am I missing something? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A permission was sent to OTRS but this proved unsufficient to confirm author/license. Thus re-tagged for permission and deleted a week later. --Denniss (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Alrighty, I'll ask the OTRS volunteer about it. Thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For approaching over 100000 edits, which is done by very few people. Keep on good work Morning (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status tagging

You have tagged some of my uploaded images. Including File:Sewing_needle.png and File:Caffeine_caplet.png Please note that the file description indicates that this is my work and the permission section indicates the type of license granted. Is there some reason that you believe that his not sufficient? MrX (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add a copyright tag to these images, see File:Sewing needle.png for an example change. --Denniss (talk)
OK, I understand. I didn't realize that there was a requirement to list the copyright status using that additional template. Thanks. MrX (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: OTRS missing

Replied you at User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha#File_tagging_File:Himmanshoo_Malhotra.jpg. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your premature closure of a deletion discussion

I was stunned to see that you closed down a deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings, before there even was a discussion. I'm pretty sure this violates our governance processes and I would ask you please reopen the discussion so that community consensus can be heard. - MrX 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep

FYI Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletion_requests_closed_.22speedy_keep.22. I didn't mention you but obviously it's motivated by your recent Speedy Keep close, which I'm sure you noticed I undid, in what I hope you'll agree was the most constructive way of doing so. Rd232 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

License on File:Festung El Quseir Bild 8.JPG etc.


As you may know I'm transfering a lot of files from Wikivoyage to Commons. And File:Festung El Quseir Bild 8.JPG was one of them. If you click "edit" you can see the license and a link to the source.

You are most welcome to help fix the proble. Probably just a missing </gallery> or something. --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Denniss,

die Geschichte ist die: Ich habe das Originalfoto vom Urheber Fernando Fuentes (Spanien) bekommen, den Ausschnitt und die Bildhelligkeit etwas verändert und mit seinem Einverständnis hochgeladen. Durch die Genehmigungspflicht ist dann Fernando Fuentes ebenfalls der WikiCommons beigetreten und hat dort wiederum das Originalfoto lizensiert (sowie ein weiteres). Man könnte nun einfach austauschen und hätte drei Unterschiede: 1. Es wäre ein anderer Ausschnitt. 2. Es wäre eine andere Helligkeit des Bildes. (Für meinen Geschmack: zu dunkel) 3. Der Originaltitel des Originalfotos enthält die falsche Ortsangabe „Hage“ statt richtiger weise: Hagen.

Am Titel kann ich meines Wissens nicht schrauben, Fernando kann nur sehr beschränkt Englisch. Und ein lizensiertes Bild dard doch auch weiterverarbeitet werden, oder?


--Augemus (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello Denniss, you blocked this user indef. I agree that this was a severe case of copyvio. At the same time I prefer if people use the same account in the future since it helps in sorting out their development. For most of the files the user linked some websites as permission, so I believe it was not intentional bad faith. I suggest to block for 1 week and will keep an eye on the account. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted photos of GiveDirectly


I'd uploaded some photos a few hours ago of GiveDirectly that were originally taken by Eliza Scheffler of GiveWell. At the time of uploading, I tagged the photos with the otrs pending template, since I'd already received informal permission from GiveWell to put the photos on Wikimedia Commons. A few hours later, Eliza Scheffler sent emails to as per the template on the Wikimedia page (see here: Commons:Email templates) granting permission for the use of these photos. However, I discovered that you had deleted the photos.

Would it be possible for you to restore the photos? If you're in a position to check the permissions-commons email, you can confirm that the permission for all the photos was indeed received. If not, let me know and I'll forward you the permission emails. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please let me know.

Here are the original file links:




Vipulnaik (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Maps

Hi Denniss, Pleeasa, Can you see the change in the files? TNX Face-smile.svg יעל י (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Eglise saint martin d'arces sur gironde.JPG

I've removed the templace no source you added on this file. There's a source I think, it's indicated that the file was transferred from fr.wikipedia and the original author is credited, do you think there's anything more that can be done ? Symac (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Eingang Weiswasserbruch (Laas).jpg

Sorry, I don't get the problem. The file was originally uploaded locally under the given license on - that is the source... The uploader and photographer was Hans Urian, I wrote that and linked to his user page there. What else should I write in the file description? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no link to the original upload page, no upload history (at least first upload date required), there's a date but is this creation date or first upload? Also, many/most/all GFDL-licensed files at de wiki are dual-licensed with cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated but can't see it here. --Denniss (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
de:Datei:Eingang Weiswasserbruch (Laas).jpg. Upload date required? And wouldn't a direct link to the original upload page be completely pointless because the file is going to be deleted on de.wikipedia? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As pointless as a link to an image page on Flickr where it may easily be deleted as well. The file upload history is a GFDL license requirement just like it was for every Wiki page. And this first upload date is also required for the GFDL relicensing process. See also Commons:Tools#Commons Helper for bot-assisted moves to Commons. --Denniss (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
[21] Anyway, it appears to me that your comment in the edit summary line "File has no source" was a bit out of place. The source was cited and the addition of a simple direct link would have been less time-consuming than the tagging and this discussion... But thank you for the clarification, I didn't know that. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy close

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abraham Charité 1952.jpg. There is no such thing as speedy closing deletion requests unless it's obvious vandalism. Multichill (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Pearl Jam/We The Kings Photos

I need more information about a revision you sent over. You said permission was needing to be sent for publication of these two photos. I don't really know what this means. I am the photographer, and I have granted creative commons use on all of my images via Flickr. I've provided the links to these below. What additional permissions do I need to provide to satify this?

Thanks -Mark

Editor's summary: Please send permission for File:Pearl Jam.jpg to OTRS

Please follow the OTRS link on your talk page and read the instructions how to send a usage permission for the files you uploaded here. We need to be sure you are the person you claim to be so the image release under a non-restricted CC license is verifyable. (Flickr images have noncommercial restriction which is not accepted here) --Denniss (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand. I don't see a OTRS link on my talk page (, and why would I need to remove noncommercial restrictions for use? Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise.

Please read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. OTRS is here: Commons:OTRS. --Denniss (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want me to contribute to the project, I'll stop. I thought I was doing something good and worthwhile by contributing photos I've taken. Go ahead and remove these images.

You misunderstood me. Your images at Flickr are tagged as noncommercial while you uploaded the same images here without this noncommercial restriction. We need to be sure that you are permitted to upload these images here without the noncommercial restriction. This is to avoid possible license troubles for re-users. --Denniss (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic

Hello. This your edit is absolutely false. The flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was not so. The moon and star were on the red field. You can see that in this photo taken from the first meeting of a parlament of Azerbaijan. Tricolor behind the Mamed Amin Rasulzade (Moon and eightpointed star are on the red field in the center). See this video from Museum of History of Azerbaijan. Flag made by Mamed Amin Rasulzade and Gulmammad Bagirov in Turkey. In this photo of Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Hôtel Claridge [Avenue des Champs-Élysées] during Paris Peace Conference (1919) you can see the picture of flag behind the members of delegation. Please revert the correct version. --Interfase (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted by multiple other and I haven't seen you starting a discussion on the image talk page with a proper explanation. --Denniss (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

File:VLC Aqua Multiespacio.jpg

You delete it. Nonsense. Please restore the image. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Many uploads of this users were identified as copyvios so the others were removed as well. --Denniss (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


Original research. See Severians. What is the reason a warning?. --Zozula (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Matt Smith and Jenna-Louise Coleman.jpg

I would appreciate it if you could reopen this discussion. The copyright status of this imagine is not nearly as clearcut as January has stated, I imagine that he misread something while checking out the source of the image. NW (Talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Zum Neuen Jahre!

Postkarte Neujahr 001.jpg Zum Neuen Jahre!
Fuer Alle in 2012, Vielen Dank und alles Gute in 2013! We hope (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
With thanks for your support and the pleasant co-operation in the past year, I wish you all the best in the new year! --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Lagercrantz_Vapen.jpg"

För ett tag sedan laddade jag upp en bild på Wikimedia commons av vapenskölden som till hör släktet Lagercrantz nr 1011. Jag använde bilden till artiklen Lagercrantz på svenska Wikipedia. Nyligen såg jag att bilden hade blivit raderad av användaren Denniss. Nu undrar jag varför du raderat bilden. Var god och hör av dig.

Hälsningar M. Lagercrantz

A while ago I uploaded a picture on Wikimedia commons of the coat of arms belonging to the genus No. Lagercrantz 1011th I used the image to the article Lagercrantz in Swedish Wikipedia. Recently I saw that image had been deleted by the user Denniss. Now I wonder why you deleted the picture. Please get in touch.

Regards M. Lagercrantz --MegaCrantz (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Files without license are up for delayed speedy deletion. --Denniss (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Višnja Gora snail monument.jpg

Hi, why do you think that this DR was nonsense? Thanks for the explanation. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No creative artwork, a snail on something like a waterpump. Be a bit more careful on what you nominate for DR, also we don't need copyright paranoia. --Denniss (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It seemed to me that a sculpture of a snail on a chain is a creative artwork. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions about how can I upload images!

How can I upload images from other person which were released to the public some years ago but nowadays aren´t posted in an important internet domain cause the main webpage was closed? Can I take them from a video poster in Youtube? Or have I to ask for permission? Or has he to do it himself? You could advice me before deleting those stuff ¬¬

What references and statistics can you give me to prove that I have break copyright laws, if it´s clear that those images were released to the public by company´s owner!!!

Yone Moreno (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Leese File

May you explain? I provided source, and you said "no sources". Why? belissarius (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Who made the image? You only state a secondary source but that's no proof of authorship nor sufficient for PD-Polish, especially if published in a book from 1998. --Denniss (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic kraut piece of shit.

You filthy Germans are all the same. I hope when Israel conquers Europe, you subhuman scum will be gassed.

LOL, you made my day. --Denniss (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just thought i should thank you for your fast response towards our mad friend. --عمرو (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Gelöschte Karten

Hallo Denniss, ich habe gesehen, dass Du drei von mir erstellte Karten diskussionslos gelöscht hast. Mit welcher Begründung?--Patavium (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lizenzfragen bei 150 Jahre alten Werken?

schaust du mal auf meine Disku und erklärst mir bitte, was ich tatsächlich falsch gemacht habe. PD-old sollte doch reichen, oder? --Hubertl (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)