User talk:Kameraad Pjotr/Archive1d

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

As this is a multilingual project, you are free to post questions or comments in any possible language. However, please take this points into account when using a language:

  • Questions in Dutch and English will be answered in Dutch or English.
  • Questions in French may be asked, but if I don't understand it, I will make use of the infamous Google Translate Tool, thus some nuances might get lost. I will reply in English.
  • Questions in any other language (be it German, Klingon or Valarin) will be channelled through the infamous Google Translate Tool, and thus I will only grasp the most obvious remarks and miserably fail to see any of the nuances in your comment. I will reply in English.

{{[[Template:User:MiszaBot/config |User:MiszaBot/config ]]}}

Welcome to the Commons, Kameraad Pjotr/Archive1d!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


TUSC token 5275fbfcbb2f7da5d2d92708a161d233[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Ik ben het niet eens met de verwijdering van zo simpele dingen, zie COM:UNDEL. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the combination of the geometric shapes and the text qualifies for copyright protection. (But you already knew that) Kameraad Pjotr 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


This map should be deleted. You seem to have deleted it, then you put it back. However, it does not have educational value as it is a "VERY WRONG" map. A correct map can be seen here - . As you can see, there are too many mistakes. I can list least 100 settlements (polygons) that are wrong. Please delete the map. (LAz17 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).

Before the image can be deleted, you should prove with reliable sources that the map is indeed wrong. Although I might believe you, as long as you don't give any sources, no decision can be taken. I suggest you open (or reopen) a new deletion request to discuss it.
Kind regards,
Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
And even if it's wrong, that might not even be a reason to delete it. A wrong map, with proper explanation can be very educational. Multichill (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Have I not given you a source that is clearly a superior map? Another source is the population census. I can not copy and paste some 3,000 villages and identify all of them for you. But, the map that I showed should be good enough. You deleted it, then you undeleted it. Could you please remove it like you initially did?
Multichill, one thing is if a map is wrong, another thing is if a map is VERY wrong. This map here is very wrong. It is not used anywhere and its usage would be the equivalent of educating people incorrectly. Suppose you drew a map that showed that Chinese were the majority in the States of New York, Vermont, Michigan and Illinois. The map would be outright false, as this one is. I have clearly demonstrated how the map is very wrong. As it is not used anywhere, it should be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)).
So, what now? Could you please delete it? (LAz17 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)).
If you want the image to be deleted, you will have to open a new deletion request and state your point using reliable sources. If the result of the DR is 'delete', then the image will be deleted. I cannot simply delete an image because somebody would like it (unless they are clear violations of commons policy).
Kind regards,
Kameraad Pjotr 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Go to the image talk page. You clearly wrote that you would delete it, that it has been deleted. Then you changed your mind and said that it will remain. So, how can you change your mind like that? Why not change your mind BACK to delete it? (LAz17 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)).
It is true that at first, I deleted the image. However, I soon realised that this deletion was premature, as there weren't cited any reliable sources in the discussion. I apologise for the confusion this has caused. I will not close the new deletion request you might have opened.
Kind regards,
Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
So I have to go through all that trouble all over again? You can't just change your mind? It takes a long time for a file to even be looked at - if I list it again, can you see to it that it gets priority? (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).

Please undelete those three files[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CD&E KES.jpg etcetera is about uploader's own work. There is no copyright problem. Please undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If they are his own images, why are they tagged as PD-German-Gov and why does he state that "Meine Vorgesetzte Dienststelle hat alle verwendeten Images frei gegeben"? This clearly contradicts any claims that he is the author.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
He thought that his work as a government employee was PD. And he had cleared this with his bosses. Although PD-German-Gov does not automatically apply, his bosses allowed him to release his work; PD-self is the appropriate tag on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree with you. I see no clear evidence that he made the image himself.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:PikiWiki_Israel_3557_Gan-Shmuel_sb14-_1.jpg and File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG‎[edit]

There was no consensus for deletion. On the contrary, to the extent that there was a consensus on either one, it was to keep. What gives you the right to decide on your own to close the discussion and delete them? Please restore them, and if you have an opinion in favour of deletion make it in the appropriate place, in the discussion. -- Zsero (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Commons:Deletion requests copyright law and commons policy overrule any possible consensus.
The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy.
Kind regards,
Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You had no right to delete that file. Please undelete it. Admin privileges are not to be used arbitrarily. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3557 Gan-Shmuel sb14- 1.jpg. Drork (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you keep deleting images from Israel while ignoring other people's opinions, I am going to complain about your misconduct. I hope you will undelete these images as soon as possible. Drork (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please respond - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Alleged_abuse of admin privileges by User talk:Kameraad Pjotr Drork (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of the fossil sites of the earliest hominids (35.8-3.3M BP).svg[edit]

This file should be deletes because its labeling is completely wrong. --Gerbil (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of the fossil sites of the earliest hominids (35.8-3.3M BP).svg[edit]

File:Map of the fossil sites of the earliest hominids (35.8-3.3M BP).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

--AFBorchert (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Israelische coyright mafia[edit]

Voor het geval je het nog niet gezien, je hebt een beslissing genomen die de Israelische copyright mafia niet zo leuk vindt, dus ze zijn je nu aan het aanvallen op Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Alleged abuse of admin privileges by User talk:Kameraad Pjotr. Prettige feestdagen! Multichill (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb het gezien ;) (toch bedankt voor het melden) en ik lees het ook, maar ik ben (nog) niet van plan om te reageren. (behalve dan op de vragen van huib dan) Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Some recent uploads that are in FOP violation. Such were erased before but perhaps the new uploaders were unaware. Anyway they should be erased.

--Avala (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo1.JPG[edit]

Why did you close this as delete? Did you not bother to read the discussion? You write "copyright violation" but give no reason at all for how you determined this. If you have a view different from the consensus in the discussion you should join the discussion and add your view for debate; you have no right to impose your view against other people just because it's yours. Please undelete, or explain why you think it's a copyright violation. -- Zsero (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I closed this as "delete" because of the following argument "However, the fact that the still may not have a visible copyright notice on it does not indicate that it is public domain, as the scenes from the film itself were protected by the copyright on the complete film." According to Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle the image was deleted in accordance to commons policy. (The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy.)
Kameraad Pjotr 15:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you not see the reference to the debate at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo3.JPG, in which this very image was cited as evidence? If the still was published separately with no copyright notice then it's not copyright. By the time the entire film was published this still was already in the PD, so how can a copyright on the film claw it back, even if this shot does appear in it? -- Zsero (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That is a matter of interpretation. The most logic assumption in this case is "the still is a part of the film" and the film is still protected by copyright. This is of course an assumption, but I still stand with my original deletion according to the precautionary principle. If you disagree with this, you are of course free to open an undeletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope?[edit]

Hello, I noticed you deleting File:Gregory House caricature.jpg for being out of scope. However, the file was still in use in a gallery. I'd thus be happy if you could restore it, as I believe that files in gallery use meet our scope. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree with you. We already have other caricatures of House and I fail to see how this would add anything of value to the existing collection.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It adds the value as being an useful picture for when visitors are browsing through our House MD gallery and find this image perfectly suiting for their purposes. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


FYI, COM:UNDEL#Restore File:Hawaiistateseal.png is about a file you deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry; as I am fond of saying, I'm not embarrassed to admit my ignorance, and in this case, I made a mistake. I've corrected it on the page. Further, while what we do is usually irrelevant vis-a-vis the commons, it does stand to reason that someone who is an accepted expert in a field should be given more credence than people such as you or I, who are not experts in that field. Thank you very much for the correction. -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted ;) (not that it is a real problem of course ;) ) And I'm pretty sure he is the expert he says he is, but I fear he is perhaps interpreting it too broad. (And that's the last thing I say in this minefield-discussion. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake flags[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr

As you doubted, the problem is obvious. What do you think about this ? I wrote (confessed :)) the truth there.

Thank you. I wish you a happy new year ! Takabeg (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Just a friendly reminder to try and be a little more careful when deleting images. It seems you broke the mosaic. Don't worry, though: I've fixed it already. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Karte Gothia[edit]

Why close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Gothia.jpg with delete? Old postcard, creator died 1939, this became PD a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In Austria and in all European Union countries, unpublished works are protected 25 years from the time they start being published. If we don't know when it was first published, then it cannot be kept. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I read this now again - postcard was sent 1999, I was wrong to think it was old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision request[edit]

Hi. Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. --ŠJů (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Acropolis-museum southside.JPG[edit]

You have deleted File:Acropolis-museum southside.JPG, referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acropolis-museum southside.JPG. However, I cannot find this deletion request. Can you explain? Thank you. --Romwriter (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have made a mistake. The correct DR is Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Acropolis New Museum Building, something went wrong when deleting the image. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"bound by an exclusivity contract"[edit]

With regard to your closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tibetan writer Woeser 210.jpg, it cannot be necessary for commons to verify that contributors would not be bound by other contracts - it would be their problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed not the task of commons to find that out, but of the uploader. As he has not proven that he isn't, the image was deleted according to the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Images you deleted[edit]

Hello, Kameraad Pjotr. I'm QBay in Japan. You have deleted the following four images: Map_of_Fränkische_Schweiz.png, Fränkische_Schweiz_in_Deutschland.png, Strassenverkehr-im-Maintal.jpg and Course_Main_ja.jpg. But you concluded to keep them on the page of commons:Deletion requests/User:汲平/maps of German towns. Why did the four images deleted ? --汲平 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten to include something in my closing comment. Those four images were deleted they seemed to me more than simple borders etc., and I believe those extra bits would be a copyright violation. I'm sorry for confusion.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree to delete the three images but Course_Main_ja.jpg. I've traced over the river course for this map, but the points for towns and colors for area are my original ones. If the other images on the deletion request page don't infringe a copyright, this image also doesn't. Best regards. --汲平 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, image has been restored. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for rapid respose. Best regards. --汲平 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epoisses.jpg[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr, you closed this deletion request as Kept with the rationale that the cropped image is not a copyright violation. In my opinion, this implies that the older image should be deleted. Is there a reason why you chose not to delete it or did you just not think of it? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I simply didn't think of it. The earlier version is now deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much. :) Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm surprised to find that my photo was deleted - how come you didn't notify me of your concerns and give me a chance to respond? SteveHopson (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the image for deletion. The nominator was and the reason was WP:NONFREE non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see,, The reason seemed valid to me and the image was deleted. You should ask the nominator for more information or open a undeletion request.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion of the Burning Man copyright claims, and generally commons admins do not think they are valid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This was not a photo from Burning Man, it was from Flipside and the policies are different. Moreover I have permission to post it, but was not notified of any discussion and was not give any opportunity to discuss this. I have searched for and cannot find any discussion page. My question to you above remains. SteveHopson (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that is the nominator. He is the one that should have notified you. The reason for deletion still stands. Kameraad Pjotr 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have permission, then get it in writing and submit it to the permissions engine. Once it is on file then it is AOK. As far as Burningman goes, I think you will find on commons that most BM related imagery is deleted because of copyright issues. Maybe it is questionable, but commons is FREE content, not maybe-free or fair-use. 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Julius Röntgen[edit]

I do not agree with your decision and I requested undeletion, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:JRontgen.jpg. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion closed[edit]

Sorry to bother you but this deletion should not have closed and kept, but deleted. This file is photoshoped elzinik into this map. One of tens of obvious things is the smudged Thessaloniki below where it says Macedon.The sea was bucket-filled with blue and the borders done over with a blue brush.Megistias (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Pfeffer Osmotische Untersuchungen-5.png[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr. You forgot to close the DR. --Leyo 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for mentioning. Kameraad Pjotr 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)



You have closed this deletion debate with the reason "copyvio". How do you get to the conclusion that this file is a copyright violation? Where is the evidence for this? --High Contrast (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a question of misunderstanding. The image is, according to Eusebius, not fee enough and thus violates copyright. That's what I meant with copyvio.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Igualada-Museo de la Piel (30).JPG[edit]

Why you delete File:Igualada-Museo de la Piel (30).JPG wiyhout first reading its discussion page? --Jordiferrer (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the image because it was a copyright violation. Because of the commons rules, the uploader is required to prove that the image can be freely used. The notion on your talk page should explain the process, but if you can provide OTRS with a permission for the image to be used under a free license, then the image will be restored.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Banner Junta de Andalucía.svg[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr. You recently deleted this file. It's not big deal, but I just wonder so that I know for next time, why it was considered a copyright violation when it only consisted on simple shapes and text? In fact, the font was not even the same and 2 half moons and a triangle are certanly rather simple shapes. Also, the legal information link of the Junta de Andalucía does not say anything specific regarding the logo. Regards, tyk (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The elements of the logo are probably ineligible for copyright, but I believe the combination of the shapes is. This is of course a matter of interpretation, and if you disagree, you are free to open a undeletion rquest.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you. I may do so just to get a second opinion. Regards, tyk (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fratelli Mancuso[edit]

Hello I have seen you have erased two pictures. They are not a copyright violation because the company I work for owns the copyright. It was just not clear to me which kind of license I should have used. Should I e mail the license? thanks. sorry the previous message was about the picture Fratelli Mancuso 2010

fratelli Mancuso 2010[edit]

The message did not appear on the screen. I have seen you have deleted the file Fratelli Mancuso 2010. It is not a copyright violation because we own the copyright, it was just not clear to me what kind of license I should have used. Could you please tell me? Should we e mail the license? Thanks for your help.

If you own the copyright to the image, you should e-mail your permission to OTRS. More information can be found on that page as well.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Bruessel summer 2007 14.JPG[edit]

Hi. Why have you deleted this image? As far as I know, photos of statues permanently placed in public places have no copyright issues (if the photographer releases them under a free license, I mean). Thank you in advance. Regards. --Dodo (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While that would be true in most countries, but in Belgium FOP does not exist, thus modern artwork can not be photographed freely.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. Didn't notice that. I found the reason given for the deletion a bit misleading. Regards. --Dodo (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Samsung C5212 keys.jpg[edit]

Hi, why have you deleted this image? If you follow the link, you will see that the image is licensed under Creative Commons - By Attribution, as specified on the image uploaded here. Please restore this image. ChickenFalls (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I have made a mistake (I must have overlooked the image caption). I have restored the image. I apologise for the inconvenience.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion closure[edit]

The discussion here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Université Paris I Batiment Cujas escalier 05308.jpg was closed by you with a deletion. But 2 images were indicated as having the same problem (and nearly identical), and deleting the first one should be suffisient as a reason to delete the second one : File:Universite Paris I faculté sciences eco 05303.jpg (Same object under copyright but with a different angle) Loreleil (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the image, I must have missed it. Thanks for mentioning.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your time Loreleil (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some speedy deletions[edit]

Could You please explain the following deletions:

  1. 20:37, 6 February 2010 Kameraad Pjotr (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Coat of arms of Chad.png" ‎ (Copyright violation:)
  2. 20:37, 6 February 2010 Kameraad Pjotr (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Coat of arms of Ghana.png" ‎ (Copyright violation:)
  3. 20:34, 6 February 2010 Kameraad Pjotr (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Coat of Arms of Guinea.png" ‎ (Copyright violation:)
  4. 20:34, 6 February 2010 Kameraad Pjotr (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Coat of Arms of Guinea-Bissau.png" ‎ (Copyright violation:)
  5. 20:33, 6 February 2010 Kameraad Pjotr (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Bytovia.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation:)

Bedankt, feydey (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those images were deleted, because they originated from, except the last one, which was an obvious copyright violation ("source: public image").
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 14:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to refute or confirm this as You didn't give the violating sources exactly, also see Commons:Deletion requests/ (2nd request). Please be more exact. Groeten, feydey (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what do you mean? The images came from and were not released under a free license. The last one wasn't even properly sourced.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 14:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Are you the person who deleted this file? Can I upload it again and note that I have requested permission from the publisher of the book (it is a thumbnail image of a book cover)? I put in the request today, the same day I uploaded the photo, but I did not do a good job in terms of documenting that fact. (I think it can stay for 7 days while I wait for permission?).

In any event, it's a thumbnail image of a book that appears on scores of websites, commercial and non-commercial, and I know that there are some discussions on the internet that think that a thumbnail of the cover falls into the same category as a quote from the book, and is allowed. However, I know that is not wikimedia policy, but I do hope that I will be granted permission from the publisher (Tiberion) to use the image.

In any event, I am working on my first full wikimedia article (Albert L. Lewis), so do not want to upload it again without asking, since I do not want to do anything to jeapordize my good standing on Wikipedia.

If you agree it can stay for a short time, while I wait for permission, please either undelete it or advise me that I can upload it again.

Thanks for your help!! Resnicoff (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't undelete the image right now. However, when you have received permission for the image to be used under a free licence, I will restore the image.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

--GOOD NEWS! Just received email permission from Rachel Durfee, Hyperion Books, the publisher for "Have a Little Faith," to use the image of the book cover on my Wikipedia Site. Her email was dated 8:09PM, today, Feb 10, 2010. I will upload the file again, with all the correct information. If I am supposed to send a copy of this email permission to anyone, please let me know and I will do it immediately!! I'm happy this worked out so quickly! Resnicoff (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

--QUICK PS! I'm learning!!!! Turns out there was a different wikipedia license I could have used all along, without getting this extra permission: I'll leave it to the OTRS people to decide whether to use this template or the permission I sent them in my emails. Either way, I'm glad I seem to be covered at this point! Resnicoff (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The license "Non-free book cover" is a valid "fair use" licence, but is as such not accepted at Wikimedia Commons, as it is not free enough. It is however accepted at the English Wikipedia amongst others. If you have permission from the author to licence it under a free licence, you should forward that permission-e-mail to OTRS, but be aware only free licences are accepted. (This includes commercial use.)
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Are TRACE images really copyrighted? Deleted file comes from here [1]. --Sebman81 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

TRACE images probably aren't, but the image was supposed to come from another site ([2]). But it seems that image was simply a jpg-version of the original NASA gif-file. As such, it is indeed PD-NASA and has been restored.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(Correction: I have uploaded the original gif image, which is much larger. It can be found at File:Solar flare (TRACE).gif)

headache image[edit]

This file File:Headache.jpg was from this .gov site [3]. I see it is also on istock photos? [4] I guess the question is who copied from whom? And what is the copyright?--Jmh649 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed the question. I believe the istock photo is the original, as I don't think istock photo would accept bogus copyright claims and I think the website has bought a licence for the image. This would make the image almost certainly unfree.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Free Derry Corner in 1969.jpg[edit]

Hi. I've just discovered that you deleted File:Free Derry Corner in 1969.jpg because: Copyright violation: Non-free license according to source. But according to the source it "is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License." Can you explain to me why it is copyvio, please? Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Commercial or No-Derivative licenses are not allowed at Wikimedia Commons, as they are not free enough. All uploaded images must be freely licensed. For more information, see Licensing.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 13:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The artist has now changed the license. Is it possible to undelete it now? Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it has been undeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 11:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. By the way, is there a page where I can ask about copyright issues before uploading a file? Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There isn't one as far as I know of, but you could of course always ask a question at the Village pump.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Solheim turists1.jpg[edit]

Hi Kameraad Pjotr. I see you have deleted a file, File:Solheim turists1.jpg, that you believed to be a copyright violation. How have you proved this? The uploader claims that the photo is of members of his family, was taken by a member of his family, and was loaned by him (or a member of his family, I can't remember now – and you have deleted the associated File Talk, so I can't check) to the local library for it to upload to its website. What reason have you to doubt this? I had emailed the library to check and was awaiting their response. He also claims that the library told him that such material on its website was free of copyright (which I doubt) but if the photo is indeed his own, why should he not also upload the scan here? SiGarb (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The author must give its permission, not a family member. This permission needs to be emailed to OTRS and the library needs to confirm this.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Could it be clarified if this image is being deleted because it is believed the photo is someone elses work, or that the subject matter is copyrighted?

The subject matter is copyrighted, and thus the image is a derivative work.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Bonjour, l'image a été faite à partir du site internet South Park Studio et n'est pas concernée par les lois sur le copyright. Arnicane (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not the case. Even when you make an image of a South Park character yourself, the creator of South Park still holds the copyright and the image cannot be released under a free licence without his permission. More information regarding derivative works can be found here.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 11:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Please, check this ticket, in Calatan and English at an es-queue. I think it is ok. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, image has been restored. Thanks for mentioning. Kameraad Pjotr 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Eduardo Villar Rabadan web page builder creator villy_thebest and Tortola (Cuenca). All images, text and other things we both like wikipedia page are written and created by me so I'm not violating any copyrights and do not understand that you are deleting my images, my text and everything, nor understand why you have given me if I have not messed with anybody. I sent the following to OTRS as Sonsaz said:

Por la presente declaro que soy el titular de los derechos de autor exclusivos de OBRA

Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar este contenido en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades.

Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos morales sobre el contenido, es decir, el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra.

Soy consciente de que la licencia libre sólo afecta a los derechos de explotación (reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y transformación), y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas.

Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que el contenido puede o no ser almacenado permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.

19/02/2010 - Eduardo Villar Rabadán

I hope you do not follow me or putting on removing my contributions to Wikipedia as my only goal is to share knowledge with others. I expect an answer. Thanks

When the image was deleted, permission was not yet archived. This has now been done and the image has been tagged accordingly.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect fast deletion[edit]

Hi, in acording with brazilian law the picture File:Matarazzo.jpg and File:6090Delmiro.png was not with copyrigth protected. [5] with article 44 said: Art. 44. O prazo de proteção aos direitos patrimoniais sobre obras audiovisuais e fotográficas será de setenta anos, a contar de 1° de janeiro do ano subseqüente ao de sua divulgação.. As those guys died more than 70 years the picture was thaken more the 70 years. And so those pictures is puplic domain. Prease revert the fast deletion. Mvdiogo (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(I added links hope you do not mind) I found this {{PD-Brazil-media}} that might help you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Done, I seem to have missed PD-Brazil-media, my apologies.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests[edit]

Hi! I know this is quite late but thanksa for deleting File:666999.PNG! I was wondering if you would do the same with the rest of this set, (you only got one):

Commons:Deletion requests/Nonsense Spanish Empire maps

You also forgot File:666333.PNG which has a very simular name to the one you deleted.

This would be much appriciated! Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have deleted them right on the spot, but it seems they are currently listed on a deletion request, and I'm going to wait until it's closed (I won't do it myself due to the large backlog).
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the images got deleted and in a timely manner. Hope to see you active in the near future. I have gone through the British and French empire maps now as well. Maps & Lucy (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

File: James_OShaughnessy.jpg - please restore[edit]

Mr. Pjotr,

Please restore the image while verification is in procces. I will email to verify permission to license and upload this image.

You are correct to note that the image appears on'Shaughnessy-571569.html

It appears elsewhere on the internet as well. In every case the image is provided by Mr. O'Shaughnessy (the copyright owner) for free use on their websites.

Before contacting you just now I submitted "Copyright Query" (22:16, 1 March 2010) to

After you have restored the image I will designate the license as "CC-BY".

Also, I will post online a PDF of the contract from our staff photographer and the URL to that PDF will be pasted into the Notes of the image description.

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do.

Thank you.

Please note: I have posted the RGB version (previously CMYK!)of the file to

I'm sorry, but I can't restore the image while the review is in progress. However, if you have received a reply from OTRS that the permission you send them is sufficient, please give me the OTRS number, and I will happily restore the image.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, sorry to learn that. I will re-upload the file with a different filename for now. Please see notes above if there is any question about the ownership/licensing of the new file. Emerson2009
I'm afraid I must ask you not to upload the image under another name. If you have permission from the copyright holder of the image, send that permission to OTRS. They will give you a ticket number, and if you give it to me, I will restore the image. This is the preferred, if a bit long, way to do it.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Pjotr, ticket:2010030210041972 was issued to resolve this matter. Please let me know as soon as possible after you have had a chance to restore the image. Thank you for your help. With gratitude, Emerson2009
I have not restored the image, but added the permission to the identical file File:James P OShaughnessy.jpg.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. Pjotr, Emerson2009 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image[edit]

Hey Kameraad, ticket:2010031210023811 relates to an image you recently deleted. Kevin (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CopyVio tag removal[edit]

Please do NOT remove copyvio tags without leaving reason in edit summary/user talk page [6]. -- Meisam (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you had given a reason why the image was copyvio, then I would have been able to give a reason in the edit summary.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


FYI. -Nard the Bard 20:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tengizamirejibiplayschopinballadeno.ogg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tengizamirejibiplayschopinballadeno.ogg. OTRS was sent. I'd read more attentively, if i were you.--Gaeser (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the OTRS e-mail, but as already has been said, permission is need from the person who took the video as well. Without that permission, the file cannot be restored.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok... will it be enough if I get permission from this person?--Gaeser (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If she made the video, then her permission would be sufficient.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dili CoA and flag image[edit]

Thank you for acting so fast, but I think, "my" image, which was made out of the deleted image, must be deleted, too, doesn't it? --Patrick (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have missed it. It's deleted now anyway, but thanks for mentioning.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Patrick (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Kameraad, this and the other copyvios you deleted were today uploaded again by Domaleixo, can you delete them again, please? --Darwinius (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The copyvios were just re-uploaded, again. :S --Darwinius (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted & protected. Kameraad Pjotr 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Darwinius (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ARE YOU DUMB? This is a PUBLIC SYMBOL. PUBLIC SYMBOLS HAVE NO COPYRIGHT ISSUES. It´s like the flag of USA or the CoA of China, you moron! These images were based on law:

Please read Commons:Licensing before trying to re-upload the image again. Kameraad Pjotr 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to bother you again, Domaleixo just uploaded the copyvios again under new names: [7].--Darwinius (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Recreated again, under new names:[8] :( --Darwinius (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are a motherfucker. Go fuck yourself. Emerson

Consider yourself blocked. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I can not proof it, but kust looking at several images at User:Domaleixo, they seem to be from the same source like the deleted ones... . --Patrick (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the best action now is to open an deletion request dealing with all his (infringing) images. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, evaded blocking and uploaded the same copyvios: [9]--Darwinius (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kameraad, he seems to have uploaded the copyvios over properly licenced files, what can be done in this case? Thanks, --Darwinius (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I reloaded the original file. --Patrick (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg[edit]

Hello. I restored that file, because the reason for its deletion seemed excessive, and its wide use on other wikis made it unpractical to delete without further warning. Please have a look (IMHO it should be kept). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Fête des lumières[edit]

Hi. There are other pictures concerned by this DR that weren't categorized in this catgory (but should have been). Could you delete them too? File:HDV Lyon.JPG, File:Palais St Pierre (1).JPG, File:Palais St Pierre (2).JPG, File:Palais St Pierre (3).JPG, File:Cath. St Jean (1).JPG. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for mentioning. Kameraad Pjotr 09:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ossetian mosaic.jpg[edit]

Hi! Things aren’t that clear to me. The link you provide shows a smaller image and there are a lot of works from somewhere on this site. What about File:Gergiev_klarafestival_Brussels_2007.jpg? I emporarily restored the file to give everyone involved the possibility to look at the image. --Polarlys (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)