User talk:Martin H./Archive 17

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.



Прошу восстановить этот файл, так как я, Аввакумов Николай Михайлович, являюсь правообладателем произведений своего родного деда (Н. М. Аввакумова). Этот рисунок находится в моей личной коллекции. В описании файла написано, что изображение находится в "Личной коллекции Николая Аввакумова". Адрес моего личного сайта:

Николай Аввакумов 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive Note

Page was archived on April 1. See the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing uploaded images

Hi Martin. After uploading (many) images LIKE THIS HERE TO HERE, I learned to change the backgrounds to clear/white. Is it possible to edit the uploaded images with an external image editor, like IrfanView, and gradually convert them? The images are categorized by volume and the file names indicate the project, the volume, the page number, and the figure number, if any. Ineuw talk page on 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, you can make the background color transparent, but I dont know what software is the best to use. Maybe someone with graphic abilities can help you (graphic lab e.g.). --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help.Ineuw talk page on 15:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I tried finding an answer in Help here, on Mediwiki, on Wikipedia, and I have no luck. I have the software and it works fine, but it's the plugin configuration I can't configure properly. Perhaps you can recommend me someone who is knowledgeable in helping to configure Wikimedia commons to edit images? Here is the link to my post in the graphics help: Commons:Graphics_village_pump#Cannot_configure_external_editor Thank you, Ineuw talk page on 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


This image created between 1935 and 1937, when Sztójay served as military attaché in Berlin. So, the image is older than 70 years. The author is unknown, you can find the image on the webpage of --Norden1990 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And what reference do you have, that the author is unknown? What research did you do? I can only say, that the same image was already deleted because NO research was done and the copyright status is completely unclear. see log on en.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • [1], there is no copyright status and this image also uploaded to the Hungarian Wikipedia: [2] --Norden1990 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The hu.wp has a different regulation on portrati photographs. The image must come from a print, the photo was not "born" on that website. Ask the website operator where it is from and who is the owner of the original negatives. Assuming: "No author mentioned on some random website = unknown" is not ok. --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The photos of the Hungarian PMs are part of the Hungarian National Museum's constant exhibition. There are two homepages: [3] (owner of the and [4]. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How to get my legitimate pictures up

Hello Martin, A few weeks ago, you suspended my account for one month accusing me of posting copyrighted photos. You were right about that instance, but you also went and deleted two other photos I had earlier posted which were completely legitimate. Those two photos had been approved by Wikimedia previously. They are original works by a friend of mine, and he gave me permission to post them on Flickr under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike and Wikimedia. How can I get them up on Wikimedia again? Can I email them to you for you to look at them? I don't have a Wikipedia email account because I forgot to enable the email feature. Could you kindly email me at miles_of_aisles @ (REMOVE THE SPACES) so that I can send you the photos? Thanks.Woodsman18 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I cant found "two" images. All images where uploaded with wrong author and source information ("own work") you later tried to launder the stolen images through flickr. I will not upload anything on your behalf, read Commons:First steps and make sure, that you not upload other peoples work without having their written permission on free reuse (free= free to reuse by everyone, any time, everywhere, for any purpose inclduing commercial purposes or modification under the terms of a free license). --Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin,

Could you delete this file: Bok.jpg because I imported this image on commons without the permission of the author.

Thanks.--Hippolyte44 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"File:Корягин Петр Корнилович.jpg"

Здравствуйте, Мартин. Фото "File:Корягин Петр Корнилович.jpg" есть собственность семьи. Фото из семейного альбома, сделано по заказу. Права принадлежат не фотографу а лицу, изображенному на фотографии. В данном случае его наследнику - сыну. Сын, Корягин Анатолий Петрович предоставил мне, Гусеву Юрию это изображение специально для размещения в Википедии. Я, как участник Википедии гарантирую, что в данном случае авторские права не нарушены. С уважением, Юрий Гусев.

Guten Tag, der Martin. Das Foto "File:Корягин Pjotr ist das Eigentum der Familie Корнилович.jpg". Das Foto aus dem familiären Album, es ist auftragsgemäß gemacht. Die Rechte gehören nicht dem Fotografen und der Person, die auf den Fotografien dargestellt ist. In diesem Fall seinem Erben - dem Sohn. Der Sohn, Korjagin Anatolij Petrowitsch hat mir, Gussewu Jurij diese Darstellung speziell für die Unterbringung in Wikipedia gewährt. Ich garantiere, wie der Teilnehmer Wikipedia, dass in diesem Fall die Urheberrechte nicht verletzt sind. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Jurij Gussew.Юрий Гусев (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Robot translation? So Im going to answer in english as the translation Russian->German in google translation leads to mistakes. If the copyright holder gave you permission please forward this permission to OTRS. Note however, that a permission for use "in Wikipedia" is not enough. --Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jumamuba sock?

Anthonio212 (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Bogota 25a.PNG, which is a repost of Jumamuba's image deleted per deletion discussion as a copyvio. It is in PNG rather than BMP format though. I am sorry if this turns out not to be the case (as you suspected with Mbs1 (talk · contribs)), but there seems to be a pattern of sock/meat-puppetry (differences in file naming, as with Mbs1, suggests that the uploader might be a different person). Does he look like a duck to you (not asking for CheckUser)? PleaseStand (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is possile that he toke the same image from another website after searching for Bogota (e.g. a mirror of Commons that hosts this non-free montage). Its also possible that it is sockpuppetry, but then it is some strange case of longtime abuse given the account creation ~1 year ago. In all cases, all other images are copyvios too, see the filenames, see the 500px image, I will mark some soon. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the evidence from the montage I checked that user, the technical evidence is not clear at all, its also possible that he toke the montage from elsewhere - so no clear evidence. However, one more copyvio and he will be blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin! You could delete this image? Why is it being used constantly by User Paul Hip Hop. Truu (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Dont know, but it is not the first time that users from Brazil upload non-free images of pt:Beyoncé Knowles. --Martin H. (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Martin! Kannst du mal einen Blick auf die Bilder werfen. Die sind alle von der HP des Unternehmens, viele noch mit (C) versehen, und alle wurde von der Benutzerin nach CC lizensiert, obwohl nicht zu erkennen ist, ob sie dazu berechtigt ist. Viele Grüße!--Johnny Controletti (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ein Fall für Commons:Permission und {{subst:npd}} (dt: schriftliche Freigabe erforderlich). Wie auch immer, wenn de:KOCHS GmbH gelöscht wird, würde ich die Uploads als Inhalte mit rein werblichem Charakter auch schnelllöschen. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Könntest du das in die Wege leiten?Johnny Controletti (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich hab da nichts mehr gemacht, auf die Bilder haben sich schon genug andere gestürtzt. --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Julian assange.jpg


you signalled File:Julian assange.jpg as lacking permissions [5], but the file seems to have had the Cc-by licence at the time. Could you clarify? Thank you very much in advance. Rama (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at File talk:Julian assange.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New sock

Checked and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, this photo was scanned from the library of congress and I don't have the original photographer. however since 89 years past, there seems to be no issue with copy rights. what do you say? Shamira (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Any reference? What collection, archival reference numbers? Commons hosts some ~20,000 images from the LoC, the LoC itself has how many million of items? So saying "source=Library of Congress" is no source at all because it absolutely not allows to find the image at the LoC. The saying, that it is from the U.S. News & World Report is obviously wrong. -Martin H. (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
ok, give me plz few days to check and update. Shamira (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the tip on how to wikilink. Tango7174 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Category:Portrait photographs of men

Hi Martin! Why did you remove the "Category:Portrait photographs of men" in the Files File:SBFellows.jpg, File:Calle.png, and File:Asassel1.jpg? regards, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Weil die Bilder mit Portraitfotografie nichts zu tun haben. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Und kannst Du dann vielleicht auch noch "Portraitfotografie" definieren und möglichst in der Kategorie selbst, damit man auch weiß, was zumindest Du Dir darunter vorstellst? --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Ist das notwendig? Ich denke nicht. Das sind Bilder von Benutzer die diese auf ihren Benutzerseiten haben möchten und zu diesem Zwecke hier hochladen müssen und unter eine freie Lizenz stellen. Weder ist klar, ob die Benutzer die Bilder in den content-Kategorien haben möchten, noch ist klar, ob die Bilder den Qualitätsansprüchen der content-Kategorien genügen bzw. dort irgendeinen Mehrwehrt schaffen. Zumindest eins von beidem sollte offensichtlich erfüllt sein, z.B. ein Benutzerwunsch die Sichtbarkeit seines Profilbilds derart zu erhöhen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Du schreibst selbst: "Weder ist klar, ob die Benutzer die Bilder in den content-Kategorien haben möchten, noch ist klar, ob die Bilder den Qualitätsansprüchen der content-Kategorien genügen bzw. dort irgendeinen Mehrwehrt schaffen". Ich finde auch, dass das nicht klar ist, und deshalb bin ich mit den Bildern wie mit allen anderen verfahren. Ich finde, Du solltest Deine Meinung, wenn Du bei ihr bleibst, in der Kategorie kundtun und sie damit nicht nur verallgemeinern, sondern auch kritisierbar machen. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, da der Benutzerwunsch nicht gegeben ist (und qualität auch nicht), ist es völlig ausreichend wenn die Bilder mit Category:User page images kategorisiert sind. Es braucht keine weitere Kategorie. Die Bilder werden hier geduldet entsprechend COM:PS#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project, aber sie haben mit unserem content nichts zu tun, also gehören sie auch nicht in die Kategorien. --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Da bin ich anderer Meinung. Die Relevanz eines Bildes für einen noch unbekannten Zweck lässt sich m.E. schlecht einschätzen. Und wenn doch, dann gäbe es in der Commons sicher einige hunderttausend Bilder, die keine User darstellen und trotzdem entweder von geringer fotografischer Qualität oder inhaltlicher Relevanz sind. Auch sie bleiben normalerweise ungelöscht, schon allein, weil es zu viel Arbeit macht, sie auszusortieren. Aber ich habe keine Probleme damit, trotz abweichender Meinung, Deine Ansichten zu berücksichtigen. So long, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

Hello. I'm Italian, so I hope I won't make mistakes writing in English. I just want to know why you've deleted the files File:Hilary_Duff_Olivia_Burke_Gossip_Girl.jpg and File:Hilary_Duff_Olivia_Burke.jpg.

Best regards, Lorenzo

For the reasons stated in the deletion summary and on your talkpage. This project is a free content project, this screengrabs are not free content. They are not released by the copyright holder for free reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial purpose. Or? --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Those files were just pictures from Flickr. I thought I was free to upload them on Wikipedia Commons. Maybe do I made mistakes about the license?
No, only if the flickr user is the sole creator (photographer or... film director in this case), the sole owner of all copyrights and if he published his work under one of the two free licenses available on flickr (cc-by or cc-by-sa). Please dont only use the flickr upload form but also read the instructions there. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Newbie question: picture change

Hi Martin,

ich uploaded my own work, a Bootshandel logo for the article and send the asked sheet to After two days I realized that the logo was in cmyk instead of rbg. I uploaded a new version with the same name but it was not confirmed as current version yet. What do I have to do to let you (someone?) activate the rgb version?

Thanks a lot, Stefan


Wenn du das alte Bild File:Bootshandel-Magazin Logo 2009.jpg überschrieben hast, dir aber immer noch nicht die richtige Version angezeigt wird, dann ist das ein Problem deines browser caches. Auf die Bildseite gehen und Strg+F5 drücken um browser cache zu aktualisieren. --Martin H. (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


I have a permission e-mail from the Vitézi Rend (where I found this image). What should I do?--Norden1990 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct the source information (author: hungary.....) and forward your written permission to OTRS. Permission must come from the owner of copyrights, permission must allow everyone to reuse the image for everything including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please mark as patrolled

Hi Martin H.,
Thank you for helping fight vandalism on Commons. However, it is recommended to mark the bad edit as patrolled. The will remove the edit the unpatrolled queue and reduce our backlog, and thus prevents double work. See also Commons:Counter Vandalism Unit. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, is the license used on this picture compatible with wikicommons?? MaenK.A.Talk 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is licensed under the GFDL 1.2 which is a free license. For non-commercial purposes you can also use it under a creative commons license, see Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
don't we consider these license contradicted?? one is free and the other is not?? why to use the other license??. In general is this license compatible with wikicommons?? MaenK.A.Talk 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, NC is not compatlible with Commons. But you can add licenses for personal, non-commercial purposes as long as one license is free. See Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing, this is fulfilled here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mrinalini Sharma.gif

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Abutorsam007's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Deletion of Josina Machel due to copyright concern

Dear Martin H.,

I am afraid that I cannot satisfy your requirements regarding proof of copyright for this photo. All I can say is that the photo is widely used in Mozambique (e.g., newspapers, magazines). I believe the original may be in the National Historical Archive. I created the photo file by scanning a copy of the photo which appeared in a Mozambican book about the life of Josina Machel. The authors of the book, which is cited in my contribution to this page, did not provide any attribution for the source of the photo. So I guess you will be forced to delete it, which is a pity since I have no other way of honoring the memory of this courageous young woman patriot of Mozambique Ralph terry (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Durch die Umstellung der Categories entstand ein wüstes Durcheinander!

Es ist viel Arbeit, alles wieder in Ordnung zu bringen! --GFHund (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Im grunde ist nicht viel geschehen, also wenn was durcheinander sein sollte wäre es schnell zu reparieren. Die Änderungen:
Category:Bilder Gerhard Hund -> Category:Gerhard Hund. Unnötige Kaskadierung.
Category:Photographer Gerhard Hund -> Category:Photographs by Gerhard Hund, entsprechend dem Namensschema solcher Kategorien.
Inhalt von Category:Photographs by Gerhard Hund auf Kategoriennamen verschoben, die den tatsächlichen Inhalt wiederspiegeln. Es handelt sich bei Category:Bilder Deutschland 2010 nicht um Bilder aus Deutschland 2010, siehe Category:2010 in Germany für die entsprechende Themenkategorie, sondern um Bilder die von einem Fotografen bzw. Benutzer in einem bestimmten Jahr an einem bestimmten Ort gemacht wurden, also um Category:Photographs by Gerhard Hund, Deutschland 2010.
--Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Better quality ABr

Thanks for reminding me. I always forget about that link there... I do feel a little frustrated now, specially considering that ABr is quick to delete old pictures these days. Missionary (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats realy ugly, they must store them forever! (ok, cant force them - but serious.) Also the restructuration of the website is a mess, cant the simply use links like "" or seomthing like that? I hate them ;) --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It used to be a great site for pictures. They had a great archive. Now we have to get those pics in less than 24 hours, else they vanish. Ridiculous, really. Missionary (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your work! --Martin H. (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

2 picture files of Greenpeace

Dear Martin,

I saw that you might have deleted the files Greenpeacedumpedcoal.jpg and Carfreeday2008-2.jpg I uploaded it to be used in the Greenpeace's wiki page in Thai (กรีนพีซ). I'm not the photographer or owner of the pictures, but I'm working a contract job with Greenpeace Southeast Asia in Thailand. I just wanted to make the page much more interesting. Could I use the 2 pictures, or do I have to choose some statements at the pictures' pages?

Thanks you, Kind regards, Niz

HR313 (talk · contribs)

Hallo Martin,
zur Kenntnis: User talk:HR313, falls du ihn dauerhaft sperren möchtest, nur zu. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Well, he didn't last too long as unblocked... Tabercil (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

_;) yes, sad. Maybe hes angry because you just deleted his image he uploaded and voted deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armani Simpson.jpg ;) --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Ramsey Images (Deleted?!)

Hello Martin,

Inthernar (me) is Dylan Ramsey, and I have the rights to my photographs to post them in my Wiki. If you need further proof of my identity email me at:

Each photograph that I post in my profile is a work for hire that I have hired a photographer to work for me. Therefore I own the copyright.

So, as I appreciate you doing your job to ensure that everyone's rights are secured, you made a mistake in this case. Can you kindly return all the photographs that you have removed. Next time, please check with me before making changes. Sincerely,

Dylan Ramsey (aka: Inthernar)

Inthernar (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, after you first failed to upload your images you second tried to trick Commons with adding random author information and random OTRS tickets to images. See COM:OTRS/N#Special:Contributions.2FInthernar. So no. --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ARtiklen "Дилювий", "Скэбленд", удаление фотографий.

Прошу вернуть в статьи фотографии мои, илиопубли кованные с разрешением, которые имеется в обсуждении. Alles Gutes!--Heljqfy (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilder Schloss Sonnenstein (Benutzer Dresdenbell)

Hallo Martin, Benutzer Dresdenbell hat hier unter der Überschrift 2012 einige Computersimulationen des in Sanierung befindlichen Schloss Sonnenstein eingestellt. Nette Bilder, ich bezweifle aber, dass es dafür ein Freigaberecht gibt. Bilfinger Berger als Generalauftragnehmer der Sanierung verwendet in seiner Pressemitteilung dieses Bild mit dem Hinweis: "Foto: Bilfinger Berger". Benutzer Dresdenbell hat hingegen als Quelle sich selbst angegeben. Ich hatte Benutzer Dresdenbell vor einigen Tagen gebeten, die eingestellten Bilder hinsichtlich des Urhebers korrekt zu beschriften. Dies ist nicht passiert. Wie siehst du als commons-Admin die Sache ? Grüße, --Norbert Kaiser (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich teile deine Meinung. Bei den Bildern File:Burganlage Neues Landratsamt Pirna-Sonnenstein Nr.2.jpg (von dir genannt) sowie damit auch für alle anderen Uploads von ihm in Category:Schloss Sonnenstein welche aus dem gleichen Computerprogram zu stammen scheinen, besteht ausserhalb von Wikipedia eine Information, die auf ein abweichenden Urhererrechtsstatus hinweist und die Vermutung zulässt, dass die Angaben hier falsch sind. Das Prozedere auf Commons ist schwammig, da sowohl die Quelle falsch oder unvollständig zu sein scheint als auch die Freigabe fehlt können die Vorlage {{subst:nsd}} und {{subst:npd}} auf den Bildbeschreibungen angebracht werden. Bei Bedarf Begründung in die Edit-Zusammenfassung oder auf die Bilddiskussionsseite. Gleiches gilt für File:Residenzschloss-Dresden (Model).jpg und File:Residenzschloss Dresden (Model).jpg. Meine Interpretation: Dresdenbell ist recht offensichtlich eine Sockenpuppe von User:Kay Körner, der hatte es mit dem Urheberrecht und er ist leider eher unkooperativ. Wahrscheinlich hatte er irgendwie Zugriff auf diese Simulationssoftware und hat die Screenshots erstellt und stellt das ganze nun als seine Arbeit dar. Da er wahrscheinlich nicht der Rechteinhaber der Software ist, kann er auch die Screenshots nicht frei lizenzieren. --Martin H. (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

source of photo of Patricia M. Haslach

In response to your question, Pat Haslach's photo is the official State Department portrait posted on the Department of State webiste, You can find it here: Since it is from the U.S. Government it is not subject to copyright restrictions (the Department of State is a Cabinet department of the U.S. Federal government). Amustard (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, thats source information - essential source information. --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please. :)

Mr. Martin, Can you please unblock my account? I will delete every file that i uploaded and will upload new photos that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. I'm sorry if i didn't read the rules. Please forgive me. bash 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)User:Baaash 18:36, 12 April 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Answered hereKrinkletalk 10:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thans Krinkle, the comment shows a basic understanding of Commons policy, so unblock is good. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok,I understand; Thanks;)

Deletion understood

I just checked Google images and found this. I am looking for female albinos or those with white hair. Sorry for the erroneous upload.Better than Hustler (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See the deletion request for that image. Category:People with Albinism. --Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Bonsoir Martin,

  • Je ne sais pas comment argumenter la photographie de GustavKraatz.jpg. Elle date de plus de 101 ans. Il n’y a pas de copyright qui la couvre. Je suis naturaliste et j’essai d’honorer nos anciens, surtout si, comme Kraatz, ils le méritent.
  • I do not know how to argue photography GustavKraatz.jpg. It dates back over 101 years. There is no copyright which protects. I am a naturalist and I try to honor our elders, especially if, as Kraatz they deserve.

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote:
Date :11 April 2010
Source: Own work
Author: Didier Descouens
Non of this information is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

own work

Schlageter. My work was transferring this specific image after the request of his grandson, to be placed on his biograhy on internet. --Farkasven (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide written permission. And not only for use in his biography, but for usados por cualquiera en cualquier lugar. La reproducción total o parcial debe estar permitida. La publicación y redistribución debe estar permitida. La publicación de obras derivadas debe estar permitida. El uso comercial de la obra debe estar permitido. --Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi I saw your comment - and you might note also the various comment at docu talk page - I simply was going by the rename suggestion found with the rename tag originally - then in the confused (perhaps) conversation at docu talk page - i think that docu was suggesting the flickr id number - and I honestly objected - in my interpretation of the information that I checked so far - it seems that the enquiries i have since made offline suggests that some admins never remove any numbers found but simply add the extra description - to try to avoid something like the current issue at the elvissa images. I would appreciate any further comment - I simply see no functional usage in having what are potentially unhelpful numbers cluttering the names of files, - I would be very interested in others comments - seeing I havent been in this for very long so far. cheers SatuSuro (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly revert all my renames of elvissa images from what I have done - which was from all numbers to the suggested text - to something else if I can see some advice from a number of experienced re-namers - bearing in mind some offline have suggested leaving all the numbers and adding the text at the end of the title - if that will help resolve the issue - SatuSuro (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I didnt and I will not read through any discussion on this, I just talk on the particular image that I commented while visiting Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Media_requiring_renaming (I tried to work on the most recent request, thats the way I found that). In general I think differentiation of generic geographical names is a good idea. Docu preferes the number from flickr, which is imo just a meaningles number, I prefer the date. To prevent a dispute that I saw in the version history I added my preference for a date instead of a number to the file talk. If required please comment there, I will not participate in a general discussion about renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough - I can accept that, thanks for your honesty on the matter . cheers SatuSuro (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Find my paintings back !

Hi Martin

my three paintings have been deleted, i used them on Ignacio garate martinez's page. Yet, those 3 paintings (of freud, lacan and mannoni) are from my private collection, so i have all the rights to upload them on wikicommons. Can you help me to find them back, because i can't upload them again.

MaudMannoni.jpg JacquesLacan-EmilioZaldivar.jpg Freud-Zaldivar.jpg

thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelphea (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Physicall posession of a painting does not give you any copyrights. You must be the copyright holder, thats the painter or the heirs or you, if copyright was transfered to you in a written contract not on buying the painting but on transfering the copyright.
2) You where asked to provide written permission from the copyright holder, see your talkpage.
--Martin H. (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin, ich weiss nicht wie Du auf die Idee kommst, nach einer Einwilligung des sowjetischen Generalstabs für die Datei File:I-32 1-Mio 1970 CH.jpg zu fragen. Es gibt die Sowjetarmee nicht mehr, und demnach auch den Generalstab nicht mehr. Ich hoffe, das macht so für Dich Sinn. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Trotzdem besteht ein Urheberrecht, entweder ist die Karte ein "orphaned work", dann Pech, ansonsten gibt es einen Rechtsnachfolger. Auf jeden Fall ist es nicht ohne Grund gemeinfrei, siehe Commons:Licensing#Russia and former Soviet Union für die Bedingungen. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Es gibt keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Darum sind alle alten Generalstabskarten auf diversen russischen Internetservern frei zugänglich. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Frei zugänglich heist nicht frei. Welche Situation in Commons:Licensing ist anwendbar, warum ist die Karte nach dem Gesetz nicht mehr urheberrechtlich geschützt? --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Weil es die herausgebende Behörde nicht mehr gibt. Seit bald 20 Jahren. Denkst Du die Server wären in Russland alle noch am Netz, wenn die Karten der heutigen Armee gehören würden? --Allesmüller (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Das hat trotzdem immernoch keinen Einfluss auf das Urheberrecht. Siehe z.B. Template_talk:PD-Soviet#.22No_one_will_ever_sue_us.22, Lupo erklärt die Angelegenheit dort zutreffend. --Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Rechte kann nur ein Inhaber haben. M.a.W. wenn dort richtig steht, nur noch 50 Jahre nach Publikation habe der sowjetische Generalstab die Rechte an der Karte, es ihn aber gar nicht mehr gibt... den Rest kannst Du sicher selber folgern. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So ist es nunmal, ich kann es auch nicht ändern. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Willst Du damit sagen, dass Du begriffen hast, dass niemand mehr Rechte an der Karte hat? (=Public Domain) --Allesmüller (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, damit will ich sagen, dass die Karte NICHT gemeinfrei ist, auch wenn das schwer zu glauben sein mag. --Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha, und wem gehört sie denn? --Allesmüller (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Na, dem Urheber oder eben dem Rechteinhaber. --Martin H. (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Du bist lustig. Die Diskussion kann nun am Anfang dieses Abschnittes weitergehen. Und immer weiter. Weil es den Urheber eben nicht mehr gibt. --Allesmüller (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ja, und genau das kann ich nicht Ändern. Es ist nunmal einfach so, es macht ein Werk aber nicht frei im Sinne von free content. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Bitte hör auf hier herumzutrollen. Es gibt keinen Rechteinhaber mehr. Es ist PD. --Allesmüller (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Entschuldigung wenn ich mal deutlich werde. Den Begriff Extremzeitraubing kennst Du? Ich habe, meiner Meinung nach in allgemeinverständlichen, einfach formulierten und kurzgehaltenen deutschen Sätzen versucht, Dir mitzuteilen, dass niemand mehr Rechte an dieser Karte hat. --Allesmüller (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe gleiches Versucht. Das Urhebererrecht erlischt nicht mit der Auflösung des Rechteinhabers. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Rechte ist etwas, das jemand hat. Wenn es diesen jemand nicht mehr gibt (und im vorliegenden Fall auch keine Erben, Rechtsnachfolger usw.), dann erlöschen die Rechte. Und wenn ich mal ganz abstrus weit denke, hier kannst Du nicht mal ein "postmortales Persönlichkeitsrecht der UdSSR an ihrem Bild" geltend machen, denn die Karte ist von Westeuropa. Capiche? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Es ist das Urheberrecht anwendbar, nicht der Menschenverstand. Weise deine Aussage mit dem Urherrecht der Sowjetunion und Russlands nach. Ansonsten gilt dass, was in COM:L zu Russland steht. --Martin H. (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Das gilt generell, nicht nur in der Sowjetunion. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Das ist absoluter Unfug. --Martin H. (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In der Tat. Da bin ich froh dass Du es begriffen hast. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, deine Aussage ist Unsinn! 'Das gilt generell, nicht nur in der Sowjetunion' - Bullshit. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wenn die Rechte niemand hat, hat niemand die Rechte. Schönen Abend. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

..und selbst wenn es den Inhaber der Rechte noch geben würde, hätte er keine, weil amtliche Dokumente in Russland (Militärkarten gehören dazu) keinem Copyright unterliegen, vgl. Art. 1259 Ziff. 6 al. 1 BGB Russland. --Allesmüller (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eine neue, falsche Aussage die im übrigen in COM:L erfasst ist als Gesetzestexte, Gerichtliche Entscheidungen, offizielle Dokumente und deren Übersetzungen. Diese sind frei, weil ein etwaiger Urheberrechtsschutz den freien Rechtsverkehr und die Anwendung von z.B. Gesetzen behindern würde und damit dem Gemeinwohl im wege stünde. Die Interpretation ist eng auszulegen und nur auf Dokumente anzuwenden, bei denen ein solches Interesse besteht. So ist es auch in Deutschland, wo Gesetze, Verordnungen und Dergleichen, Gerichtsurteile sowie Symbole des Staates und z.B. auch Briefmarken vom Urheberrecht ausgenommen sind. --Martin H. (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Du hast diese Privatauslegung auch bei den beiden Löschdiskussionen reingeschrieben. Der Gesetzestext ist aber eindeutig. Was bringt Dich auf die Idee, dass eine Militärkarte kein offizielles Dokument ist? Im von mir zitierten Gesetzestext steht nichts dergleichen. Es hilft beim Verständnis eines russischen Gesetzes, wenn man russisch versteht. --Allesmüller (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Chace Watson

I think our favorite Corbin Bleu lovin' sockpuppeteer has reappeared, as User:Usa Girls. I've knocked out two images as clear copyvios from WireImage, but I can't conclusively prove that at least one other is from there as well (one copyvio could be chance, two could be a coincidence but three makes it a clear pattern). Unfortunately I have to head off to work in a few otherwise I'd keep looking and find that third copyvio, but could you do some looking and finish the job off? Tabercil (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost obviously a sock. You may download File:Corbin Bleu Reivers.jpg and have a closer look at the file, thats number 3. I will make use of the checkuse tools to make sure that no mistake happens with blocking. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan 2010.jpg

Hello Martin !File back bring i difficulty draw... I Problem what be curious about  ??? Xraykan

about Yadollah_Sahabi_p.jpg

hi martin why you want delete this picture? this photo was taked more than 30 years ago in iran have a premission i saved this photo from mizan newspaper page in facebook --Arashk rp2 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See the deletion request. 'Taken more than 30 years ago' is completely irrelevant, the reuquirement is 'published more than 30 years ago'. That publications requires a source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin, Thanks for your note on the potential issues with the Darma2.jpg file I uploaded. After researching, I thought I was ok uploading it based on the "fair use" policy, which is why I documented that in my posting. You noted that English Wikipedia allows fair use, but Commons doesn't. Can you shed some light on how I could upload the file (if it is appropriate) to the English Wikipedia...or how else I can use the phote, while ensuring I am not breaking any rules. Westsidebill (talk)Thanks, Bill - 04/14/10~~

Im not familiar with fair use on en.wp, you may start reading at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Outside this limited exemption of fair use you can not make use of the image on Wikimedia projects as this are free content projects. --Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kannst du mal ...

... bitte auf File:SocAnoOkNe.jpg bzw. Commons:Deletion requests/File:SocAnoOkNe.jpg kurz schaeun, ob was zu retten ist? Danke im Voraus und noch viel Spaß heute, Gruß -jkb- (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

  • Ich sehe nichts, dass mich überzeugen würde:
- ineligible: klares Nein.
- Urheber unbekannt oder nicht ermittelbar: kein Argument, COM:PRP
- Urheber unbekannt und Urheberrecht (unter dieser Annahme) abgelaufen: Ebenfalls nicht laut Löschdikussion.
Für mich ein Foto eines geschützten Werkes. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Habe vielen Dank, etwas geklärt hat es sich auf (im gleichen Sinne mit dem Unterschied, dass man es da evtl. dulden kann). Viele Grüße, -jkb- (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:C-130 60528 Texas.JPG

Was willst Du? Es gab 1958 noch keine Website. Larry Tart ist zitiert im Artikel, der das Bild verwendet. --Allesmüller (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Eine Quelle muss keine Webseite sein. Das ist hier Wikimedia Commons, ich sehe keinen Artikel der das Bild verwendet. Ferner ist die Lizenz unsinn, da sie auf das Ursprungsland nicht passt. Bitte eine korrekte Lizenz die das passende Kriterium in COM:L erfüllt auswählen. --Martin H. (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Welche Lizenz passt nicht (warum nicht) auf welches Ursprungsland??? Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum Du nicht siehst welcher Artikel das Bild verwendet. Ich sehe es. Es ist de:Abschuss einer Hercules über Armenien. Zum Vorfall gibt es ein Buch. Das steht im Artikel. Der Autor dieses Buches war in der USAF und hat für mich das Bild organisiert, damit ich es hochladen kann. Wenn Du ihn nicht kennst, erstaunt das niemanden, aber es gibt ihn. --Allesmüller (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Dann trage bitte die Quelle hier auf Commons ein. Commons ist nicht Wikipedia. Wenn jemand ein Buch schreiben möchte über das Erigniss und auf Commons nach Bildern sucht dann braucht er vollständige informationen. Das Ursprungsland ist das Land, in dem ein Werk zuerst veröffentlicht wurde oder das Heimatland des Urhebers. Es ist das Urheberrecht des Ursprungslands anzuwenden und das Urheberrecht der USA da der Server auf dem das Bild liegt in den USA steht. In beiden Ländern muss das Bild gemeinfrei sein. Siehe Commons:Licensing. Dazu ist ein Nachweis zu führen. Weder ist das Bild vom Urheber unter cc-by veröffentlicht, wie du behauptest, noch ist nachgewiesen, dass es aus einem Land stammt, in dem Bilder nach 50 Jahren automatisch in die Gemeinfreihet fallen. --Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Eingetragen hatte ich, du hast wieder revertiert. Ich such mal die Stelle, wo man Vandalismus auf Commons melden kann. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Gleiches gilt für andere Bilder. File:Manuel Saitzew.jpg ist wohl nicht "own work" und ferner gilt in der Schweiz, dass etwas 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers gemeinfrei wird, nicht 50 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung. Das Archiv sagt zudem kein Wort von cc-by. --Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Bitte schreib so, dass man Dich auch versteht. Was ist cc-by, was willst Du? Dass das Bild in SH im Archiv liegt, heisst noch lange nichts über die Urheberschaft, weder der ursprünglichen Fotographie noch einer Reproduktion derselben. --Allesmüller (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
CC-by heist Creative Commons Attribution, eine Lizenz, eine freie Lizenz, die jedem die Weiternutzung gestattet zu jedem Zweck einschließlich kommerzieller Zwecke solange der Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte (own work, also du) in der Nähe des Bildes genannt wird. --Martin H. (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Und wie soll es sein, damit Du friedlich wirst? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Der richtige Fotograf ist genannt, der Fotograf ist entweder seit 70 Jahren tot oder er hat seine schriftliche Genehmigung zur freien Lizenz gegeben. Siehe auch Commons:First steps/License selection. --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Du redest hier doch von Saitzew?? Warum machst Du meine Quellenangabe bei der Hercules-Fotografie immer rückgängig?? Mit der Begründung, es fehle eine Quellenangabe, entfernst Du die Quellenangabe! --Allesmüller (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe die Quelle jetzt deinen Angaben folgend vervollständigt. --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Kannst Du lesen? Habe ich gesagt es kommt aus dem Buch?? Oder habe ich gesagt es kommt von der US AIr Force und der Autor des Buches hat es mir überreicht? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe die Angabe des Buches entsprechend deines verweises auf den Artikel - der nicht ausreichend ist als Quelle - ergänzt, da du dazu scheinbar nicht in der Lage warst und davon ausgehst, dass "Larry Tart" eine Quellenangabe ist. Es fehlt die Freigabe, gemeinfrei ist das Bild nicht. Wenn das Buch nicht die Quelle ist, dann schreib was die Quelle ist richtig auf. Larry Tart ist keine Quellenangabe. --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Das Bild kommt NICHT aus dem Buch. Das Bild kommt von der Luftwaffe der Vereinigten Staaten. Und ist darum gemeinfrei. Kannst Du mich vielleicht jetzt in Ruhe lassen, BITTE? --Allesmüller (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Du hast zuerst geschrieben, es sei "anonym", also bleibe ich bei der Information. Wenn es von der Air Force ist, so weise das bitte nach - COM:OTRS sobald du die information von der Air Force hast. --Martin H. (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Natürlich ist es anonym im Sinne dass der Name des Fotografen von 1958 nicht mehr bekannt ist. Den Namen des Unteroffiziers der Airforce, der es mir übergeben hat, ist dir bekannt. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Dann schicke seine Informationen zu COM:OTRS, wenn er versichert, dass es ein Angestellter der Air Force wärend als Teil seiner dienstlichen Pflichten erstellt hat, mag das Korrekt sein. Ansonsten kannst du die Richtigkeit auch mit einer anderweitigen Publikation nachweisen. Generell: Arbeite mit vollständigen Quellenangaben, gib die richtigen Autoren an und wähle nicht irgendwelche willkürlichen Lizenzbausteine aus die entweder nicht zutreffend sind oder zu denen der Urheber nicht zugestimmt hat. In diesem Fall hast du einfach einen von jeder Sorte ausgefällt, was soll das! --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, ich verstehe Deine Sätze nicht. Bitte nochmals auf Deutsch. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Erbringe einen schriftlichen Nachweis, eine Bestätigung von Tart oder einen Verweis auf eine AF Veröffentlichung, der bestätigt, dass das Bild von einem Angestellten der AF als Teil seiner Arbeit (nicht in seiner Freizeit) erstellt wurde. Sende den Nachweis an COM:OTRS oder führe die Publikation als Quelle auf. Füge keine unsinnigen Lizenzbausteine hinzu die mit der Realität nichts zu tun haben. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha, danke. Bis auf die "unsinnigen Lizenzbausteine" kann ich Dir jetzt folgen. Und was unterscheidet eine Bestätigung des L. Tart von einer Bestätigung durch mich? --Allesmüller (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
1) Sie ist schriftlich und stammt von einer Quelle ausserhalb der Wikimedia-Projekte 2) Du hast das Bild nicht vom Fotografen erhalten und bist weder qualifiziert eine Aussage darüber zu treffen wo das Bild herkommt, noch wer es erstellt hat[haben könnte], und noch viel weniger eine verbindliche Aussage zu treffen wie der urheberrechtliche Status sein könnte. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Deine Lizenzbausteine sind Unsinn da 1) {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} eine Lizenz ist, die der schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers bedarf, wenn der Rechteinhabe nichtmal bekannt ist... nungut. 2) {{Anonymous work}} in Einklang stehen muss mit Commons:Licensing, was hier mit den US, siehe auch Commons:Hirtle Chart absolut nicht der Fall ist, der Lizenzbaustein ist also aus offensichtlichen Gründen falsch und nicht zu wählen, und das sagt er sogar selber. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich weiss nicht was wer "sogar selber sagt", anyhow das OTRS kriegt eine E-Mail von L.H., auch wenn dieses Vorgehen absolut unüblich ist (lies mal was dort steht, wie man mit OTRS umgehen soll). Und bis dahin, bitte verschone mich mit weiteren neunmalklugen Aktionen in der Art wie gehabt. --Allesmüller (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

E-Mail vor drei Stunden an OTRS rausgegangen. --Allesmüller (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kannst Du bitte veranlassen, dass das Bild jetzt freigegeben wird? --Allesmüller (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Cabinda map-fr.svg‎

Thank you for renaming and correcting my mistakes on Cabinda map-fr.svg‎ – it was indeed Cabinda and not Angola. --Pethrus (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, I was unsure if you wanted that or not. --Martin H. (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Martin, Ich bin neu hier und ausschließlich für die Seite des Bayer Schülerlabors zuständig. Kannst du mir vielleicht in ein paar Dingen helfen? Zum einen wäre da das Löschen der online gestellten Bilder. Wir haben zwar die Rechte aber es ist schwieriger als erwartet, diese zu belegen und würden deshalb nun gerne andere verwenden. Könntest du deshalb die Bilder löschen? Zum zweiten gibt es wohl immer noch ein Problem mit dem Artikel. Kannst du mal schauen und mir erklären, was das Problem ist? Und zuletzt: Ich würde gern bei den Verlinkungen andere Namen nennen, als als Link genutzt werden. Zum Beispiel Kunststoffe (obwohl es auf Kunststoff verlinkt ist). Wie kann ich das programmieren? Vielen Dank für deine Hilfe, Charlotte

Bei den Bildern kann ich dir helfen, beim Artikel nicht. Nur soviel: Der Artikel ist ein Werbetext und kein Artikel. Die Verlinkung funktioniert mit einem 'pipe', indem du den Text [[Kunststoff|Kunststoffe]] verwendets. Also Linkziel, pipe, angezeigter Text. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

deleted files

my deleted files, dear martin, are of educational value, eg. hommage to arthur RIMBAUD - paul verlaine, GOETHE - f mendelssohn - i need them to be on since they are linked to my art blog: - i was recommended to you by (mr. kenel) and have difficulties, if you just delete pictures donated for free use and sent to the press (LE MONDE, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE) by providing them just with the link on wikimedia commons. therefore, kindly reestablish my paintings where they were, it's important. many thanks and best regards, mischa vetere

Ausser File:Heidi fanal (collage).jpg ok, "Heidi fanal" ist eine collage aus unfreien Inhalten, das ist hier ein free content-Projekt für Mediendateien die jeder weiterverwenden darf zu jedem Zweck inklusive kommerzieller Zwecke. Aber: Die misßbräuchliche Verwendung von Commons ist zu beenden. Hotlinking ist absolut nicht erwünscht und Commons ist KEIN webhoster für deinen privaten Blog. Das geht garnicht, wenn du die Bilder in deinem Blog verwenden möchtest lad sie woanders rauf. Beachte zudem, dass sie hier auf Commons von jedem bearbeitet werden können und dürfen. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

noch eine bitte - die schöne verhängung meines wikipedia-eintrags mit macht 3 portraits "mv 2009.jpg" (drei mal das gleiche bild) von mir (davon eines verhängt / gebraucht für besagte wikipedia-eintrag) sichtbar. bitte zwei davon löschen (achtung: eines davon ist schlechte qualität). danke und guter gruss

Die nicht im Artikel verwendeten habe ich als Dubletten gelöscht. --Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Verbindlichen Dank! Neues Problem - wie muss ich die von Euch neuangelegte Kategorie "Mischa Vetere" (s. beim Hochladen genau benamsen, damit es automatisch in das mit wikipedia gelinkte Dossier kommt? - Bei hab ich nicht an diese Möglichkeit gedacht und, weil es um Poesie geht, eine Kategorie "Poetry of Switzerland" kreiert. Kannst Du mir bitte richtigen Code angeben und dieses Bild dazu-codieren. Ich glaube, nachher bin ich fit für selbständiges Arbeiten - Herzlichen Dank nochmals und Sonntagsgruss. mischa v.

Ich verstehe das Problem nicht. Wie du einem Bild eine Kategorie gibst weist du scheinbar ([[Category:Bsp]] ans Ende der Bildbeschreibung), alles weitere siehe Commons:Kategorien. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, ich kann es nicht umcodieren, leider.

ich verstehe nicht, weshalb mein edukativer kommentar zu "LE BATEAU IVRE par mv 2010", welcher zum bild gehört, gelöscht wurde - dieser ist für das verständnis des bildes vital, gehört zur 'donation' - wie gestern bei maintenance talk angebracht, finde ich zensur dieser art bedenklich, zumal wenn nichts historisch oder ethisch unrichtiges gesagt wird. deshalb bitte wieder als bildkommentar einfügen:

"this historically 'immoral' relationship between young paul verlaine (1844-1896) and very young arthur RIMBAUD (1854-1891), the scandal of paris (leading to a note in the local press, unfortunately PARIS...), is exemplary until today - "the rest of homophobie at its best!" 3 questions: would we know RIMBAUD without verlaine? would both have written what they wrote without each other? what moral is provided by an immoral acting church (for whom)?

mischa vetere, april 2010"

danke und gruss

Why are pics deleted?


I'm inquiring why are the following pics tag as copyright violation and deleted? These are pics taken by myself and shouldn't be flagged.

Teal_Defying_Inequality.jpg Teal_laugh.jpg Tealheadshots1.PNG

because they where grabbed from other websites, facebook, and uploaded here with false authorship claims. Pay attention to copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know how to reply to the other thread so I'm starting a new topic

This is in regards to Teal_Defying_Inequality.jpg Teal_laugh.jpg Tealheadshots1.PNG

I took this picture myself how can this be claim as false? If ever you see that picture uploaded to facebook I think I'm the one who upload it there. Not sure if you have a process to verify the authenticity of the picture.

The "Teal_Defying_Inequality.jpg" was taken when I went to the Defying Inequality Event in San Francisco

The "Teal_laugh.jpg" was taken when we went to Wicked last February 28

The "Tealheadshots1.PNG" was taken last Feb 21 Wickedly spice5.

Then please upload ORIGINAL photos from you camera with intact EXIF data, not image in exactly the same thumbnailed size that everyone can download from facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded new copies of the files Teal_headshot_withEXIFinfo.jpg and Teal1_Blurred_Background.jpg with all the EXIF info intact. Thanks. ----Wickedly spice5. Wickedly spice5 (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello, you may want to respond to this user's undeletion request or look at my talk page where he requested the same --Justass (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinpin (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And???? What do you want to tell me. --Martin H. (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Bei Dir scheint es schon Methode zu sein. Du hast das Bapperl gepflanzt, der Uploader bestätigt Dir hier dass es seine eigene Fotografie ist. Offenbar findet er sich nicht genau damit zu recht, was er tun soll. Und kann noch schlechter Englisch als Du. Hilf ihm doch, anstatt ihn blosszustellen. --Allesmüller (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Der obige Kommentar wurde hier platziert bevor ich das Bild markiert habe. Es wurden weitere eindeutige Urheberrechtsverletzungen gefunden und dieses Bild wurde zudem auf einer anderen Seite publiziert. Der Uploader ist auf ru.wp wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung kurz dannach gesperrt worden. --Martin H. (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Szalasioath.jpg

Hello Martin, regarding your request for the origin of [6] I must say I used the automatic tool to transfer the image from the English wikipedia that, as far as I can remember (I transferred the image a long time ago), accepted it as sufficently documented to enter Commons. For further information I suggest you contact the original uploader to the English wikipedia that appears in the image description page.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Will write him. However, a 1945 photo will in no case be public domain, citing only the wikipedia project is considered not as a valid source according to Commons:Licensing#License information (except for self-published works like self-created photos). --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Ufabc-lula-camisa.jpg

Hi Martin! This image and other official images of President Lula are provided by the Press Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic, you can find it, among many others, the official website, here: These images are available for unrestricted use provided the source is cited, see the official note about it here: And more information about it here: https: / / Originally, this picture can be found in this gallery: As you can see in the comments I made to perform upload the photo I kept credit to the original photographer (Ricardo Stuckert / PR), thus fulfilling determined. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or suggestions on the subject, I am available. A hug --User:LongDouble (talk)

Then provide a link to the source. The permission depends on the website (source) so you must link it, otherwise it is not clear that the image is covered by that permission and it fails the COM:L requirements of a clear and verifiable source. --Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added to the source of the photo a link to the website containing the photo. If there is anything else I can do to ensure that this file is not removed from Wikipedia, please let me know. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Hi Martin! I added to the image the link to the original source, which can be seen that note of "unrestricted use" I quoted above. However, the image still is scheduled to be deleted. What more do I need to avoid that it be removed? --User:LongDouble (talk)

I am still awaiting a response. Thank you! --User:LongDouble (talk)

If you say, that an image is from an source than it obviously must come from that source and not from anywhere else. Ill reupload an image that COMES from that source. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Ufabc-campus-blocos-a-b.jpg and Ufabc-entrada-bloco-b.jpg

I did these photos personally, and my intention was just to make them available in the public domain in the easiest way possible. The first is in my library of images since my first visit to UFABC when I did it. And the second was taken this week. If I did something wrong to upload these photos let me know. I will do everything possible to correct and make it clear to their origin. Thanks in advance for your patience and the help they're giving me. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Yes, can you explain why someone else uploaded the same image taken from their website? --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. But I already distributes this and many other pictures I took of UFABC via MSN, Orkut sites for student organizations and various other places. But this picture was taken by me, yeah, sure, I have it in my picture library. Can I replace it with several of the photos I have here, taken by me, of the UFABC. If there is any better way for me to share these photos and make them available do not hesitate to tell me. I am fully available and I do not see why so much problem trying to share a photo. I understand your concerns about copyright, but I still intend to make many uploads, for this article to other articles, of other pictures that I've here, and that I still will do, and I still wish released they without problems on Wikipedia . Teach me the right way to do this and I'll do. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Upload a full size photo with intact EXIF data. The image had exactly the same downscaled size and was clearly taken from their website. You copied enough other photos with false information from their sites and the copyright statement is absolutely clear: Copyright UFABC. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I saw that picture Ufabc-entrada-bloco-b.jpg is no longer scheduled to be deleted, thanks. But the image Ufabc-campus-blocos-a-b.jpg is still scheduled to be deleted. Is there something I can do to prevent this? I could swap it for any other of the old images that I took the same time as her, but I do not see how these images would not be erased, since the current image is to be deleted. Still available, thanks. --User:LongDouble (talk)

Ufabc-entrada-bloco-b.jpg was never questionated. File:Ufabc-campus-blocos-a-b.jpg is - not even your date is correct! This is a copy from the Ufabc website and an exact duplicate of File:OBRAS UFABC2.jpg. Provide a full size version, otherwise I have no reason to believe your words. --Martin H. (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Martin H.

I have just found out that you have deleted the Timiriova file despite the detailed explanations I have provided. I consider this an abuse and have posted a request for dispute settlement to have this matter discussed.

As far as the Leshchenko file is concerned, you are again wrong and I have the feeling that this is getting a personal vendetta. But I am deleting the file myself. However I would appreciate if in the future you would not just tag the pictures you do not like but explain what is wrong. You are acting as a policeman but in a democratic system the policeman cannot also be the judge. This would be a dictatorship.

Hochachtungsvoll Afil (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You claimed the photo as beeing an document of administrative nature, it is clearly not anything like that. The justification of my tagging was 'fails Template:PD-RU-exempt completely'. Thats still correct. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Book cover

Hello again. I found this book jacket at the NYPL digital site and was surpised to see it there.[7] It was published in 1926–1927. Does that mean the work is still under copyright? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally dont see how that dust jacket can qualify for copyright, its Commons:Licensing#Simple design at least in Germany. The source is {{NYPL-image-DigitalID|id=487722}}, the license tag might be {{PD-ineligible}}, it should also have {{Nazi symbol}}, inapropriate use is an criminal act at least in Germany (en:Strafgesetzbuch section 86a). --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy response. I was going to upload it and place it on the Adolph Hitler wikipedia entry instead of the photo of the book. I think the cover has more impact. Is it okay then to upload the image to Commons? just doublechecking. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO yes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will upload but you might want to check if I've marked the license correctly. Again, many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the initial book cover I was searching for was this one.[8] Is this permissible to upload to Commons? Thanks again for all your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO not so easy, thats not {{PD-ineligible}}. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Licenza Rivista_Corso_carristi_116_AUC.jpg

Scusa se scrivo in italiano ma il mio inglese è di basso livello. Ti scrivo in merito alla licenza d'uso della foto in oggetto per comunicarti che sono il proprietario (insieme ad altri 69 compagni di corso) dell'immagine che è stata utilizzata come copertina della nostra rivista del 116° Corso Allievi Ufficiali di Complemento dell'Esercito Italiano che si è tenuto dal luglio al dicembre 1984 a Caserta. La rivista (foto compresa) è stata creata anche graficamente da noi allievi come contributo e ricordo della nostra attività militare. Non esiste un copyright del documento essendo lo stesso realizzato ad utilizzo personale di ognuno di noi ed è per questo motivo che chiunque ne può trarre vantaggio dall'uso in quanto lo scopo della rivista non è di natura commerciale. Come prova del possesso posso solo inviarti una copia della pagina dove viene indicato l'elenco dei partecipanti al corso. Il fatto che sia una foto ed un documento libero da copyright è riportato nel contesto della rivista. Fammi sapere come posso risolvere il problema e cercherò di fare del mio meglio. Cordiali saluti. Alessandro Carosio - Roma/Italia --Leopard11 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • non è di natura commerciale: Files on Commons must be free for commercial reuse (L'uso commerciale dell'opera deve essere permesso, see Commons:Licenze)
  • libero da copyright: pubblico dominio dopo 70 anni dalla morte dell'autore
Please provide written permission from the copyright holder(s). --Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File:აბასთუმანი 1930 წ.jpg

Hello Martin,

Painting from 1930 have to get permition from OTROS? Geagea (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From the painter, see, No 32, the copyright has not expired, it last the authors lifetime +70 years. The license template {{PD-Art}} is wrong for that painting. --Martin H. (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So you have to delete all tha category: Category:Paintings of Elene Akhvlediani. Sorry. Geagea (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
? Thats a quick answer, why did you upload them then? --Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My mistake of understanding the lisence. Geagea (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will have a look tomorow, Its late now. --Martin H. (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This also Category:The Knight in the Panther's Skin by Irakli Toidze. Geagea (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, was hard to do. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Geagea (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

delete request

help me to delete theese file

  • File:Student uniform.JPG
  • File:Student uniform2.JPG
  • File:Student uniform3.JPG
  • File:Student uniform4.JPG
  • File:Student uniform5.JPG
  • File:Student uniform6.JPG
  • File:Student uniform7.JPG
  • File:Student uniform8.JPG
  • File:Student uniform9.JPG
  • File:Student uniform10.JPG
  • File:Student uniform11.JPG
  • File:Student uniform12.JPG
  • File:Student uniform13.JPG
I agree that this files are trash and I honestly ask how someone can waste his time and our resources and upload such ugly and completely useless files, but no, I will not 'help you to delete' as this is not my function nor my power on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov.jpg

I apologize, I must have added the PD-ineligible tag, as I am very used to using tha tag, for my signature images. Thanks for the correction. :) Connormah (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I also used the chance to remove the typo from that persons category, Category:Gurbanguly_Berdimuhammedow, if you want rename of your file please say so. --Martin H. (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whiskers history at night

Hi Martin I am just getting back to Wiki and re-editing various contributions. I notice that you deleted the above picture but at the time I emailed "permissions" as requested. Other images I also upload to Commons have been deleted by Killiondude, even though I email various permissions for them. we wiki Peter Evans (restaurateur) Sorry, but at the time I was knew to the vagaries of WIki and had no real idea of the various 'permissions' required by Commnons, so I think some may have been given the incorrect permission. However, the sources are confirmed adn the images will be going up shortly. please advise to whom I shoul address any queries? PS Sorry the computer I am using for this does not have the line that you use to put in signature. Georgie sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgie sydney (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The information on how to provide written permission was explained on your previous accounts talkpage. Please ask any questions there based on the given information and help saving the time and effort it will cost to start an explanation from zero. Additionally see Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :/

Well, I just get pissed off with all this copyright stuff, and I thought that it might be a Bot that removes the images that I upload, then I made a test with the photo of the band Strike. I won't do it again, one more time sorry (: Crash Overclock (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad test. --Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


For the Dutch... rather than NIS in full name - do you think there is any reason to delete the NIS (fully spelt out) category? Or is it better to leave it? Thanks again SatuSuro (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Category:Dutch East Indies Railway Company. When I find a source that writes an English name I prefer that English name instead of the Dutch name 'Nederlandsch-Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij' to open this great content of ecnomomic history to the English speaking community. The original name is always written in the category description which I think is essential because many companies dont have articles. See Category:Companies of the Netherlands Indies. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I suppose my creation of the dutch name as a category was that I was so used to seeing the dutch name in records all the time when I was living in Java. Maybe it should be deleted then? The category in dutch name? SatuSuro (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I found what you mean, Category:Nederlands - Indische Spoorweg Maatschappij. I dont read many books on this, only a few sources just what I find online. So please do what you think is correct, either merge your category into mine or my category into the original name. The important is IMO to collect all files together and to describe what we collected, the name can be changed quickly with CommonsDelinker. --Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I am not clear first time off - please excuse my way of expressing myself. I will empty the NIS category in preference of the english usage - as your indication of Category:Companies of the Netherlands Indies- they all the english versions - maybe it can be a redirect? SatuSuro (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would create a {{category redirect}} in any case, that will improve the project for our Dutch users too. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Images Copyright

Hello, this is the first time I upload anything to wikipedia.

I uploaded three images for the wiki page of a band I work with. Every image I've uploaded (and others I plan to upload) are created by me. I mean, I am the original artist. You say something about the license, but I don't understand what I have to do to keep everything smooth and legit. I'm totally new to this, and I want to learn. Can you please teach me what I have to do exactly? Cruizg (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Every file on Commons requires a license tag indicating for a free license that allows everyone to reuse the file anywhere for every purpose including e.g. modification or commercial reuse. File:Sexto sonar grupal.jpg does not have a license tag. Only the copyright holder can provide such a free license, if the work was published elsewhere before or if the uploader is not the photographer/creator evidence of written Commons:Permission is required, thats a written document from the copyright holder allowing to reuse the file under the free license and/or describing the way of copyright transfer if the person who grants the license is not the photographer/creator. --Martin H. (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Great... but in this case I am the photographer/creator. The pictures are only published on the official website of the band. There you can see my name on the pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruizg (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the work was published elsewhere before evidence of written Commons:Permission is required. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia prime ministers

Why is this license {{PD-Yugoslavia}} good only for images of Nikola Pasic and Džemal Bijedić but for other images of prime ministers is not ??

I dont care about old uploads, I cant be everywhere. You must provide a second license tag, thats written inside that tag. Additional you must provide evidence, that any second license tag is valid.--Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And note: Evidence must be given for every photographic work individually, so comparing to other images is always a bad idea, no matter whats written there or if that is correct or not. --Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Celeste Thorson images

Regarding Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Double-check_requested, subsequent correspondence via the OTRS system confirms that the uploader was also the photographer, so we have a self-licensing situation here. Does that satisfy your concern about transfer of copyright and licensing rights?--Chaser (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If everything is confirmed and documented in OTRS, of course yes. --Martin H. (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You stop your own nonsense

What is your problem. I provide you the data of about the source and u dont accept it. What the hell is wrong with you.

--Khangul (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The source information is incomplete and not verifiable. Provide correct information and dont claim yourself an author of something (painting) that you not created. --Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I upload the files here and u nominate them for deletion why you do that?

--Khangul (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You source information (own work) is untrue, your author information is untrue, you license claim is untrue... Thats completely inaceptable. --Martin H. (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Your deletions are questionable, this looks like {{PD-Afghanistan}} to me. Please stop edit warring, make a normal DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That would require a scource. And it would require not to lie - thats the problem here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why you miss use your powers here. I know you are a fu..... admin but what the hell is your problem. Anybody can claim these pictures, no body can prove it that it is his or her. why dont you let them unless someone appears and claims that this is his or her personal and then you can delete them right away after you have seen a prove that it really is. Do you know that the whole wikimedia is full of such pictures you cant simply delete all of them.

--Khangul (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because commons has problems with abusers does not allow you to lie. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin, Thanks for the note in regards to permissions. An email from the owner of the copyright to this image has been sent to granting full permission. My question to you.. should I expect a reply from wikimedia acknowledging receipt of the email? I've not received any communications thus far. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Tleong (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Tleong

Yes, you will receive a notification that the permission have been received and confirmed. That may take some time. --Martin H. (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Badnames in categories

So far categories that I signed Badname have been deleted. Please delete also the following categories: Category:Churches in Levice district, Category:High buildings in Bratislava, Category:Skyscrapers in Bratislava, because they won't be used at all or in the near future. Thanks for understanding. All the best, --Pescan (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I not see a need to delete them. This categories existed for many years - so I can not give a warant that not someone bookmarked this category or linked to it in Wikipedia with a {{commonscat}}. With a deletion the will be gone, without deletion e.g. an Italian user will see this. Also everyone who tries to add an image to that category in future will have his upload automatically placed into the correct category. You see, its much better to not delete such categories but redirect them. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reaction. I think that your reasoning is logical but for example category Skyscrapers in Bratislava shouldn't be there at all because there are no skyscrapers in Bratislava and all the links connected had to be corrected. And as to category Churches in Levice district it's only changing its name and I doubt if there's any link to this category. This is my reasoning. Regards, --Pescan (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello, recently this user uploaded images that where added to the Portugal wiki article by indefinitely blocked user User:Jimmy.T.[9], and unless Paragariko and Jimmy.T. have a sister it's another sockpuppet. I am not sure about "own work" as I managed to find only one possible copyvio [10] vs File:Roda de Jongo em volta da fogueira.jpg with altered levels --Justass (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a duck. I gave some info why it is a duck, and another tip, in this deleted version of one of the files he uploaded. --Martin H. (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I not noted that you already identified that copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


Ciao, volevo segnalarti che il file che mi contesti è sotto licenza adatta. Vedi qui: Quindi non ho violato le regole. Grazie in anticipo per la risposta

Only the copyright holder, noone else!! can license something. Uploading images to YOUR OWN FLICKR ACCOUNT has NO effects on copyright. The license is invalid, you flickr account is a violation of flickr guidlines and copyrights. So delete that flickr account immidiatly and stop uploading non-free images here. --Martin H. (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Talking Heads black and white.jpg

Should this image be marked or not? I notice everyone is scared to mark it. It is an old poster from the 1970s supposedly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request. I will start it with the simple rational Flickr uploader is maybe the creator of the fan work and the text but not of the photo used in this leaflet - objections? --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I have none. Go ahead if you wish. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded the photo. About half of the photos in the photographer's photostream at Flickr are taken by him; the other half are ones he liked, or aquired some other way. This specific upload was a leaflet, sent to a group of people who had enjoyed the music of the Talking Heads at the trendy "CBGB" Club in NYC, with the invitation to come and attend the first taping of some of their music. Grant Gouldon, the person who uploaded it to Flickr, felt it was special and tagged it with a Creative Commons license. In retrospect, it was only after I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons that I realized the band had used a photo to be used in their upcoming record to be placed on the invitation leaflet. I agree with deletion from Commons, but of the other pics from the same source-- please don't go crazy deleting his other photos, which ARE his and under CC-BY license that I uploaded. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
See the deletion request on this image. --Martin H. (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

CC licenses non-revocable

Regarding the Miley Cyrus image: I didn't realize that CC licenses are non-revocable, and this is probably very important to know for future reference! Sorry for putting you through all the trouble. I'll follow up on my notifications and changes immediately. – Keraunoscopia (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Was no problem at all. --Martin H. (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lasalle-barcelos

Hi Martin, not sure it's worth tagging those images, I deleted them previously as lacking permission, they got reuploaded today, I nuked them, they apparently got reuploaded again (or you wouldn't be tagging them). Just delete the lot? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think - ok, I believe - that the photos are own work, so a license correction is possible. I add the contribs to my watchlist and will nuke them in ~8 days if the license is not corrected. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Righto. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch your language, dear Martin

Dear Martin, whatever I may have done wrong, please keep your manners. I did not steal anything, I am PAYING for everything with my own money. I think it would be wiser if you had waited for my answer to your, ahem, remarks, before accusing any one of stealing. I ordered the pictures I am uploading, I am paying for them with my not so abundant money and Bundesarchiv has raised no objections at all in their being used in Commons. I can send you their mails if you like but, whatever the mistakes I may have done, watch your language...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Yegoyan

Please see my comment here. All files linked to Gevork Nazaryan should be treated with caution, if not deleted on sight. They will be as likely as not be unfree, and even if free they will almost certainly be mislabelled. Thanks for your good work here. Dbachmann (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Possible new sock this user. Check please. Fabiano msg 23:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I processed this one Martin. The connect is Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed, and I have blocked the newest sock. Tiptoety talk 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

King SS

Hello sir, I understood now, will not repeat them again, Thanks for the advice Mr.

Possible, request master, try again to speak Arabic if you can, if what you know is not a problem Thank you My friend--King SS (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont speak Arabic. --Martin H. (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry Mr. no problem--King SS (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I upload pictures (Own work)..--King SS (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The first step is to create photographs with your own hands. The second step is to read Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. look at these pictures of the good is not good and has taught me [File:Alison_Lohman_2.jpg]--King SS (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment... eh, yes comment: Stupid and shameless. --Martin H. (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Check 3

Possible sock this user. Check please. Fabiano msg 03:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A duck, check out the strange pt:Usuário Discussão:Lhca gkl KCA and compare to pt:Usuário Discussão:Lhca gkl. I saw that too late, so I checked them and Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the user is Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and I blocked the sock. Tiptoety talk 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin. From the Deletion requests page i can tell that you are familiar with Wustefuchs "work" :-). Today I warned him about it on our wikipedia after i saw a photo he uploaded: "Please don't do this or you will get blocked"; after what he responded with "Whats wrong?". Judging from his commons talk page and the amount of uploaded photos, he most deffinetly knows whats wrong, but he doesnt care. Since he keeps using copyrighted photos in his articles, i suggest someone should check his "contributions" and block him or something like that if necessary. Best regards,--Saxum (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin. I could be wrong but maybe User:ToxicWasteGrounds = User:Superjellyfish and possibly others. Per block log and User:Superjellyfish record on en wp and posting here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK - maybe not ToxicWaste but the other one is probably worth a review. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Thankfully in this case all sentences are very short and quick to read ;) From the contributions of User:Superjellyfish I can see the relation to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armani Simpson.jpg, a deletion request targeting an image of User:EdwardfromSegaForum, the deletion was supported by 2 sockpuppets of that user (IP and user), collected in Category:Sockpuppets of Mykee881211. The strange and stupid rassism claim was already written at COM:AN, see removal. I think that does the connection, check will follow. --Martin H. (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed both, +1 other, +2 older, Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Sockpuppets_of_Mykee881211. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Martin - it looked likely :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS may be of interest. Tiptoety talk 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Read that twice, initially while opening Category:Sockpuppets_of_Mykee881211 and a second time because the sockpuppet ToxicWasteGrounds (reporting himself). New reports now on third look. However, the case on en.wp might be more difficult or filthy, the case on Commons is simple and obvious. See CU-list for my email. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I already read it. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on Emily Carr image

Hello again, Martin. Thanks again for your help last time with the book jacket. I have a question today about a painting by Emily Carr, a Canadian artist, that I wanted to upload. [11] I notice that her wikipedia entry has a photo of one of her works on it, and it is accompanied by this tag: PD-CANADA. The way I read it, it sounds as though Canadian copyright law is different from that in the U.S., with the life of the artist plus 50 years. If that's true, it would seem okay for me to upload the image in question, but I wanted to run it by you first. Thanks again for all your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See COM:L#Canada, the copyright expiration for canadian artists (if it is not reasonable to assume a different country as the country of origin, e.g. published abroad which is hard to say for a painting or painter lived abroad a longer time) then 50 years pma is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. Just uploaded. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


another sockpuppet of User:Chace Watson also it appear that User:Zimmer611 is sleeper of the same person[12] as already blocked User:Zimmer610 --Justass (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. Tiptoety talk 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Buenas Tardes Martin, antes nada gracias por la información, pues estoy empezando a wikificar y siempre vienen bien los consejos, pero respecto a la petición de la calidad de tamaño es poco lo que se puede hacer. No obstante intentaré conseguir una foto de Pedro Jesús con el Laúd Barroco en próximas actuciones. Gracias. Saludos, Jose Blas BG.

Commons copyright

Do you think the commons copyright in this link is valid? If so, are the images uploadable from it? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think. That is applicable for the text, but not the embeded videos and photos. --Martin H. (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm suspiscious

Again :) The name is familiar and may relate to this. Quite possibly unrelated this is rather odd too. Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange case. 6 accounts, sockpuppets of en:User:Macechap, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macechap. --Martin H. (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thought there was something about it - many thanks (& to the list again?). Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No harm, usernamespace only, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Macechap/Archive#Report_date_00:26.2C_17_April_2010_.28UTC.29, the problem on en.wp is prevented by IP block(s) that causes a spill-over to other projects, Commons in this case. Will block the socks, sockmaster is MallanWMA (talk · contribs) (see Category:Sockpuppets of MallanWMA). --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the "no harm" but unless watched carefully presumably some disruption might occur. Interesting user page - thanks for that :). I imagine this may be connected. --Herby talk thyme 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That was created between the first check the first block ;) I just wrote to the CU-l. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Blairmania_2006.jpg Copyright

Hey Martin, thanks for tagging the image so quickly! Mr. Wilson will be sending me his email for the copyright release under the CC-BY-SA sometime today. I'll quickly fire it off to the OTRS permissions email so everything will be ok. —Forgott3n (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The image not has a license tag. See the information inside the red box. --Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Fuerzas Especiales Michoacán.jpg

Da du nicht spanisch sprichst würde mich gerne interesieren wie du darauf kommst, dass das Bild nicht frei ist, ansonsten wäre wohl eine Löschantrag schlauer.--Sanandros (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Siehe Dateidisk. --Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


I believe (ducky) that DnDoOoN is also a sockpuppet of Chace. Not sure. --Bsadowski1 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont see a strong evidence, for a checkuser the account is stale. --Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly delete image

Hello, recently there has been a dispute over the copyright status of File:Ryan Miller (ice hockey).jpg. We have since concluded that the image should be deleted, however, no action has been taken. Since then, a new image was uploaded in place of that image on Wikipedia, one of much higher quality. So it's no longer even needed in the first place. However, the image is still in use on every other Wikipedia. Any suggestions?--Ezekiel 7:19 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make that statement in the deletion request, a link to the new image would be good, and if you think the deletion is urgently use {{Speedy|Reason (e.g.: to speed up deletion process, copyvio)}}. --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link. Thanks for the tip--Ezekiel 7:19 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Check 4

Possible new sock this user. Check please. Fabiano msg 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. Thanks for reporting. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Zvonimir II.jpg

“removal of files by User:Wustefuchs, false author claims, copyright violations.”
—Martin H.

Dear Martin H.

Despite the "not so good" track record of our colleague Wustefuchs, I have sincerely believed that he is the author of the before mentioned file. The user who asked for the deletion of the file had not listed any valid reasons, and he did not notify Wustefuchs at all.

The file has been used at many Wikimedia projects, and nobody objected any violation.

If it is not too much to ask, would you tell me where Wustefuchs took the file from, so that we could use the file (but under the provisions of fair use as set by US legislature).

Thanks in advance for the help you may provide us.

Please, if you find this message not worthy of an answer, feel free to delete it or not answer.

Yours truly

Bugoslav (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The track record is not not so good, it is disastrous - anonymity makes it possible (or better: assumed anonymity may lead to a moraly wrong behaviour). I dont accept to live with this users tricks and claims longer. In answer to your question: This photo of a living person does not qualify for fair use under EDP per the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. If a portrait qualifies then there are much better e.g. on the official website. --Martin H. (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Brigitte bardot jpg 2

Thank's for your message. How i can do to finds the actually rights holder? And if I find his name, I've just to indicate it? Or do i have to send a e-mail to obtain a permission. How does it works in that case? It's my first upload. Sincerely --MIKEREAD (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Finding out authors/copyright holders e.g. requires some research, I cant tell you in this case how to find it quickly, as in many cases it is maybe not possible to find it out. Yes, you need written permission, the copyright holder must agree to free reuse allowing reuse in any form or media and for every purpose including modification of the photo and commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Just noticed that was a speedy deletion opportunity there for the g-zealous file. Sorry, Mikemoral♪♫ 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the picture

I want to apologize for uploading the photo of Wayne Hennessey, so thanks for let me know. --Bolsom (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

read about en:free content (free to use for anything including commercial use) and dont make false author claims. Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Martín Fierro

Es una foto que encontré en Google Imágenes y que puede ser accedida por cualquiera, por qué tanto lío por ello?

You are not allowed to copy images from random websites or google imagesearch here. This is a free content project, read Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) and following your comment at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dejavu.jpg - read at least Commons:Alcance del proyecto/Principio de precaución! --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Luciano Menendez File source is not properly indicated: File:L.B.Menéndez.PNG

Hello Martin H., look, the File:L.B.Menéndez.PNG comes from a documentary (I took the photo). That picture was taken wen this man was the commander of the Third Section of the Argentine Army, in the Nationar Reaorganization Process (1976-1983). According with the Argentine Law, all pictures with more than 25 years are in public domain, and this picture was taken before 1983. --Stricken (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is from a movie then the 25 years is wrong. In any case you have to provide full source and author information, the file was tagged as missing source information and that is not improved. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Könnte [13] eine Socke von [14] sein? (1) befaßt sich ausschließlich mit Beiträgen von (2). Siehe auch [15] sowie diese Benutzerseitenänderung, die doch sehr nach "versehentlich mit dem falschen Account eingeloggt" aussieht. Keiner der beiden Accounts befaßt sich mit wesentlich anderem als der Pflege der eigenen Galleries und Fotos... -- smial (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke, den hatte ich heute Nacht gesucht. Brauchts keine hellseherischen Fähigkeiten für, eindeutig der selbe. Missbrauch liegt nicht vor, besonderen Mehrwehrt bietet der Account aber auch nicht. Exhibitionismus und COM:ANN-Spam im edukativen Kostüm. Unter Beobachtung, und das nicht wegen der "schönen" Benutzerseite. --Martin H. (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ps: Der Mehrfachaccount wird wohl SUL bedingt sein, da unter de:User:Polarstern bereits einen Unbeteiligten gibt. --Martin H. (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Er revertiert stumpf meine Löschungen der imho mißbräuchlich verwendeten Bild-Annotationsfunktion, das nervt halt. Adminansprache? Die Bilder selbst will ich (von meiner Seite her) gar nicht unbedingt gelöscht haben, obwohl ich die Bildmontagen allesamt für völlig überflüssig halte, den anderen Kram für grenzwertig. Aber bei LA auf unnütze Dödel- und Tittenbilder rennt man gegen Windmühlen an (Zensur!!!!einself), darauf habe ich einklich keinen Bock mehr. -- smial (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ps.: Ich bin sehr dafür, daß wir auf Commons gute Fotos zu allen wichtigen und unwichtigen Themen haben, auch zu sexuellen, religiösen und anderen eventuell kritischen Themen. Aber bitte mit Betonung auf "gut" und nicht als Sammelsurium von Selbstdarstellern und flickr-Bilder-Sammlern. -- smial (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(bk, ich wahr schon weiter;) )Nachdem durch Jimmy Wales Eingriff in das Projekt Admins nicht mehr zur unbedingten Verteidigung von solchen verwendungslosen Penisbildern verpflichted sind setzt sich glaube ich in dem Berreich endlich ein Qualitätsdenken durch, der dieses (IMO) dämliche "no censorship"-Denken zu Lasten der Qualität und zu Gunsten von solchen Exibitionisten und unsinniger Quantität an unbrauchbarem Material eindämmen wird. Ich persönlich Begrüße dass. Im Interesse der Qualität des Projektes und der eigenen Ansprüche an das Projekt war es keine Freude, jedes noch so grottige Penisbild auch noch verteidigen zu müssen nur weil irgendein Benutzer irgendwann meinte sein Penis sei von dringendem öffentlichen Interesse und Commons der Meinung war, dass wenn ein Bild einmal hochgeladen wurde hat es eine Daseinsberechtigung im Sinne der Zensurfreiheit. Löschdiskussionen die berechtigt die Nutzlosigkeit eines Uploads feststellen können gestellt werden und sollten keine Einbahnstrasse sein. --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I took that picture myself, which was posted on to her Twitter account and Facebook page. I am the owner for the copyright license to that picture, and you're saying I am violating my own copyright license.

Also the website you linked, you should have studied extensively by reading the disclaimer at the bottom:

All pictures are property of their respective owners and are strictly for non-commercial use only. FanPix.Net is a not-for-profit organization. All advertising proceeds are used to maintain its servers.

I am that respective owner of the picture. Johnny Beta (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats unlikely true. You first posted a photo that is not your own work, so if you have a photo that you took yourself you wouldnt have violated our copyright policy in the first place. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you calling me a liar? The first one may have violated the copyright policy, the reason I uploaded that is because I wanted a better picture, when you deleted that, I uploaded one of mine. Also, in your reply you have forgotten to mention anything about the second picture, which is rightfully mine and also your inability and error at reading the terms of use at the website you mentioned as evidence for the deletion of it, which does not qualify for its deletion. - Johnny Beta (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You may upload a full size & full quality version, not a version with stripped camera information that everyone can find elsewhere on the web. I don’t call you a liar, but I say that your explanation referring to a websites terms of use that says, that the images are not theirs, does not obviously mean that they are yours - given also your first upload. The burden of proof is with you, not me, so I’m not forced to assume that every photo appearing on that website is your work. Also its your duty do indicate for previous publication of the work, see the upload form. --Martin H. (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to upload the picture again, and don't you dare take it down! I personally photographed her in that picture and I have the full resolution picture with all the information that you want! Obviously I'm not going to give the full resolution picture to you, for COPYRIGHT REASONS !!! Her album is coming out now, and I can't afford to distribute her pictures! YOU Find a way for me to prove it to you, without transferring you the picture, and I will! Until then, the picture stays UP! Thank you. - Johnny Beta (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If you indicate for previous publication correcty we may find a sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This picture has been originally posted on Facebook in the group "Gebo Club". You can find it there. I have no clue if that picture has been copied and posted somewhere else. I only know of that publication which has been made by my team. - Johnny Beta (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Then it was published with an information about the person who published it (already found it), that person can confirm the copyright status to COM:OTRS. If the person is you it would be easy, no reason to hide the obviouse, unhidden information of --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:OTRS sent to the email which was posted. - Johnny Beta (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Winona Ryder.jpg

Hello! It tells there was copyvio image on the Flickr. Can you, please, let me know if deleted image is this one? --Erud (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that image, see log was uploaded 3 times, only the very first upload was a different one. It was deleted 2 times per copyvio and one time per deletion request, also that "Indio" is listed at COM:QFI, the only photographs he created himself in his photostreal are that of his penis. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: 4 times, also under File:Winonaryder.jpg one time. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! :) --Erud (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User Marcinho-vitor

Hello Martin, can you delete all images by this user? I've checked them and they are all from other sites - and it's clear when user claims thirs source is "Google" (in the first one, he said "Google. then you save and edit"). I can't identify each one now, but some were taken from this Panoramio account. Ednei amaral (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It was already done by another attentive admin. --Martin H. (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did u delete my photo?

I uploaded a photo which is "amber_kuo.jpg". It is a public domain photo. Why? Please ask me if u dunno Chinese. It can be uploaded to here!! Why did u delete it be4 asking me? I am very disappointed!! Please check it Now! -- Tszkin(Call Me) 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please repsond me ASAP!! --Tszkin(Call Me) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys, do u check? You deleted wrong photo. --Tszkin(Call Me) 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked at zh.wp for undeletion as the license you selected on Chinese wp was NOT selected by the uploader but by you. The image on zh.wp was missing a license tag, you cant copy an image here with a wrong license claim that was not provided by the uploader. However, my restoration of the 'no license' tag on zh.wp was unecessary as the image was deleted imidiatly after that for missing a license, see zh:File:郭采潔.jpg and zh:User_talk:Jimmy xu wrk, dont manipulate license tags just to transfer the image, noone else but the copyright holder can give a license tag. --Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So, what do u want? Public domain! Same as Chinese Wikipedia!! Why dun u correct it or ask me since I chose the the wrong uploader?--Tszkin(Call Me) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Tszkin, its not a problem here on Commons. The problem was with the original file on zh.wp. The uplaoder on zh.wp did not give a license tag, you added the license tag and you are not allowed to add a license tag to someone else work! Not here and not on zh.wp, so your action on zh.wp was already not ok, any following action, transfering the image to Commons with a license statement that not comes from the uploader but from you, was also wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Admin approved my change in zhwp since the uploader asked me to help her. I know what the problem is. Thanks for ur warm-hearted answer. Thanks! --Tszkin(Call Me) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

About File:DadiDimitrovski.jpg

Hi Martin,

The picture is private collection of the owner the football player Vladimir Dimitrovski himself, he is my friend and gave it to me so i can use it for wikipedia! He even uses it on facebook the same, so please dont delete it because there is no copyright issue whatsoever.

Cheers and have a nice weekend, bkitanovski

He gave it to you and uses it himself...... Ok. He is not the photographer nor the copyright owner. He not gave it to you but you toke it from the source indicated. So whats the problem? You did not identify the correct copyright holder (source) nor the correct author (photographer), in fact the source infomration is completely missing. Additional it is unimportant what the subject does with an image of himself, neither he nor you have the legal right to grant others permission to reuse the image. But thats what you do with your upload here. Your upload here means that the copyright holder grants ANYONE, not only Wikipedia but the whole world, to reuse the image for commercial purposes. I delete the image. --Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Looks like User:Ericoazevedo [16] is impersonating some psychiatrist/writer. Photo taken from [17], [18] --Justass (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. All images are tagged (and so on my watchlist too), no need for further check or so. --Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Now checked and confirmed, the claim that he is posting a "photo to be used in the page with my name" was a bit too strange. --Martin H. (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Martin. You tagged this image for inadequate license information. In fact, I had included the url where the license information could be found, but possibly I put it in the wrong field, since the interface is not aligned properly. I just now moved it to the Permission field, where I added this note:

Owner grants both Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License at this location:

Also, when I uploaded this file, and five others with it, I sent the requested email to, in which I stated:

For the following files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on May 15, 2010, by User:Wmoran9550:
1. Alex_Day_on_Staten_Island_Ferry.jpg
2. Alex_Day_Moody_Alex_Picture.jpg
3. Alex_Day_at_Gizzis_Coffee_NY_with_Eddplant.jpg
4. Alex_Day_ChartJackers_gig_for_Children_in_Need.jpg
5. Alex_Day_Tardis_Wot.jpg
6. Alex_Day_YouTube_Hat_and_Pointless_Glasses.jpg

The following free public licenses apply:

I, the copyright holder of these images, hereby publish all images on this website under the following licenses:
1. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
2. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

You may select the license of your choice.

Alex Day

Those licenses are explicitly granted here:

I believe that will resolve any license questions concerning this file.
Wmoran9550 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:View of the Center of Hajdudorog.jpg

Hi Martin,
Sure, you are right. I thought that uploading to the commons does not have anything to do with commercial use.
I guess I've just learned something new again... Sorry for the hassle & thanks a lot.

Jojojoe (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


You said that file on flickr is not free or self-created by the flickr user. However it is free as it is licensed as such, so can I ask how you know that it wasn't created by the flickr user? Izzedine (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just look at, nothing in there is entirely own work. Everything is based on other peoples work, so non of the licenses is valid. Much of that is copyright violation from e.g. Google Earth or the unsourced photograph in the map you uploaded, some of the images may base on public domain files, but without a source to that public domain file we can also not reuse the images. So that flickr account is dead for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: And dont overwrite file please with some completely different files. --Martin H. (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Does every public domain file need a source? where does it say that? It wasn't different because it was the original picture. Howabout fair-use, would that be ok? Izzedine (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, every file need a source. Fair use is not ok on Commons, see Commons:Fair use, Commons is a free content-only project. --Martin H. (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it for us to worry about whether a flickr user should or shouldn't have used a certain license? isn't that rather their problem? Izzedine (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No. See COM:PRP and Commons:What Commons is not: Commons is not concerned about copyright holders not caring. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Hallo. Siehe File:Hassan al-Turabi.jpg, Sektion Usage. Ich wollte es revertieren aber komme nicht ran. Gruß -jkb- (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange, ich hatte gerade etwas in Wikipedia nachgeschaut und bin über die Hauptseite auf das Bild gestossen und habe wg. Urheberrecht und dem Vandalismus geschaut - da war es schon gelöscht. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ich glaube 10 Admins mindestens haben das Bild zur gleichen Zeit beackert :-) -jkb- (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Verrückt, dabei war es den ganzen Tag, seit 07:55 MESZ auf der HP und war seit 10:27 MESZ vandaliert, der Vandalismus wurde bis 15h sogar noch ausgebaut von unterschiedlichen IPs ohne das es jemand gemerkt hat. --Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Book cover

Hello again. Thanks for your help with the last book jacket. I was wondering if this dust jacket can be uploaded to Commons? It would appear that it involves only the lettering on the jacket, and no original artistic creation [19] Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is some lettering, but not on a white background but on some background that is clearly not to simple. So no, thats not pd-ineligible. --Martin H. (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, yes, I understand. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cook J

Looks like another sock puppet of your favorite sockpuppeteer [20] :) --Justass (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious, as long as he not do bad things again I let him exist, whats the purpose of blocking him and having sockpuppet number 100 of this idiot. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand now, Will not repeat them once again . Goodbye .--Cook J (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


See here - regards --Herby talk thyme 15:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was already (so to say) informed at some chat chanel that I went too. I was afraid that maybe something in the rights management was confused. I dont see a need for that extra admin-right, but ok. --Martin H. (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
An information to admins is of course necessary. Also admins should talk about the appropriate use of that tool on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Fy3jgyc8

Ich glaube da waren wir ziemlich gleichzeitig, hm? Was meinen die eigentlich immer, dass sich die Menschheit für ihr »bestes Stück« interessieren würden? Viele Grüße Körnerbrötchen » 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Vor allem mit einem Dateinamen "Blabla...". --Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.

Like I say, I am a complete novice but I appreciated someone pointing out my mistake to me, with a little explanation, rather than just deleting it and leaving me in the dark.

Have a great day!


19/05/10 Mr. Martin H. hi

My name is Josué, I am registered under the Nickname "Saljos" on Wikipedia. I am from Panama. I realized you have deleted some of the photos I uploaded to Commons and I think that there was any error, I explain. The photos I've been uploading to Commons belong to presidents of my country and as such are public figures and part of the history of Panama, as I have seen that there is no complete information at Wikipedia about these presidents, I take the audacity to colaborate a little. I think that because they are public people of my country, specifically the Presidents of Panama, the photos belong to the Panamanian state. If I violate any rules please educate me a bit and explains what and how to solve the problem. I await your prompt response.



Saljos, that does not make YOU the author. You said, that YOU are the photographer... wrong. Also it does not make your flickr account the source. You must provide a valid source, see COM:EI, you must provide a valid reason according to Copyright, COM:L, why the file is public domain. It is not public domain because it is a photo of a president. Read Commons:First steps and stop flickrwashing. --Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AW_Portrait_1910s.jpg is from the un published thesis metioned in the bibliography. The original source was likely the University of Washington Library, Special Collections section.

Please add any source or author information to the image description. Remember that the file is a stand-alone work here on Commons and that full author and source information including additional references if required for the source and author information is required here, localy on the file description page. I dont know what bibliography you mean. --Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Album cover deletion

Hi Martin,

Thank you for the message regarding the album cover that was deleted. Can you clarify what kind of image, and where it may be originally downloaded from so that it can exist on the relevant Wiki article?

Images on Commons must be free content, the copyright holder must allow anyone to reuse the image anywhere for every purpose. Album covers are not free, see COM:L, and fair use like in the English Wikipedia is not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally put File:Affiche Yannick Noah.jpg to watchlist as it was clear someone will tag it as cover. I really believe that this Flickr account as well as agency are creators of all those covers, designs and so on, thus they are free to license work as they wish. If you look at the Flickr or blog in most/many images they put names of authors, "Création Atelier" and so on. Also some files are available at quite big resolution. So please reevaluate your deletion decision and inclusion from Flickr questionable users -Justass (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I considered that too, but imo we can not be sure that their graphic design doesnt include other peoples work. I will check it again, maybe asking them will bring a sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Check 5

Possible new sock this user. Check please. Fabiano msg 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. Tiptoety talk 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bilder Hochladen

Hallo Martin,
Ich wuerde gerne ein paar Icons hochladen diese sind von Windows Vista (in den Message Fenstern).
Nun ist meine Frage: Darf ich diese hochladen?

P.S. hat sich erledigt WebsitesAndProgramming (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


✓ Done, the audio track has been removed from the file. The edited version has been overwritten, over the existing file. Hopefully, everything is now to your satisfaction? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

a reupload of the version with sound has been stated recently. -- 11:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Looks duckish. Thanks, — Dferg (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a look. Tiptoety talk 16:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked, I will note I tried my best to look for sleepers but he is using a wide range of IPs. Tiptoety talk 16:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence. Regards, — Dferg (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously and a known sockpuppet of Vegg, see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Veggggggggggg. However, it is a major problem with all blocks and I dont know a sollution. I observed that Vegg created not only the few known sockpuppets, but that there are maybe 100rds of stale socks from 2007 and older until today uploading 3-4 photographs related to one village that slipped through the massive Checkuser on Vegg with the result presented at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_12#Vegg. I know that this opinion makes Commons open to blackmail, but I would prefer an open account to let him do good work (I think he learned some basics) instead of 100rds of single purpose trash accounts. I suspect every 3rd account who contributed something to Category:Municipalities of Granada in the past is a copyright violationist sockpuppet of Vegg, so the problem still exists. That suspicion is of course based on absolutely nothing but my personal impression. Starting with checking some image inclusions in es:Categoría:Localidades de la provincia de Granada articles as well as Huelva province and looking who included them and looking a bit around as well as observing es:Especial:CambiosEnEnlazadas/Categoría:Localidades_de_la_provincia_de_Granada I observed that "village-related sockpuppet creation behavior" with some "meta sockpuppets" for maps. That findings finaly leads to the escalation and the Checkuser with removal of all photographic work and forcing Vegg to fix the mess he created with maps and COAs to save that files. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Martin. I'm sorry but there is not too much I can do on eswiki now with this as I do not have too much time now and I've resigned few days ago from bureaucrat, sysop there and I'll be likelly doing the same here in the upcoming days. Drini is a CU there as well as here & meta so he could probably deal with this more easilly. Thanks for your time, — Dferg (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC) PD: I've notified Ecemaml about this too, as it seems to me he's much more familiarized with this problem than me. — Dferg (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Meadows Foundation Tulipwood

Da hast Du ja schnell verstanden, was ich vorhatte. Ich hätte die Reihenfolge auch genauso fortgesetzt ;-) Gruß axpdeHello! 00:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ich hätte allerdings die redirects nicht gelöscht - auch wenn ich generell übereinstimme und es bei unbenutzten Dateien auch tue erfüllen redirects durchaus einen Zweck. Ausserdem mag ich deine weitere Bearbeitung der Bildbeschreibungen nicht. Kategorie ändern ja, aber Lizenzbaustein in die informationsvorlage pressen, koordinaten entfernen und ungepipeten :en:xy link einfügen nicht. Ist nicht böse gemeint. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Die redirects sind völlig überflüssig, habe alle Verwendungen ersetzt!
Wozu gibt es den Parameter "Permission" wenn der Lizenzbaustein nicht da hinein darf?
Die Koordinaten hatte ich in die Kategorie übernommen, da die Koordinaten eh' einen Punkt seitlich des Hauses referenzieren (von wo aus man ggfs. die Garage hätte aufnehmen können, nicht aber die anderen drei Photos!)
Der link zu der Galerie auf commons enthält genausoviel Information wie die Kategorie unten auf der Seite, die englische Seite hingegen enthält weiterführende Informationen zu diesem Haus, also ist dieser link sicherlich mehr wert!
Gruß axpdeHello! 00:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Ich hatte eigentlich vor, die Galerie durch die neue Kategorie zu ersetzen, was spricht dagegen? axpdeHello! 00:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Galerien und Kategorien koexisitieren, siehe entsprechende Seiten Commons:Categories und Commons:Galleries. --Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Aber wo ist denn der Mehrwert der Galerie zusätzlich zur Kategorie? axpdeHello! 00:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Steht in Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories. Das ist glaube ich ein alter Streit der ungefähr so alt ist wie Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Danke für den Hinweis! Da lese ich gerade, dass in den Galerien das Beste und keinesfalls alles aus den Kategorien stehen soll, quasi ein Teil nochmal schön aufbereit. Wenn aber in der Kategorie gerade einmal vier Bilder sind, dann hat die Galerie mit allen vier Bildern nun absolut keinen Mehrwert ... bestehst Du denn persönlich auf dieser Galerie? axpdeHello! 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Meine Meinung ist egal, die Gallerie bleibt natürlich bestehen. Diese Organisation scheint Relevanz zu besitzen, damit ist die Gallerie gerechtfertigt - auch wenn bisher nur eins der von dem Verein betriebenen Baudenkmälern in der Gallerie aufgenommen ist, sogar der en.wp artikel hat eine bessere Gallerie. --Martin H. (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Na wenn Du meinst, soll mir egal sein, ich wollte nur ein wenig unnötigen Ballast abbauen ... zumindest sind die Bilder nunmehr ordentlich benamt und beschrieben (hab' Deine Beschreibung aus der Kategorie übernommen, ich hoffe Du bestehst nicht auf'm copyright ;-) Gute Nacht! axpdeHello! 01:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


You have deleted my image several times. I have released this image under Creative Commons 3.0. What is the problem?

Dsem (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The source does not allow for commercial reuse and modification. Files on Commons must be free for every purpose, including modification and money making purposes too. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the permissions on Picasa for commercial reuse and modification. How is that??

Thats perfect. Another sollution would have been to sent an email to OTRS as done before but, according to the previous deletion, not sattisfactory. However, the change of license on Picasa proofes, that it is your picasa account and your intention to license the file in the given way. I reviewed the licensing and tagged it accordingly. --Martin H. (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

to Мартин Эйч

Person you named:

  • File:Академик_А._П._Маркевич_с_сотрудниками.jpg
  • File:Коллектив_кафедры_зоологии_беспозвоночных_КГУ_им.Т.Шевченко.jpg

is academician Aleksandr Prokof'evich Markevich - my father. And he left a large archive to his son (Aleks1953), including vast fotoarchiv.

Next portraits -







is taken from the same archive.


Вы как-то не "фильтруете базар", несерьезно подходите. Маленькая, но "ВЛАСТЬ", не так ли? Почему отсутствуют Ваши персональные данные? Ведь Вы, несомненно, сторонник ПРАВДИВОЙ и СЕРЬЕЗНОЙ информации в "Википедии". А у меня складывается мнение, что Вы способны только "карать", со всем Вашим интеллектом.
I dont understand much of your second posting. Please provide written permission from the copyright holder (the photographer?) of the images, that everyone can reuse them for every kind of reuse including commercial reuse and so on. See Common:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Album Art

Do you happen to know any way that I can add album art to a Wikipedia page other than uploading the image here to the commons? I saw on the Wikipedia page for the song My First Kiss, the album art for the single was there. But mine was removed. How could I add it in?

CaradocTheKing (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you refer to en.wikipedia you may do so under Wikipedias non-free fair use policy for such album covers. On Commons they are not accepted. --Martin H. (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematischer Flickr User


Wie schätzt du die Zuverlässigkeit dieses Flickr-Benutzers ein? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

<0, Beispiel. Gegeben die Lizenzierung würde es mich nicht wundern, wenn die Bilder am 12. Mai hier auf Commons hochgeladen wurden. --Martin H. (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, die Bilder sind aus zusammengeklau(b)t. Es sind Pressefotos aus verschiedenen Quellen, sie stammen nicht von dem Flickr Benutzer und sind nicht frei lizenziert. Wie mit erstem Kommentar angedeuted riecht das ganze nach flickr washing, vermutlich, dafür habe ich aber keinen Beweis. --Martin H. (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke für die rasche Mithilfe. Wurde dieser "Flickr Bösewicht" auf der Liste für "schlechte Flickr User" gepostet? --High Contrast (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ja. Hab gerade die Versionsgeschichten der Artikel in denen Bilder verwendet wurden nach Auffäligkeiten durchsucht, so nichts gefunden, scheint aber viele URVs zu geben in dem Gebiet in der Vergangenheit, z.B. Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Kulmbacher usw. --Martin H. (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Azion01

Hi. Would you mind taking a look at the above user's talk page. They currently have an unblock request up. I haven't taken a look at any of the CU evidence yet. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions at that talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


He's back again uploading the same copyvios that I blocked him for previously. Should we just indef do you think? The guy has made no effort to engage with the community and just reuploads the same images again and again. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think, it is someone authorized. Uploading files without licenses worth a short block to prevent this, but I dont see a ground to remove the files. Tag files uploaded with license with subst:npd. And thanks for nuking the unlicensed files the last time, I admire that I forgot my notice, that I will care about them in one week. --Martin H. (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Jamen Somasu

Hi, since you have warned this user before, you might be interested to know I have reported User:Jamen Somasu to the User problems board at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Serial copyviolations by User:Jamen Somasu in light of his continued actions. Jappalang (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Read that already and deleted the two uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Main page talk

Thanks for that SatuSuro (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Looks like another sock of User:Alonso2010, Similarity with User:Tennisfan2010 name, Lebanon IP[21],and of course same Sharapova photos --Justass (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Another File:Sharapova 2007.jpg photo from the same photostream uploaded few days ago by User:Mashafan, while no proofs but name have some similarity :) --Justass (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. Thanks. Tiptoety talk 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, No time today to check today, just here to have a look on my watchlist and out again :) --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I implemented an IP block as well. Hopefully that will shut things down for a bit. Tiptoety talk 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Another User:Tennisfan2000, image taken from CNN --Justass (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically unrelated. The files are clear copyvios. --Martin H. (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Parton vandal?

Do me a favour - take a look at File:Me and Miss Parton.jpg, then look at the exchange at User_talk:SusanL#File_Tagging_File:Me_and_Miss_Parton.jpg and below. I'm rather thinking this is that Dolly Parton serial copyvio uploader under a new alias, and am seriously tempted to delete it all as vandalism... but I'd like a 2nd opinion from another admin first... Tabercil (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I share your suspicion per some evidences this is User:Dollymaniaco09. The upload of a file calling someone "Me" dated to 2003 + the suspiccion that this is maybe a serious copyviouploader who obviously not owns ANY self created photos, otherwise he wouldnt had posted so many copyvios ;), doesnt fit together. Ill check this and block them if appropriate. --Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Dunno what you checked, but I saw what you did in response to it. Thank you. <G> Tabercil (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Machu Pichu hand-colored slides

Hello again. Just wondered if you might tell me if this image, and others like it of hand-colored black-and-white glass slides taken on a trip in 1911 by Hiram Bingham to explore the Incan ruins at Machu Pichu, may be uploaded to Commons? [22][23] The slides are part of the Yale Peruvian Expedition Papers Collection at the Yale University Manuscripts & Archives Digital Images Database. I thought perhaps the appropriate license would be published in the U.S. prior to 1923. Thanks again for all your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 20:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • That license looks acceptable to me. -Nard the Bard 21:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say the same thing... only question I'd have is when was the colouring done? If it was likely before 1923 then yeah, you'd be fine with your license choice. If it was after that, than you might need a different license (depending on the date). Tabercil (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. Note, that the publication, not the creation is important, see Commons:Hirtle chart. I agree with Tabercil, that the colloring is eligible for copyright and must be pd too. --Martin H. (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User template

Interestingly at the conversation - no-one has actually even addressed whether anyone has every surveyed as to whether external users of commons image actually have correct or adequately covered attribution/acknowledgement messages - are you aware of anyone actually surveying this at all?? SatuSuro (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I adressed the question on VP now, however, it is nothing that individual users can or should try to resolve in an individual way. We made much improvement with adding the required attribution to the cc license tags and can make other improvements in future maybe, creating a whole lot of individual designs doesnt improve something (although I even encourage people to use individual attribution tags like User:Toglenn/Credits, such templates can encourage professional contributors here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok I hope it all sorts out - thanks for explaining SatuSuro (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Norman Rockwell war poster

Just wanted to run these by you, too. [24][25][26][27] These are images created by artist Norman Rockwell for posters issued by the United States Office of War Information. As the work is issued by the United States government, I take it that it falls outside copyright for the artist, who died in 1978? Thanks again for your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the contract between the artist and OWI. Was he an employee (e.g. Works progress administration)? I realy dont know, you have to ask someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


This 1980 fair use poster from flickr is not acceptable for Commons. It is not old enough to be public domain. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

deleted already. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Verify Photo Source

Hi Martin, Concerning File:Ashley_Houts.jpg, I am requested to provide source information. This picture is a crop from a personal photo that I am releasing to public domain. I uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons. What is the best course of action needed to verify this photo? Thanks. Ktostiuga (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the file as missing permission and gave information on your talk. --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Igor Yanovsky.jpg

Hallo Martin! Sie können umbenennen diese datei? --Laim (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done already by someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)