User talk:Martin H./Archive 23

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.


Archive Note

Page was archived on May 26, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

About the photos

These photos are work from user of the forum. Becouse of complications with author rights in wikipedia he told me to upload them as my own work. I can prove this.

He already has problems with authors rights - obviously because he not created this photos himself contrary to what he says. Therefore it changes nothing if he - who is not the auhtor nor the copyright holder - allows you to upload in his name or on your own account. The files are unfree, you can both not upload this pictures. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Help hiding "Curtis Neeley" with "CN Foundation"

Would you please remove the text "Curtis Neeley" from the file history in File:Figurenude_%2826%29_by_CN_Foundation.jpg ? I am attempting to ensure that the text "Curtis Neeley" does not result in display of a nude image but the "CN Foundation" may be used. Google Inc is facing me in United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas (5:09-cv-05151) and has faced me in Court for almost three years. the JURY trial is scheduled to begin July 11, 2011.

Thank you so much! Let me know if this is possible. CurtisNeeley (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.CurtisNeeley (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Yes, the new LOC description will make a very good new filename for the photo. For your information, I have studied and researched this photo extensively over the past two years. It is an especially famous photo and has its own interesting history. I would be happy to write up what I know about it if you have a recommendation as to where to submit it.

Thanks, Barry McGhan Fenton, Michigan


The photos that i uploaded, it's a public domain, everyone can use, that's why i did the upload! What's wrong? can you help me? Thanks so much ;) User:Higorspario

Hey, i udestand what you said. Isn't the city hall offical site a public domain? all the informations is for population use, can you help me about that? i'm a little bit confuse with the term public that you explained. I'm so Thankful ;)

I'D like to know what the heck is wrong with my uploadd picture. I spend almost an hour creating it and now its supposed to belong to someone?! that can hardly be true User:duncan.wick

Dein Kommentar, Duncan.wick, ist als schlechten Scherz zur Kenntniss genommen. Du hast eine Fotografie hochgeladen die
  • 1) du nicht selber erstellt sondern höchstens durch Bildbearbeitung entstellt hast. Damit verletzt du das Urheberrecht des Fotografen.
  • 2) nicht die Person darstellt die die Bildbeschreibung vorgibt, damit verletzt du womöglich die Persönlichkeitsrechte des Dargestellten. Zudem, da dass Bild offensichtlicher Blödsinn ist, ist dein Upload nicht im Commons:Projektrahmen.
Wikimedia Commons ist kein Ort für unfreie Inhalte oder für derartige Spassbilder. --Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

video licensing - Mario Christian meyer's page

Hi Martin H. Many thanks for your comments and help pages. Regarding all the videos concerning Meyer's article, Prof. Dr. Meyer has given to me - for the part concerning his image - the rights to use in Wikipedia the videos concerning his interviews for the French and Brazilian TV. As mention in the licensing guidelines, I pay attention to keep only Prof. Dr. Meyer's images. So, could i download again the videos within taking the risk they are deleted? cheers --Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I not understand what exactly you want. You can not upload third party content here, for example a tv recording, without the permission of the author. The author and copyright holder is the tv station and/or its producer and/or other people related to the tv studio. They must give permission to the Commons:Project scope#Requird licensing terms: Free reuse by anyone, anytime, anywhere (not only in Dr. Meyers article) for any purpose including modification and money making purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin H., Did you receive my former message? To reactivate the videos, should I click on your "undo" and the line below? "Martin H. (talk | contribs) (1,251 bytes) (Notification of possible copyright violation) (undo)" cheers--Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can click whaterver your want on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
...but you can not upload this videos, especially not with the false claim that you created them entirely yourself and with the claim that you are the copyright holder... --Martin H. (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Martin, hope all is well. I've found myself spending more and more time at Commons these days, both uploading files, and checking files uploaded from, as well as files uploaded from elsewhere. I've submitted a number of file rename requests, but I think it would be useful (and speed things up) if I could be granted the Filemover right so I could rename files myself. As you know, I'm sort of a stickler for accuracy. Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to give you this tool, I myself make so many mistakes (typos in filenames, wrong numbers in filenames) when uploading. I understand your need. --Martin H. (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, Martin. Yes, exactly, I do make those mistakes too. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


HOw can i upload the photos that is all for free, there is no autor? i put the right license like the other images of the same thing and only my uploads is erased. help me again!

"For free" has nothing to do with free. "No author" does not mean "no copyright". Please read about free content (see last link) and read the first steps befor asking such questions. --Martin H. (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

logo University of Groningen without permission

dear martin, Could you please help me out. This logo [[1]]is placed without permission by user Rickazio. Rikazio is nog answering any messages. Could you please delete the file or tell me how to do it? yours sincerely, Wybe van Dijk 13:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Isn't the Senate part of the Congress which is the legislative branch of the U.S. Federal government? Sorry if I've got this wrong - I'm not an American and am uploading these videos for another editor. --NeilN (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the deletion discussion. Im not an American too, only from en:Ross I. Romero I can say that he is a member of the Utah State senate, thats state level, not union/federal level. --Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I was just told that. Learned something new. Thanks. --NeilN (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Hey You deleted the pics I uploaded but you dont put any effort to find yourselves the pics which you just deleted.Also I would like to tell you that I edited them through my system and then I upladed them.I didnt download them straight from the internet.I edited the screenshot of the page using a photo editing software.And all of them didnt had any copyright issues.Therefore please recheck or even try to put substitute of the images which you deleted.Thnaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babamxeon (talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A movie has a copyright, creating a screenshot is a derivative work. The screenshot is, as well as the movie, unfree and not ok to upload, especially not with the information that you created it entirely by youself. --Martin H. (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Tijuanacity.jpg

I saw on Wikipedia that File:Tijuanacity.jpg was deleted citing copyright violations. However, I believe the linked site - [2] - uses images taken from the web at random, as several of the images on the page are already on Wikipedia. Thoughts? 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The page was posted on July 21, 2008. The upload is of 2010. Its possible that also that page is not created by the photographer, but its clear that also the uploader @Commons is not the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Do you realize how many files there are named "Slide (something)" ? If you're not going to give them more specific names, at least make sure that it's clear they're for something on Wikiversity. DS (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean, case in point, someone has already tried to upload a completely different image with the same name. THIS IS AN INDICATOR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG AND SHOULD BE FIXED TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. DS (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. This files require a rename. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

... sorry, I misread the diffs and wrongly concluded that you had rejected my rename requests, rather than refining them. Apologies for the rant. DS (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought so much, no problem. I not executed the rename because I prefer someone to do it who is better in English. --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello, You have deleted two of my photos I uploaded. I don't understand how the violate copyright since I am the owner of that photo. I took the photo and have the permission to spread it; which I have done on Facebook (I admin the page for Jalal Dabagh) and so on... Please notify me what is wrong with the upload, I do not understand! --Sirwanii (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2011

Please upload the original photo including the original EXIF data from your camera. Or at least a version slightliy larger than those posted at e.g. facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Video licensing - Mario Christian meyer's page

I understand all the reasons of Wikipedia to have the mandatory rights to broadcast videos. This broadcasting framework is also a protection of the living people biographied.

How can the TVs direction contact you (WikiCommons) to give the rights? Is it a complex process? I hope not, as the most important and serious the TV is, the longer it will take to obtain the licensing agreements, while to "maintain" a good level of the production and transmission of “Wikipedia information” requires a serious publishing support (as on international televisions). An “amateur” video has not the same value on the notability (of the living people biographied) and it would be a pity for Wikipedia Commons to be enriched only with « amateur » videos.--Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • See Commons:OTRS for a description of the process. The rights to broadcast the video must not be granted only to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. A permission must be given that anyone, can reuse/broadcast/redistribute the video anywhere, worldwide, for any purpose including commercial purposes. Thats what the free in the Wikipedia logo means. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Library donations

Hello Martin,

Are you aware of cases where libraries, museums or other organisations have donated their historic photos en masse to Commons? I've had discussions with The Press in Christchurch to do just that. They are thinking of giving their complete archive to the museum, and I'd like to follow up with them outlining why it might be more useful to donate the material to Commons instead. Are there cases like this documented somewhere? Schwede66 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Partnerships. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - just came back here because I found the answer to my question on the homepage! The Queensland Library is doing exactly the same at the moment. That'll help. Schwede66 19:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, vielleicht kann User:John Vandenberg dir weitere Information geben. --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of the ban


Is there any hope for a restart slmcom, I would like to participate in the wiki, I think I now I have been working legally.

Recreating deleted content, user already blocked by admins

  1. File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG
  2. 2nd req - User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_22#Re-creating_deleted_content.2C_action_need_to_be_taken...
  3. 1st req - User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_22#Check_User

--Please take appropriate action..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the undeletion req. anyway i put a new DR..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Permission Letter

The image (File: Bilingual Books German in 10 Minutes a Day.jpg) was tagged as missing the permission letter, however, the letter was emailed to on May 25th. I am a new contributor so your suggestions on what I need to do to remedy this would be greatly appreciated. I thought I had adhered to the guidelines. Thank you Wikalias (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been resolved. The permission for use of the work has been verified and archived.Wikalias (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

License laundering

Thanks. In obvious license laundering, should I tag the image as {{copyvio}}? Giro720 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I already nuked the uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Giovanni Giacometti, Portrait Alberto Giacometti, um 1904.jpg / File:Giovanni Giacometti Portrait Alberto.jpg

Hallo Martin!

Du hast vorhin die erstgenannte Datei gelöscht, da sie ein Duplikat der zweiten, aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen bereits 2009 gelöschten Datei war. Die damalige Löschung war m. E. jedoch ein Missverständnis, wie ich hier beschrieben habe. Könntest du bitte einen Blick darauf werfen und dann eventuell die Datei wiederherstellen?

Danke. --ireas :talk: 08:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Scheint richtig zu sein, da wird der Löschende wohl durch Category:Alberto Giacometti gegangen sein und hat dieses Bild mitgenommen (ohne das jetzt geprüft zu haben). Dann werde ich aber File:Giovanni Giacometti Portrait Alberto.jpg wiederherstellen. Eine Datei die von Wikipedia stammt, "gemirrort" wurde von einer externen Webseite, nach de.wp erneut hochgeladen wurde, nach Commons transferiert wurde mit dem mirror als Quelle ist eine von Zirkelrefferenz und ohne Wert. --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Oxai Roura.jpg and the others

Hello, you deleted several photos that were given to me so that I could improve some Wikipedia pages. How do I go about showing that the images in question were given to me specifically for the purpose of using them in Wikipedia articles? Any help would be appreciated. Kthapelo (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You must not upload this files with the wrong information that you created them entirely yourself. Its required then to provide a written permission, the permission must not read 'for the purpose of using them in Wikipedia articles', thats insufficient for a free content licensing. See Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your help. It looks like what I need to do is to have them send me a message that says that they grant their permission to use their image under a creative commons licence for educational purposes. Is that correct? Kthapelo (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
For any purpose including modification and commercial use. --Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Gma title1.png

Hello Martin, could yuu please explain why was this a copyvio, and not a {{textlogo}}? I've no particular interest on that file, but I do not want to do the same mistake again, and to me it looked like simple shapes (a sphere) and text.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

en:File:American Broadcasting Company Logo 2007.png was only a part of this logo, the background of even that logo uses various colors and reflection and not qualifies as a textlogo. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, my doubts were answered. But if I pick a free sphere image and write "abc" over it, would it qualify as textlogo?--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
...Or if you write "Good morning america" in yellow letters on blue background. Of course, but is that usefull educationally? I doubt because it is not the original logo and not usefull to illustrate abc. --Martin H. (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's what Brazilians call a "quebra galho", a temporary fix, and such expedients were extensively used before restricted file use was implemented in wiki-pt, allowing for logo and other copyrighted stuff to be uploaded there. But I'm not planning to make it, it was just a rhetorical question to best understand the limits of copyright. Thanks for the clarification.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Martin,

I sent a permisssion email to OTRS several months ago for this photo. Do you have any recommendations on how to go about getting this photo undeleted?


Stagophile (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you receive an answer from OTRS? --Martin H. (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Frederick Leigh-Ross


I am a little surprised this photograph is to be deleted - this photograph comes from the LIFE Magazine website, which contains the following note about usage;

LIFE Magazine is the treasured photographic magazine that chronicled the 20th Century. It now lives on at, the largest, most amazing collection of professional photography on the internet. Users can browse, search and view photos of today’s people and events. They have free access to share, print and post images for personal use.

I would have thought that because Wikipedia is not for profit usage would be acceptable under these terms


Please read the Commons:Project scope, especially Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain, and Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


About the recent upload, I wasn't aware that that particular user was registered as a copyvio user here. Sorry again. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 10:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please also delete this obvious copyvio image? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 10:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
eek, sure. How could that survive here for longer than 10 minutes. --Martin H. (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

mijn engels is niet zo goed, en heb waarschijnlijk de verkeerde rondjes aangevinkt, ik heb toestemming van, adofans, en groengeelhart voor het plaatsen van de foto's. bedankt voor de tip!, nee gelijk verwijderen. Ongelooflijk Adonaline (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That does not make you the author or the files "own work". Also a permission from some fan websites is not sufficient, the permission must come from the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

De meeste fotografen zijn dood!, de rechten behoren toe aan ADO Den Haag, en de foto's worden geplaatst op een wiki over ADO Den Haag, en de supporter site's hebben toestemming om alle foto's te gebruiken Adonaline (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright subsists for the lifetime of the author +70 years. A press photographer will unlikely bequeath his copyrights to a football club, he will rather give his rights to his family. Just because the fanbases store this photos does not give them any rights to reproducte the photos or to distribute the photos to others, especially not for commercial purposes as required on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

this is my own photo

i own the photo and i cropped it before uploading in wiki commons, it's in my computer and i haven't uploaded it in any picture-sharing website like flickr

Hans, downloading a photo from elsewhere and doing some editing to the photo - for example cropping it - does not make the photo your own work or allows you to upload the photo here. File:5626615575 a028747526 z-1-1-1.jpg was copied from flickr. To provide evidence that File:David Silva.jpg is your own work you should temporarily upload the original photo over the existing file. --Martin H. (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

i will upload the original (uncropped) version of the David Silva.jpg file, will that do it?

i have already uploaded the original version you can see it in the file history as i reverted it back to my desired version, hope this is OK with you

Yes, I withdraw my 'missing source' request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Douglife Images


First off, thanks for doing what you're doing. If you weren't here, this wouldn't be such a great place.

On to the topic at hand.

You created a deletion request -

I completely understand your statements.

Essentially, I am quite a big fan of comedy. Obviously Wikipedia provides detailed information about these comedians. If you'd take note, the site in question is my personal blog, where I share anything I'm personally interested in. I have taken into account the photo credit problem, and have rectified it. I was a bit foggy on the facts of that, and I'd assumed wrong.

The three wikipedia images in question did not have photos prior to my changes. I have also made the correct changes to the Author for Curtis' image, but I am unable to find the owner of Michael's photo after some decent searching (which is why you didn't list it correct?)

I believe that should keep them from being deleted yes? If not, please take a moment and correct me.

For the "CooterFestival" image, as you may or may not know I am a freelance graphic designer from that town. And after problems with local businesses using the image, it is free to use.

If there is anything I can do to keep these from being deleted, and to not have this problem again, please let me know.

Thanks Martin.

Only the copyright holder can license the files. The copyright holder of File:Curtis Armstrong.jpg not licensed the photo under GFDL nor Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, that license was added by you. Unless the copyright holder agreed to the license or any other free licnse you cant upload the file here. And we cant keep it. Same applies for the Rappaport image, not knowing the copyright holder not changes the sittuation. For the logo, if you created that logo entirely yourself and not contracted the copyright to someone else you are indeed in the position to grant a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hoi Martin, all photo's are made bij Alain, from And i have permisson to publish the foto's greets Adonaline (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC) When you give your email, i can send you the permision

Permissions go to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Moet ik voor elke foto een maikl sturen, of kan ik 1 mail sturen met de toestemming die ik heb van groengeelhart om hun foto's te publiceren? Adonaline (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, one permission can include many works from the same author. --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
ok, bedankt, ik heb net de mail gestuurd :) thx Adonaline (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hoi Martin, ik heb een mail gestuurd naar OTRS, met de mededeling dat ik toestemming heb om alle foto's van te gebruiken, met een link van de site en de contactpersoon. is dat voldoende?, want ik krijg geen reactie terug, en zou het vervelend vinden als ik straks weer opnieuw moet doen. Groet Adonaline (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:LuPone and Burke.jpg

I see you have uploaded original size of this file. Have you noticed that Flickr user is not the photographer (Flickr user is a female and name of photographer is a male)? It could be ok anyway but I just wanted to make sure you noticed. --MGA73 (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect its an organization. It was also me who added the photographers name to the author field, so surely I noticed the different author. --Martin H. (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock User talk:Amazingloong?

Hi Martin. A user who you blocked at the end of 2009 is asking for an unblock, and appears penitent. Can you have a look? --99of9 (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

copy from a letter to other administrator:

I'm attonised of the deletion of several images from me in Commons. I.e. the face of the ex president of Maldive Islans Maumoon abdul gayoom.jpg, that I take personally during my trip to the islands; If this man is a public man and I take the photo how can vandalize it a honorable member of commons.
Anoter. the FARC flag, that I drtaw according a sheet provided by the organization when a delegation was in catalan Countries, with autorization of free use, and was supresed alleging that the logo in the flag was copyrigted, but next day the same flag with the same logo was accepted with no problem because was draw by an anglosaxon and/or any influent commomns member. This man copied the image from me and plagied my work, and Commons are a sort of delinquents that authorize it.
I have also the permission for use the logos of the Emirates cities, that you vandalized even knowing it.
Inutil to answer in my commons page because I stopped to collaborate with after sevral years because I don't share nothing with thieves and vandals.--jolle (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please rever to individial files, I cant check all your contributions now. For the ex president see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Maumoon_abdul_gayoom.jpg, making a photo of a poster is a derivative work and not entirely your own work. For the FARC flag see File:Farc-ep.png, you not designed the flag. As for the logo of the city, I assume you mean File:Ae rak-city.gif: Also not entirely your "own work" but based on someone else work. You not indiciated for the correct author and you not wrote anything about permission from any city. Furthermore, I vandalized nothing, and no one else did. Making such a blank accusation on anyone is ridiculous. --Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I got the same note on my talk page from jolle. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

US Navy category changes

Hi Martin H., for your information, there is a discussion about the US Navy images category scheme here: User talk:Benchill#US Navy cats. Benchill (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


I have not uploaded this image, I only correct it! Report all to the original uploader. Try to be more careful next time. Bye Angelus (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The notification is added by the script automatically. You edited the image, possibly you want to have an notification about a discussion on the image. --Martin H. (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ekontai

Thanks for closing this. Have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aizhanka aaa for a strikingly similar case, also involving the Kazakh Wikipedia. LX (talk, contribs) 11:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, looks like some school class joined kk.wp: lets write of a real encyclopedia into Wikipedia and lets upload some beautiful files from the internet to illustrate "our" articles.... very bad. --Martin H. (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Found a 3rd user from kk:Special:NewPages. Some of those writers got it right, a few not. --Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:احمد علي.jpg was deleted without informing the uploader.

Hi Martin H.

The related file was deleted because of Copyright violation as I've seen in the delete log. I was just wondering why you haven't talked to the uploader about this issue. Even if he/she doesn't know English and I expect that so, he/she should have been informed and we can then translate this to their Arabic talk page for further clarification. The file was for Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh, and the uploader was using it to support a related Arabic article. --Almuhammedi (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your link to the father is confusing, the file was for Ahmed Saleh. Someone else on ar.wp probably, who previously removed the file from the article, already became aware that this file is not the uploaders own work but simply a copy of a file grabbed from the internet. --Martin H. (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I linked to the father because there is no article yet for the son ;). The article of his son already exists on Arabic Wikipedia here. I agree with you about rights violation but you should let the uploader know about the reason. Frankly speaking, he is facing problems with us and thinks we were restricting his edits.--Almuhammedi (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The information he got on his ar.wp talkpage is already enough and is better then any information I can give him. --Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


Could you please restore the file? You deleted it so fast nobody was able to fix the license. RedAndr (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Looks like I deleted that by accident together with some other of those bad kk.wp uploads (see three above). --Martin H. (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
hm, but I will better not restore it in the articles, no author is mentioned and no publication given, I dont see any possibility to conclude on the copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I will try to find this information and fix the image description. Anyway the photo is very old since person died more that 70 years ago, so PD-old should be applied. RedAndr (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks very good. --Martin H. (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Everlyn Sampi Pic

Hello Martin,

you blocked the pic I recently uploaded concerning Everlyn Sampi from the IF awards. You mentioned a copyright violation, and refer to the public facebook page of hers (?) If this is the case, I would like to inform you about the background: 1. The FB fanpage of Everlyn Sampi is created and managed by myself, under permission of Everlyn Sampi, who I know personally. 2. The pic I uploaded you CANNOT find anywhere else in the web, right? - since I took it from Everlyn Sampis PERSONAL FB page first, and then added it to her fan site. 3. THIS photo stems from her personal environment, despite from the same event a lot of official pics are available in the web, underlying assumingly a kind of copyright.

Thus, please reactivate my upload. I do not reckon that any official source will claim the copyrights. If, to my suprise, this would be the case, we may delete it then...

Kind regards,


Ich verstehe nicht, wie dich dieser Hergang zu dem Schluß kommen lässt, dass du der Urheber und Inhaber irgendwelcher Urheberrechte wärest. --Martin H. (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Was soll ich tun, um sonst Everlyn's private Bilder mit ihrer Zustimmung hochzuladen ? - Sie kann es leider aufgrund unzureichender PC-Kenntnisse nicht selbst machen. Wir benötigen ein Foto, um demnächst die karge Wikipedia Seite auf Niveau bringen zu können! - Ich kann ja schlecht aus diesem Grund 10.000 Meilen fliegen und eine notariell beglaubigte Erklärung von ihr einscannen und hier hochladen... Was schlägst Du vor, Martin?

Es geht nicht um die Zustimmung des Abgebildeten sondern um die Zustimmung des Urhebers, des Fotografen. Mein Rat ist also beim hochladen unbedingt die richtigen Angaben zu machen - im deutschsprachigen Interface also „Es stammt von woanders“ wählen, nicht Es ist ausschließlich meine eigene Arbeit wie beim ersten Versuch. Anschließend eine schriftliche Freigabe des Urhebers entsprechend den Instruktionen in Commons:OTRS beibringen, dort befindet sich auch die englischsprachige Emailvorlage für diesen Zweck, ich kann mir Vorstellen, dass sie im Notfall auch per Post an Wikimedia in Australien geschickt werden kann. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please advice

Can you please look here and advice..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough opinions already given. --Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of my own work and photos

I see you deleted my contributions to the "Tourism in Bosnia" page and "Prijedor".

These are my own works, and the map of the national parks of Bosnia is my own creation that I did in Adobe illustrato Please return the files back to where they belong and stop deleting images without warning me about what is going on. You deleted more than 5 of my photos.


The requirement is that you created it entirely yourself, with your upload you confirm that it is entirely your work and that you not infringe on any other persons rights (e.g. a photographer). Obviously you not say the truth for most of your uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

About license with photo from author.


I've added an article with artist "Jerzy Kołacz". I've added a photo "jerzy-kolacz.jpg". I've author permission. This photo is from site and I spoke with him by e-mail. He gave me all rights to this photo. So why you are deleting this photo? Which license I need to choose to get everything right?

Best regards, Kuba

I think you mean [3]. Let me summarize:
  • Your first upload of March 2011 claims "" the source and "" the author. I deleted that immidiatly, please read about free content and what you can upload here (free content).
  • Your second upload claims "" the author and source. It was not mentioned to you that this information is not sufficient, you however anyway failed to provide a free licensing, therefore your file was delted as missing license
  • Your latest upload claims again someone else the author and source.
Must I mention that all your claims of sources, authors, etc. sound very unlikely? You can not switch the author information to your personal taste, knowledge or ignorance. Regarding your question: You must select that free license that the copyright holder agreed to. In case you not know what a free license is: A free license allows anyone to reuse the work freely, anytime, anywhere, for any purpose including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the file President.jpg is mine, I made it. Yes it is uploaded to Facebook; used to recruit members to the presdiential group. I hope you do not confuse and think I am mis-using the photo. I am the person who took it, edited it and published it.

About all mess.

Let me explain everything. This is my first text added to I needed to add this article about Jerzy Kołacz because my prof. from my institute of art give question to every students "try to use wiki, add some text". So i wrote text and add some photo without permission from 1st and 2nd I found it on the internet. Yes, that's my fault. But few days ago I've contacted with wife of this artist. He died 2 years ago, and she was very happy about adding note about him. You can believe me or not. A man who moderating website have an article on this site, I've contacted with him by e-mail. He gave me full rights to this picture, to add this on If you don't believe me, please give me your e-mail, so I can send you a message from him about rights to this picture, ok? Or you can simply contact with him and ask about that. Ask him about rights to picture from article "Jerzy Kołacz nie zyje" an with my name Kuba Bejko.

Best regards, Kuba Bejko

If the said website owner is the photgrapher and owner of the exclusive rights on the image he must agree to a free license. A permission to add a picture to a wikipedia page is not enough. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

19th century images displayed on websites

I found some public domain portrait photos on other websites. Do I need some kind of permission from those sites for copying them, and how do I license and attribute them? Here are two examples: Captain George H. Clarke and WILLIAM FRANCIS ALLEN
Ineuw talk page on 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they cant claim copyright on the scan/reproduction. The images have a reference for publication before 1923, they are {{PD-1923}}. --Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification.Ineuw talk page on 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

image licence

I getg several warning regarding copyright violation. I'm bit confuse thou had read the common licence article. Can you provide me a link for an eligible image? thank you


An eligible source must be free content, see Commons:Licensing. Free content fulfills the criterias of Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain: no restrictions on reuse including commercial. --Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Cat Freak

Das ist mal wieder Jerry Dandridge. Gruß, --Martin1978 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gesperrt. Hatte die letzten Tage schon zwei Andere, aber ohne Aktivität auf de.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

immages revocated

Ciao ma perchè hai rimosso le mie foto su wiki inglese e wiki italiana alla sezione tickling. Le foto sono mie. Http:// sono loro che hanno fatto plagio a wikipedia e non noi a loro, hanno copiato persino il testo in italiano dell'articolo su wikipedia scritto in parte anche da me. per cortesia rimetti le immagini come stavano e annulla le tue modifiche. Aspetto un tuo riscontro. Cordiali saluti.


Hi, the DR was closed as delete, but it is still here, and a bot has added {{kept}} to its talk page (that bot needs fixed :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to klick the [del] button. The bot is adding kept to all files with closed deletion requests, no matter it was kept or delete. --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the bot needs a few more smarts. I has also added kept where a file was deleted and replaced by something else (eg duplicate deletions that have gone through a deletion request, then been replaced by a redirect.) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Rickij

Hello, could you please check this user and possible relation to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/CriciumaSC? He has just had some images about Criciúma deleted, and uploaded a new one now. Just after that, user HelitonEsteves (one of those accounts identified as a sockpuppet) used it in pt.Wikipedia. Ednei amaral (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Acacia nilotica edits

Hallo Martin, kannst Du mir bitte [4] und [5] erläutern? Was meinst Du mit „most photos now sorted to wrong country“?

  • Wenn da einige Länder bei der Artkategorie falsch sein sollten, weshalb werden sie bei derselben Art in der Galerie auf einmal richtig?
  • Anmerkung: Die Flora-of-Kategorien bedeuten im Biobereich keine geografische Zuordnung einzelner Fotos (Aufnahmeort), sondern sind als „Art heimisch in“ zu verstehen. Außerdem ist es weithin üblich, nur die Artkategorien mit Flora of zu versehen, nicht jedoch die entsprechenden Galerien (diese sollten idealerweise nur in einer einzigen Kategorie drin sein, nämlich – sofern vorhanden – in derjenigen der Art). Dass momentan bei etlichen Arten sowohl Kategorie als auch Galerie parallel mit diesen Flora-of-Kategorien (sowie manch anderen) versehen sind, dürfte wesentlich mit der Sortiertätigkeit von User:Look2See1 und einigen IPs zu tun haben. Dies hat ungefähr seit Jahresanfang für eine gewisse Unübersichtlichkeit gesorgt.
  • Dass ich Deinen Edit vorhin ein zweites Mal geändert habe, war übrigens keine Absicht, was Du auch an meinen weiteren Edits der letzten Stunden sehen kannst. Ich war u.a. über Category:Flora of California gestolpert, wo hunderte Einträge sowohl als Unterkategorie als auch als Galerie auftauchten (um die restlichen 50 enthaltenen Seiten kümmere ich mich noch). Bei Acacia nilotica hatte ich vorher nicht in die Versionsgeschichte geschaut, sonst hätte ich Dich vorher gefragt.
  • Grundsätzlich hänge ich nicht an den Flora-of-Kategorien und nutze sie selbst quasi nicht aktiv – aber wenn ich sie in einer Galerie entdecke, dann verfrachte ich sie meist unverändert zur entsprechenden Kategorie. Mir geht's dabei primär darum, dass die Galerieseiten, die bislang im Lebewesenbereich recht einheitlich und übersichtlich aufgebaut sind, nicht mit redundanten Kategorien überfrachtet werden, bzw. dass die Gattungs-, Flora-of-, und anderen Kategorien dank Parallelkategorisierung nicht fast unbrauchbar und schlecht zu warten werden.

Viele Grüße --:bdk: 10:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Die Kategorisierung der Gallerie schafft die passende geografische Zuordnung der Pflanze - nicht der Dateien - zu ihren Wuchsgebieten, die Kategorisierung der Kategorie ist aber eine Sortierung aller in der Kategorie enthaltenen Dateien zu einem geografischen Ort der für die wenigsten Dateien zutreffend ist. --Martin H. (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, das verstehe ich nicht. Wo siehst Du den Unterschied, wenn in einer Galerie und einer Kategorie die gleichen Dateien enthalten sind? (Ich war mal so frei und habe die Galerie komplettiert.) Die Bedeutung der Flora-of-Kategorien ändert sich doch nicht durch das Einsetzen in Galerien statt in Kategorien. In beiden Fällen geht es um die Pflanzenart als solche. *grübel* --:bdk: 10:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Kategorien dienen dem sortieren von Dateien in eine hierarchische Struktur, die direkte geografische Zuordnung der Dateien wäre Fehlerhaft, dieser Fehler kann vermieden werden ohne den Informationsgehalt zu schmälern. --Martin H. (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Nein, weder die eine noch die andere Variante (Artgalerie vs. Artkategorie) beinhaltet eine „direkte geografische Zuordnung der Dateien“ und ist damit m.E. auch nicht „fehlerhaft“, denn Flora of [region/country] ist grundsätzlich nicht gleichbedeutend mit Plants in [country/city] o.ä. Vielmehr geht es um Redundanz vs. Konsistenz, Kategorienwartung und das, was im Lebewesenbereich Usus ist. Mir scheint leider, wir können uns einander nicht verständlich machen, daher spare ich mir weitere Fragen oder Erläuterungen. Gruß --:bdk: 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Da hast Du ja echt was vor...

Ich bin immer noch total platt, dass jemand so viele Bilder hochladen kann und sich dabei so offensichtlich wenig um Bildrechte schert... Ich würd' Dir gerne helfen, die faulen Bilder auszusortieren. Aber ich bräuchte noch ein paar Tipps, wie man ihm auf die Schliche kommt. Was meinst Du beispielsweise bei File:Toerggelen.jpg? Da sind GIMP-Metadaten drin. --Schwäbin (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ich hab schon aufgegeben nachdem ich die Menge gesehen habe. Ich warte auf Reaktionen und eine Anfrage des Benutzers wie er Kooperieren kann. Wenn das nicht kommt werde ich in einer etwaigen Diskussion dazu anregen, alles zu löschen was nicht aus einer DMC-TZ1 oder DiMAGE X31 kommt.
Bezüglich deiner Frage nach Suchtips: Die Bilder scheinen alle bearbeitet und beschnitten zu sein, die übliche Google-Suche fällt daher aus, übliche Google-Suche würde bei dem Bild bedeuten in der Bildsuche nach Törggelen +imagesize:472x309 zu suchen oder die Bildgröße ausschalten und die Farbsuche dazuzuschalten, hier wohl Braun, und dann schnell ein paar Hundert Ergebnisse zu überfliegen. Allerdings hat Google mit der Suche anhand von Bildern gerade einen großen Sprung gemacht, aktiviere am besten in Special:Preferences#preftab-8 das GoogleImages tab Helferlein. Das findet so einiges was zuvor verborgen blieb. Für fragliches Bild findet man da tonnenweise links, ein paar kommen in Frage: verwendet das Bild gleich zweimal, ich kann allerdings nicht zweifelsfrei sagen, ob die nicht von Wikipedia kopiert haben, ich glaube sie haben, Anhaltspunkt ist, dass die EXIF-Daten der externen Quelle weniger informationen enthalten als des Commons-Bildes (STW, Bäuerliches Leben, Marende Törggelen, Irmes Laslo). Allerdings tritt hier der seltene Fall ein, dass die EXIF-Daten einen Urheber enttarnen (Irmes Laslo) der nicht der Uploader ist. Mit dieser Information würde ich das Bild als {{subst:npd}} und in diesem Fall direkt als URV markieren: according to EXIF: (C) Irmes Laslo 1998. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Das mit dem Abwarten ist sicher richtig. Sonst macht er womöglich ganz dicht und wir löschen Bilder seit 2006, die womöglich schon zig Nachnutzer „da draußen“ haben... :-( Besser wäre, er würde die richtigen Quellen nachreichen.
Du hast Dir viel Mühe gegeben, mir das Suchen auf Google usw. zu erklären, aber das war wohl eine Nummer zu groß für mich ;-) Grüßle, --Schwäbin (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Nö, ist ganz einfach. Neben der gewöhnlichen Suche nach Stichworten kann man bei Google auch nach exakter Größe und nach Farben suchen, was manchmal sehr hilfreich ist. Ganz neu ist, dass man bei Google, statt mit Worten, mit einem Bild nach einem Bild suchen kann, einfach das empfohlene Helferlein aktivieren, auf den Bildbeschreibunsseiten bekommst du ein neues "GoogleImages"-Tab auf das du klicken kannst. --Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Martin H.

If you know, could you please tell me what was the reason for the elimination of files Scooter Braun Premiere.jpg. I just wanted to know what was missing. If you know it, you can help me. Danny Adam (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The copyright holder did not publish this file under any free license. It is an unfree image from the internet. --Martin H. (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Danny Adam (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was my own photo flagged on my Wiki page as a copyright violation?

moved to this place from COM:VP --Saibo (Δ) 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted a photo that was taken on my digital camera, of my golf club - The Victoria Golf Club. Someone named Martin H. has flagged it as a copyright violation and it has been removed. How is that possible? There is no way for me to communicate with Martin H. That was my original picture! I would like to request that the photo is reinstated.

For reference my Wiki page is:

My own photo (uploaded to our own website):

Please help! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuhliSelby (talk • contribs) 2011-06-24T02:26:43 (UTC)

Could you please mention the image's name next time? :-) Apparently you are talking about File:Aerial View of Victoria Golf Club course.jpg. By the way - Martin can be contacted here on this page: user talk:Martin H. This link is also included in the log of the image or on your talk page below the deletion notice.
Martin will probably respond here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi JuhliSelby, as Martin is offline a the moment, I'll try to answer. Yes, File:Aerial View of Victoria Golf Club course.jpg was deleted because it was also found at, which makes it highly suspicious to be a copyvio. I would have made the same decision. Now, if the upload to was really yours and if you have shot the image, then please send a permission to, confirming your realname (email will not be made public) and that you are indeed the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Please follow the instructions in Commons:OTRS and provide a written permission, the specified license was the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
In general, please be more carefull: The upload formular you used says "If this work of yours was already published elsewhere without indication of a free license, use {{OTRS pending|month=June|day=24|year=2011}} and send permission by e-mail", this file has been published in an unfree context before the upload here and you not gave a notice about that publication with your upload. --Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Bill Hobby, Jr.,

The website about Hobby's political career and life.

OTRS account.

Hi, can you help me with this situation? I have uploaded this image and the image owner has sent the email to the and he said someone reply to him that he doesn't have to send the permission for verification. I have notified a user with an OTRS account before but he/she maybe too busy. Can you help me with this? Syfuel (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Im not an OTRS volunteer. Confirming permission can take some time. If nothing happened in two weeks you can ask at COM:OTRSN. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! ^_^ Syfuel (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oleg Ernev.jpg

Hi, I know Oleg Ernev personally and he asked me to write an article about him and gave me permission to use this photo.--Habilis (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The permission must come from the photographer, not from someone shown in the photograph. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I hope I will be able to contact him to get a raw version. (sigh) It is funny when the photo which was intented to be used on such sites is deleted cause of copyright violation. Well, Dura lex, sed lex. --Habilis (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Fahad Sulehria paintings

Hi again, Martin. You've deleted images from [[6]] and wrote: "this files are POV and ВП:ОИ, they e.g. overly promote the impact theory for the creation of moon and take a position in this article. Editor has a COI trying to do spam for the painter in Wikipedia.""

The thing is that impact theory is a main theory of the creation of moon at present time, so the argument about POV or neutral point of view doesn't work there. Secondly, about "spam for the painter". This is totaly untrue. I downloaded these images to illustrate this article when I saw those images are well fit to describe needed events. So I clearly didn't "spam for the painter" in Wikipedia and there is no any COI there. --Habilis (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I somehow missed his term about web-site usage. --Habilis (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Overly emphazising one theory with adding 102 KB of data agains about it against a few bytes for the rest is not proportional and therfore a violation of NPOV. The artists view is of course POV and since the illustration is an original painting without any educational review or secondary descritpion or peer-review it is inclusion of an original source into Wikipedia. And that - including original sources in articles - is finding a theory, not describing theories. My impression is, that you have a COI with using this painters original work. --Martin H. (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is not mentioning theory of god's creation while mentioning the Big Bang a violation of NPOV? I guess if theory has common reception there is no need to enumerate others in the short list of events. Readers can learn about other theories following through "See also" links. There are plenty of artworks for theories and event in Wiki, so I don't think it is a good thing to apply POV for that. Anyway, once again thank you for your help with illustrations, I missed an improtant term there.--Habilis (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

For your information and further action:

Hello Martin H.! For your information and further action, I've realised that these historical images (Natalia and Irina) which were taken by two late photographers in the USSR, are in the public domain in its country because their copyrights have completely expired. (the correct licencing, including the copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years, is added to the pages). By the way, I've one more question about Leonida and Maria which has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. Is it possible to use it in another wiki except the English one? Because that applies worldwide, as I know. Hope you help me, it's not in Wikimedia Commons, tho. Best regards! Royalmesaj? 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

For the 1947 photo the PD claim is not true. en:File:Leonida and Maria in 1960's.jpg has not been released by the copyright holder but was grabbed from the said source website and the uploader unauthorized added a pd-self tag to the file. Thats copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I got it, you mean the pic taken in 1947 is not a PD even though the woman in it and its photographer are both dead (just according to page, I don't know about the photographer, possibly yeah but the noblewoman is really deceased)? What about the other one? It's even older than the other one I see. So they both are going to be deleted or kept? or only one? and what to do? Excuse me, I don't know about the procedure. And en:File:Leonida and Maria in 1960's.jpg is a violation? So it's impossible to use it for the articles in some other languages? Thank you Royalmesaj? 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes and yes. The requirement is "70 years following the photographers death", thats impossibly fulfilled for a 1947 photo. The file on Wikipedia is just randomly tagged with some pd-self tag, the uploader isnt the creator and he not explained what makes him eligible to waive intelectual property rights on an in-copyright work. --Martin H. (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)



I dont know what are you doing, but you are delete photos that I taken before, what is the reason or the logig that you take to delete the photos I upload?, MY PHOTOS you are deleting, I took those photos with my cam and You only say, "I delete all photos beacuse its stolen"... Sorry but you are so wrong, really wrong, I will send a complain to Wikipñedia Commons beacuse you are so wrong and doing whatever you want, I won´t allow that you keep doing these unfair things.


You are allowed to upload photos that you created yourself or photos that the copyright holder voluntarily released under a free license. Thats permitted uploads, all other uploades are forbidden. If you decide to upload a mixture of both - files you created yourself and stolen files - you should not wonder why it possibly happened that some of your self-created files got deleted too. Pay attention to copyrights, you are NOT allowed to upload even one single photo that you not created yourself and that the copyright holder not released under a free license. Just to make this clear. --Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"You are allowed to upload photos that you created yourself"

Oh please dont lie me, I have upload so many photos of mine to wikkipedia commons, and you deleted....Im not an idiot, you are a bot or person??? beacuse dont understand, you deleted photos that I took with my cam from the streets and you just deleted and you said "You are allowed to upload photos that you created yourself", please dont smile about me, you dont deserve to be in wikipedia, Due to people like you is the reason that wikipedia is lossing wikipedist day by day. Thats really shame, Be more objetive, do your homework with the right reasons and thinking, thinking!

You uploaded a mixture of files grabbed from the internet and maybe a very few self-created files. Name me the file that you think is deleted wrongly and I will have a look. But carefull, if you repeat a false claim of own work on a photo that you in fact not created yourself i will consider to block your account. --Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Status of CC-AR-Presidency

Hi Martin. What is the status for {{CC-AR-Presidency}}? Can I upload new photos from that site? Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Afaik its not longer free. The website terms changed, this means: The copyright holder stoped distributing under a free license, all files reused on Commons are not affected, but no more files can be uploaded from that page. This was not resolved in Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency. --Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone from OTRS re-send a request? Thanks again! Alakasam (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in COMT:L says, User:Pathoschild was involved. --Martin H. (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This user (puppet of User:Vmestre) files are copyvio from:

-- 21:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin, kannst du bitte ein Auge auf Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stasi-2.1-zensursula.png‎ werfen. Wenn wieder PAs gegen Ralf kommen, eventuell die Nacht über halbsperren. Gute Nacht. --Túrelio (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dalai+lama CarlesPuyol sept 2007 480.jpg

Dear Martin H, Thanks for your message. I found this photo on { {VOA} }, so, I though it was possible to download it. Sorry if this was a copyvio. Could you explain me the reason of the problem, I did not find the discussion if it exist? All the best wishes,--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

VOA uses their own public domain photographs and photographs from external sources - individual photographers or agencies - that are not public domain. This requires carefull examination, see Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Its not always clear if a photo is from VOA or from an external source, sometimes a photo is not credited and it becomes clear only in the filename (AFP/REUTERS or other parts in the filename), the EXIF or by searching for the image. Here however the image was credited to some other, non-VOA source. --Martin H. (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I must say it was unclear to me, as it is written Photo : LVE, I supposed it was the name of the photograph. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I can clearify this. The image was taken in Barcelona in 2007, LVE is the abbreviation of La Vanguardia, a Catalan newspaper, namely La Vanguardia Ediciones S.L.. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the info.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

unicode_wiki -> Jonalyn Viray article

please do not fucking delete my photo DSC04228.JPG for jonalyn viray article. i swear to God this one is not downloaded over the internet. it's from my digicam and the name is still DSC04228.JPG the raw name generated by the cam and you can still see there the exif metadata intactly attached on the image as a proof that it is not downloaded over the internet or whatsoever. i only edited it using microsoft picture manager to resize it and crop it cause it's too big to upload and to have it fit for the article photo section. for god's sake, this one is not downloaded on the internet. alright, i admit the others before were downloaded from the internet, but this one is not. in the future i'll upload some more picture WHICH WILL BE DIRECTLY FROM MY CAM and not downloaded from the internet, currently, this is the only good shot of her i have, the other shots were not so good, so in the future when i have more photos of her i'll upload more. THIS ONE IS NOT DOWNLOADED OVER THE INTERNET.

so i'll remove the shit awards i posted on my home page.

here's the meatadata which you can also see here:

Camera manufacturer SONY Camera model DSC-H20 Exposure time 1/40 sec (0.025) F-number f/4 ISO speed rating 1,600 Date and time of data generation 08:47, 26 July 2009 Lens focal length 28 mm Orientation Normal File change date and time 08:47, 26 July 2009 Y and C positioning 2 Exposure Program Normal program Exif version 2.21 Date and time of digitizing 08:47, 26 July 2009 Image compression mode 4 Exposure bias 0 Maximum land aperture 3.625 Metering mode Pattern Light source Unknown Flash Flash did not fire, compulsory flash suppression Color space sRGB Custom image processing Normal process Exposure mode Auto exposure White balance Auto white balance Scene capture type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Hide extended details

--unicode_wiki (talk)

Thats meaningless, you abused this argumentation already, right? I however take this posting as an "sorry" for the previous uploads and as an attempt to now make it right. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi Martin, could it be possible to have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cultural sincretism in mexican toys.jpg. Not because of the deletion in itself, but because the absolute lack of respect of the uploader of the picture. I don't think that the arguments against the deletion can be of the like: A visit to your talk page or ecemaml clearly points out to what could be interpreted as either nasty, or incompetent behaviour, or both. Complaints about you abound. you, ecemaml and I had a nasty run in in the past, and I personally question your imparciality in this issue. Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please use COM:AN/U. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:The Singles track list.jpg

Can you please delete the above file? I'm sure taking a picture of the tracklist of a copyrighted album is a big no-no and copyright violation. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 09:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


Hope you know this all about...Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Captainofhope--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to make a DR of the files that you want to remove?

Why are you with you constant reversals forcing me to make the DR? It does not make sense. It is perverse. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You obviously ignor how many copyright violations happen on this project. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
That is no answer. Why cannot you just click on the DR button? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I can, its a question of what I believe will be the outcome of the deletion discussion, what efforts the uploader did to upload the image correctly and how reliable the uploader is. In this case all answers are negative, regretably. --Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Being judge, jury and executioner is more "efficient"? Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User problems#False accusations by Martin H.. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bessere Auflösung

Hallo Martin_H, eine etwas bessere Auflösung, wenn auch nicht die Grösse, welche so hübsch mit dem fetten Wasserzeichen verziert ist, bekommst du, wenn du die Endziffer der Bild-URL einfach eins höher setzt, also im Beispiel unten von 3 auf 4. Funzt glaube ich bei allen Bildern von dort. Ich kam drauf, weil in einer Online-Austellung der Europeania bessere Auflösungen eingeblendet waren, als sie in der verlinkten Quelle zu erhalten waren. Da ich kaum auf Commons tätig bin und auch sonst fast nur als IP unterwegs bin wäre es gut, wenn es andere den Uploaden bekannt machen könnten, ohne jedoch allzu viel Wind darüber hinaus zu erzeugen. Es wäre nicht das erste Mal, dass solche Funktionen nach Bekanntwerden abgestellt werden.

Grüsse, -- 01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Genial, dannach habe ich schon lange gesucht. Ich hatte schon versucht durch überlagern der Miniaturansicht und des Wasserzeichen-Bildes das Wasserzeichen zu entfernen, aber ein mittelgroßes Bild ohne Bildbearbeitung ist allemal besser. Danke. --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ich habe vorhin auf Commons aber auch schon eine solche bessere Variante entdeckt. Entweder hat es schon einmal jemand spitz gekriegt, oder derjenige hat es nur von so einer Online-Ausstellung kopiert, ohne zu ahnen, dass da ein System dahinter steckt. Als Hacker bin ich eigentlich eher eine Niete und leider erst Recht auch als Bildbearbeiter, aber weil ich mich häufig mit digitalisierten Büchern befasse und so manche Bibliothek auch gerne speicherbare Scanseiten in hoher Auflösung versteckt (ausserhalb der Zoomfunktion), schaue ich mir schon mal gerne die URLs genauer an oder spiele damit.

Auf WS, wo ich mir meistenteils meine Zeit mit bibliogr. Listen vertreibe, gibt es eine etwas versteckte Benutzerunterseite (nicht meine!) mit Hilfen dazu, deren Themen im groben auf Commons auch nicht unbekannt sind, abgesehen vielleicht von dem Punkt Visual_Library_Server-Bibliotheken, der dann interessant wird, wenn es um Karten oder Ansichtenwerke dieser Bibl. geht, da die downloadbare PDF nur eine reduzierte Auflösung dessen bietet, was online in der besten Zoomstufe geboten wird.

Bei Dilibri z. B. finden sich tolle Sachen, die noch nicht oder kaum für Commons ausgewertet wurden. Ich wollte da schon ran, habe aber die Zeit noch nicht gefunden. Mir wäre es daher Recht, wenn sich diese weniger bekannten Quellen kleinerer Digibibs nebst den Tricks, die höchste Auflösung davon zu erhalten, auf Commons etwas mehr herumsprechen würde. Grüsse, -- 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mein Anliegen ist eigentlich nur, mit dem Wikipedia-Mythos des unbekannten Urhebers aufzuräumen. Besonders in der Portraitfotografie und in der Architekturfotografie bis hinein in die 30er Jahre - dann durch technischen Fortschritt abnehmend, vgl. de:Erich_Salomon#Die Technik als ein herausragendes Beispiel des Bildjournalismus - gibt es den "unbekannten" Fotografen sogut wie garnicht. Auf Commons ist das Wort "unbekannt" aber Omnipräsent, basierend auf der Unwissenheit der einzelnen Uploader, nicht aber auf der Unwissenheit der Archive. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Martin H.! I am is Şahzadə. I has been blocked is user Axpde. Reason:"Şahzadə is a sockpuppet of Sultan11". Asked to help Axpde. He advised that you contact.

This is my contribution, the project of Wikipedia. I have also participated in meetups (meetings) of Wikipedia.

This is true. I have to one IP Sultan11. No, we did not use the abuse of multiple accounts. I ask, therefore, not charged with abuse of multiple accounts. I ask you to help me with the opening of the block. What should I do for this purpose. Please, what to do in this case?. Sincerely: Şahzadə.

New Uploads & Sockpuppets by Jerry Dandridge

Hi, Jerry has been quite active last week, and not all files have been deleted. I am not too familiar with deletion on commons, so I will list accounts & files that came to my attention here. In one case he even faked an OTRS entry (copied from another file), but that file seems to be deleted already. Maybe you can take care of the rest :-) Thanks! --Nobody perfect (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:The Hangover Part II Logo.jpg is indeed a simple text, File:The Hangover Logo.png - although it has less letters - is not, because of the light effects. I will check for other Dandridge puppets. --Martin H. (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos: Rio

I'll put those pictures back there! Don't call me a lyer! File:Paramore rio.jpg was taken by ME and the picture File:Paramorecitibankhall.jpg was taken by a friend of mine and he put it on his Orkut page!!! Some of the pictures of the website were taken, with his knowledge or not, from his orkut page. You should have come to me instead of deleting the pages at random. Coltsfan (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously still not got it. From your very first upload to the last you uploaded copyvios, make yourself familiar with the scope of Wikimedia projects please. --Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello Martin, can you please confirm if Rendestroi95 is indeed a sockpuppet of Dodoimortal (or most probably, the main account), so that it can be indefed?--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Most certainly it was this delete the origin of the Dodo family. I'll indef him as DUCK, but if you could please confirm, it would be better.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Im not so sure, the Checkuser data not shows a relation. If the only relation is that one Juliana Salimeni copyvio I'd remove the block. --Martin H. (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I got to that name from the historic of the Portuguese article on Julina Salimeni. Rendestroi95 was the first to place the copyright there, then Dodo deleted it. It was shortly after that that the Dodo sockpuppet family sprang out, always obsessed with uploading copyvios of Juju Salimeni and other subcelebrities. Since you say the checkuser does not show a relation, I'll remove the block, but maybe it would be better to let the sockpuppet note there, or no? What do you think?--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I will remove all notices. Dodoimortal and Dodogremio are fans of Gremio, Rendostroi95 is more a fan of Gunsnroses. --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'm still not fully convinced that there is no relation, but it's not really important. If it is him and he uses that account again for the same copyvios, he will be catched anyways. :) Thanks for your attention to this issue, and for the block correction. By the way, he used another account yesterday to upload exactly the same copyvio of Juju Salimeni and add it to the Portuguese article, I don't know if you have seen it: User:Gremistacopero, I indefed that one since it was obviously a DUCK.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That one is confirmed. Please link DUCK, not anyone knows what it means ;) --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I suspect - no checkuser just because of the subject of the uploaded photo - that User:Fuugii1 is the next. --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted pictures for "Copyright violation"

You recently deleted Belovobaz2.jpg, Belovobaz3.jpg, Belovobaz4.jpg, Belovobaz5.jpg, Belovobaz6.jpg, New_mosque_Asenovgrad.jpg (and some others). They are indeed used in some Bulgarian sites, as you've provided links. The thing is that the files in the Bulgarian sites are actually taken from Wikipedia (and the sites even say so). In the other cases of pictures that you deleted, the sites actually cite the author of the photographs, and I'm pretty sure that it's the same author as the one that provided them for Wikipedia.

Please, since you don't know Bulgarian, don't delete pictures just because you've seen them somewhere, on some Bulgarian site. Ask a Bulgarian administrator for example.

And don't worry. I've come to know that the pictures made especially for the Bulgarian Wikipedia are quite well checked for copyright violations. --Prizrak (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I carefully checked if an author is given and if the website is mirroring Wikipedia content. This was checked by e.g. looking for dates of publication or looking for the website in the internet archive. --Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
p.s.:I however appreciate help to find the rest of the uploders uploads. He only grabbed files from panoramio or other websites. --Martin H. (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm... well in that case you may have been right. There is no way the images from this author, that are still left, are "own work". I only wrote to you because one of the websites, that you cited as an example of "copyright violation", clearly stated that the images have been copied form Wikipedia. One of the others had March 2011 dates and no sources for the photos, but I checked and the images had been in Wikipedia (or at least on the pages that used them) since September 2010 or earlier.
I thought you just saw the photographs on some website and decided that they were copied form there.
So, anyway, what kind of help do you need? I'm not sure I understand. --Prizrak (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Im simply inconclusive what to do with this user. --Martin H. (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well since he doesn't seem to respond here or on his user page in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, I honestly don't know.
However when I said earlier that there's no way that the images left could be his, I hadn't seen his gallery, but only the ones that you had marked on his talk page.
Actually there's some chance that the photographs of places in Bulgaria are his (and he has uploaded them both here and on panoramio), even the ones you deleted. Is there a way to check the dates and sources of pictures on panoramio and those other websites you mentioned? --Prizrak (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Panoramio gives the upload date, e.g. Some hints are larger photos at the source, for example File:Vrana royal palace bulgaria.jpg was a cropped version of this. For the dates a google search by date range can give some information if no date is recoreded on a page. I think I will soon start a mass deletion request if nothing comes from the user here on in bg.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I wrote him in bg.wp and gave him a "one week notice" :) I'd suggest a mass deletion in a week or so, unless he shows up and says something --Prizrak (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, asking him in his language is indeed a very good help. --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)