User talk:Michael Romanov

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

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3825 stamp (Kremlin Red Star and USSR Arms) coil.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3825 stamp (Kremlin Red Star and USSR Arms) coil.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Номер марки[edit]

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Михаил! Не так давно вы загрузили на Склад марку File:The Soviet Union 1962 CPA 2963 stamp (Animal industries, Decisions of the XXII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—into Life).jpg. Меня заинтересовал ее номер по каталогу. Не могли бы вы сообщить, из какого каталога взят номер? --Matsievsky (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Сергей. Номер марки брал отсюда. Но теперь вижу, что это никакой не ЦФА. Если у вас каталог под рукой, исправьте, пожалуйста, оплошность. :) Спасибо. Удачи! --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Это хороший каталог, и сканы там хорошие, обычно 300dpi в PNG. Но нумерация сплошная с царской России. Исправлю, когда доберусь до этой серии. Я ж сначала в английском Учебнике составляю каталог, а потом уже с этими каталожными именами марки переименовываю... --Matsievsky (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

File:US franking mark39.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:US franking mark39.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


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

* Sorry Michael! Ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, Karl. I understand that this file does not fit the Commons policies. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I hate doing it to editors I know and respect their work but occasional stuff slips by or was uploaded before we were as strict as now. Thanks for understanding. Ww2censor (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


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

О почтовых карточках и маркированных почтовых карточках[edit]

Здравствуйте, Михаил. Обратил внимание на вашу правку [1] и некоторые другие. Проблема не в том, что изображен Ленин, кто ж с этим спорит, проблема в том, что это другой вид карточек. Вы добавляете файл в категорию для обычных немаркированных карточек или открыток (postcards), тогда как это маркированная почтовая карточка (postal cards). Мне кажется, нужны другие категории., например, Category:Vladimir Lenin on postal cards но ее вы очистили и выставили на удаление. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

А, прошу прощения, Андрей, видимо, получилось разночтение в терминах. А разве именно так различаются postcards и postal cards? Маркированные же, вроде, просто stamped postcards? И чтобы не заморачиваться, я и подумал, что не стоит вводить еще postal cards. Думал, что для postal cards нет верхних категорий. Видно, давно я не просматривал категоризацию на Складе. :) В древние годы были просто postcards. Раз так - надо восстанавливать postal cards. Как это нам лучше сделать? Еще раз извиняюсь. :) С уважением, --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Кстати, в этой категории Category:Vladimir Lenin on postcards - они там все маркированные. Просто одни - с обычной (стандартной) маркой, а другие - с оригинальной. Так что все пять оттуда и надо вычищать. Что будем делать? --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Т.е. в конечном итоге они все вливаются в Category:Postal cards и далее в Stationery. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
В целом, отмечу вашу большую работу по филателистической теме на Складе, особенно по отечественной филателии. Спасибо! --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Михаил, спасибо на добром слове. К сожалению, времени на все не хватает, я отсканировал из своей коллекции много карточек и конвертов с ОМ до 1980-го года, но никак не залью на склад. Я не уверен в терминологии в английской филателистической традиции, но знаю, что маркированные почтовые карточки на сайте ИТЦ "Марка" (в английской версии сайта) именовались postal cards. Я ориентировался на этот пример. Если термин неточный — от него конечно нужно отказываться, но видимо переименовывать придётся много категорий, поэтому тут нужен бот. Я не обратил внимания на то, что в категории все ПК оказались маркированные, думал одна — просто открытка. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Спасибо, Андрей. Ваши качественные сканы использую уже, например, для иллюстрации статьи Лениниана (филателия). Нужно только проявлять осторожность в массовых заливках, поскольку рисунки на самих конвертах и карточках (в отличие от изображений марок на них) могут быть защищены авторским правом. Тут на Складе периодически проводят "зачистку" подобных файлов. Сайт ИТЦ "Марка" вряд ли может служить эталоном английской терминологии. Лучше смотреть названия и термины в англовике или на специализированных английских филателистических сайтах. Да, работы в случае переименования категорий может быть много. Правда, есть гаджет Cat-a-lot, который включается в настройках. Он позволяет массово переносить файлы из одной категории в другую. Не знаю, есть ли тут на Складе такой бот, который одновременно переименовывает категории и сразу же переносит туда все картинки из предыдущей категории. Это можно спросить у опытных участников, например, у EugeneZelenko и у твоего тезки Butko (ничего, что перешел на ты? :) ). В общем, посмотри, как это лучше сделать. Но сначала надо определиться с терминологией. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Так, ну что - получается, что ты был абсолютно прав. Есть такая статья в англовике: Postal card, это именно маркированная почтовая карточка. Причем с пометкой: Not to be confused with postcard. Так что ничего не надо массово переименовывать и переносить - только одну злополучную категорию Category:Vladimir Lenin on postcards. Сможешь ее переименовать? --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Михаил, я перенёс сканы карточек в категорию Vladimir Lenin on postal cards of the Soviet Union, далее надкатегории Vladimir Lenin on postal cards и Vladimir Lenin on postcards. Мне кажется, структура оптимальная, но как говорится - правь смело, если есть другие идеи. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Отлично, спасибо! --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Андрей, для статьи Лениниана (филателия) хотелось бы иметь иллюстративные примеры для КПД и для календарных штемпелей (в соответствующих разделах этой статьи). У тебя что-нибудь для этого не найдется? Спасибо. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Нашел КПД: File:IceBreakerLenin.jpg. --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Пока к сожалению, не располагаю временем для сканирования, но интересные КПД по теме у меня есть. В 1970 году было особенно много КПД и спецгашений, что-нибудь позднее подберу. С КПД тут такая загвоздка, что сам конверт не является знаком почтовой оплаты, поэтому рисунок на нём защищён копирайтом. Но есть сюжеты (репродукции картин), на которые срок охраны истёк или если сюжет конверта в точности повторяет сюжет марки. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Хорошо, это не к спеху. В принципе, и этого КПД с ледоколом уже достаточно. --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
А вот и календарный штемпель отыскался - на телеграмме, отправленной Лениным: File:Guilbeaux155 pdf.jpg. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Сделана поправка по трактовке российского копирайта на филателистические выпуски. Так что получается, что всё (марки, конверты, открытки), выпущенное Почтой России и ее советской предшественницей, будет считаться в свободном доступе? --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Андрей, видел объявление о конкурсе и голосовании на Складе (Обсуждение проекта:Филателия и почта)? Не проголосуешь? ;) --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Indian dugouts (Gallipoli) (14646869787).jpg[edit]

Just a heads up: Gallipoli is in Turkey, not Norway. cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Postcards of" are categorised by where they depict, not where they may have been sent from. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Re your "phot was taken in Turkey, therefore it's a postcard of Turkey", it could be even taken on Mars. :) What matters is what publisher produced it and where. The postcards were printed by the Australians in relation to their army battled in Turkey and against Turkey, and ANZAC was the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps sent to Turkey:

The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) was a First World War army corps of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force. It was formed in Egypt in 1915, and operated during the Battle of Gallipoli. General William Birdwood commanded the corps, which comprised troops from the First Australian Imperial Force and 1st New Zealand Expeditionary Force. The corps disbanded in 1916, following the Allied evacuation of the Gallipoli peninsula and the formation of I Anzac Corps and II Anzac Corps.

So, Turkey never printed and issued these massive postcards.
You may check all 127 subcategories in Category:Postcards by country and re-categorise all the files in accordance with your criterion "where they depict". Best regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've never ever seen "X of Y" not to mean images of Y rather than "X made in Y". However, I've opened a discussion Category talk:Postcards here to seek consensus. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Vichy stamps[edit]

You might have an opinion on my comments at User talk:Spiessens#Vichy stamps. Ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you. Done. --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kazan Uyezd stamp.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kazan Uyezd stamp.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment relating Russian Civil War issues[edit]

Dear Michael, thanks for your kind words, i really appreciate them. Over the years Wikimedia and Wikipedia have grown and have become a more reliable source for philatelic material and its background. This is because a handful of people (among them you) are devoted to improving its quality day by day. If we only had more time! Most information is still closed behind the costly doors of philatelic literature and other unopen sources. I try to open these up and thus make the beauty of philately more available for everyone. Maybe this is the way to preserve our common interest for future generations and also get them interested in it. Of course i like the fact that parts of my own collection are available to me Wherever I May Roam (if there is internet). Best Arno-nl (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Arno-nl, for your kind words, as well. I greatly appreciate your contribution and hope that all our efforts will stay here forever. Best wishes, --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you're watching![edit]

I wondered how you were so fast at thanking me for the Indonesia cover edits I made but I notice you have User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads that I set up a few months ago on your user page so I presume you are watching the latest month. The bot does not capture everything as I was getting too many false entries but it seems about right now though I am sure some uploads I would be interested in are missed. Do you have any opinion about this deletion nomination? Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of Vichy Government. Ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you're watching, too! :) That was a random occasion that I found the Indonesian covers in an inappropriate Category:Olympic Games on stamps. And they also needed rotation I requested eventually, too. Recent philatelic uploads is a useful tool. I noticed it in the File usage on Commons section of the files and added it on my page. Will have a look at the deletion request. Thank you. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, how can I ask a bot to archive regularly my user talk page? --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
w:User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, but if you like just copy my commons talk page setup if you think that will suit you. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Will look into that. Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright stamps[edit]

This Australian cover File:Australia airmail01a.jpg has prominent modern stamps that are still in copyright for 50 years from publication. It really should be deleted but you could blur the stamps and the rest would probably not be copyrightable. I was going to nominate it for deletion but thought I would ask you first. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point! Would you please assist me in applying the blur? I am not familiar with that technique. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at that now. I only smudged the stamps and overwrote the file, so I think that should do the trick. Ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks perfect! Thank you! Best regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File:USSR 1964-10-10 cover.jpg BLUE 4 kop[edit]

Michael, pls have a look at this cover:

4 kop blue

the 4kop is blue instead of green. I never saw it in blue, did you, and is this listed in a catalogue (not Michel)? Thx, Arno-nl (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, that is very weird. The catalogue says: "4к.мн. на зеленом фоне/Multicolor on a green background". Really, really odd. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Arno, thanks for uploading more USSR covers. The question I have is who was the sender of the covers carrying the 1963 Precious Stones of the Urals series stamps? Looks like it was one the same person from Moscow (except for this cover). Can you scan the back of these covers, please? Did you buy these covers via eBay? Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, who was the seller of these covers? And what did he comment on these two stamp varieties? Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You're very welcome and thanks for your replies. The cover with the blue stamp has nothing on its back. See pic added for the back of the cover with the green 4 kop.
4 kop green backside
. See also scan of the back of the small cover with the 6k red franking.
6 kop red backside
. I bought these covers bulk in Germany, only minimal description was added. I have seen shades of green of this stamp, from light to dark, but never blue. Arno-nl (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The 1966 cover franked with the normal green 4k stamp was sent by someone under the surname Chistyakov. Comparing the handwriting on this cover and on the other one, with the "mutated" blue 4k stamp, we can conclude that Mr. Chistyakov was not the sender of the 1964 cover. However, if we compare the handwriting on the two 1964 covers, we can definitely see that they were sent by one the same person! And this is Mr. O. P. Naumkin! At least, we now know who was the original holder of the "blue mutant". Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have found him! This is Oleg Ponkratyevich Naumkin: [2], [3]. --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you perhaps know if there were essays of these stamps in different colors? Maybe a blue 4k was an essay which color was rejected. The essays may have been sold illegally and gotten into traffic, as happened many times before in stamp history. The blue stamp does not look as if it is changed chemically.Arno-nl (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No, this stamp does not look like a counterfeit production. But your suggestion sounds quite plausible. However, I am unaware about essays of these stamps in different colors. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arno! I think the only way to claim the discovery of a genuine variety of this stamp is to ask for philatelic expertisation. You can start asking here. When you receive a certificate on that stamp, we could write an article for a philatelic journal to describe this finding. How about this plan? Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Meanwhile, I asked my Russian colleagues about this variation case. They suggested that this is likely due to fading and discoloration. They have noticed that some green stamps tend to fade towards blue. So, maybe, there is no point to request the philatelic expertisation. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Digging more in the Soviet/Russian literature, I found few references describing chemically produced forgeries of green stamps transformed into blue ones. This specific case was not mentioned, so I'd better consider the philatelic expertisation. --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Michael, good ideas. I am going to send mr. Buchsbayew a mail regarding expert opinion.Arno-nl (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hope he will be helpful. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Paul Buchsbayev responded: he thinks it is a faded stamp, but he explicitly stated that he is no expert on modern Russia though.Arno-nl (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree with the fading hypothesis. Then, why was not the green background faded on another stamp used on the cover of the same period? Why is not it faded in this stockbook obviously scanned recently? I would not believe in this selective fading and non-fading. My suggestion is that the stamp in question was subject to a chemical change performed by someone for forgery or just for a joke. It could be even Dr. Oleg Naumkin himself who experimented with the chemical alteration of stamp dyes. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
We are not quite there yet. A friend of mine is a chemist at AKZO. I consulted him. Maybe we in time can get a conclusive answer a. if there is a material that can change a pigment from green to blue, b. what would be the effects of the material on the paper and c. effect on other colors. To be continued.Arno-nl (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Arno, the Russian philatelic sources I read told that in the practice of forgery, vinegar was used to change green dye of stamps to blue. But then, we have to answer the questions "b" and "c". Your blue Jasper stamp looks too perfectly to suspect any harsh treatment with the stuff like vinegar. Moreover, do you know that this stamp series of 1963 was varnished after printing? Of course, any varnish could be immediately affected in case of any chemical treatment. Do you see the varnish (lacquer) on these stamps in your possession? Thanks for keeping your interest in this blue Jasper enigma! :) --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have had contact with the chemist. At first glance the color is too equally discolored to have been caused by acid. Normally acid causes stains. He thinks this is typically the result of a poor quality batch ('Monday morning batch'). For root cause analysis several stamps could (destructively) be tested with different acids, alkaline, UV, oxygen etc. etc. The blue stamp on the envelope cannot be easily analyzed without damaging it. Arno-nl (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yes, it might not be a treatment with an acid at all. The stamp looks virginally clear. It is a very complicated case. I think that contacting the AEIP could be helpful. They may know much better how a stamp dye may be modified without seeing any obvious signs of change made by a forger.

New category for stamp varieties[edit]

I was thinking to create a category where regular/definitive stamps like the blue jasper can be put, all having the same characteristic, namely having aspects not mentioned in catalogues or philatelic literature. In this way we might create more data as to what could be possible causes/comparable material. Any thoughts on this? Arno-nl (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, Category:Uncatalogued stamp varieties as a subdirectory of Category:Stamps? For separate countries, there could be further subcategories derived from Category:Uncatalogued stamp varieties by country. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I created Category:Uncatalogued stamp oddities and errors as sub under Category:Stamp oddities and errors. Hopefully many will contribute and make our philatelic heart beat a bit faster. Arno-nl (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Arno. I appreciate this. By the way, do you read and understand Russian? --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
YW! Only very basic knowledge of Russian here :-( . Arno-nl (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sigmund Friedl.png[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Sigmund Friedl.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ww2censor (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Michael but we don't know where the original image comes from. If you can determine that, if it was published previously and when the author died, then we might be able to keep it. Ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me. I just thought that if Friedl died more than 100 years ago, it could be safe to upload his photo on Commons. I thoroughly searched for his images, and this is the only one I have found. No authorship attribution is provided for that photo. If you feel it's safer to delete it, no problem. Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually this template {{PD-Austria}} might be of use. You can likely make a claim that satisfies it. However it appears he was buried in Germany, so I'm not sure if German copyright applies. Is there no photo in any of the forgery books? I don't have any. Ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have them, too. But if these are contemporary, aren't they copyrighted? Friedl was cremated in Dresden. That was his last will, and at that time, as far as I understood, the nearest crematorium to Vienna was the one in Dresden because the first Austrian crematorium was opened in Vienna much later, in 1922. The relatives buried his ashes in Vienna after that, I guess. There was no point for his burial in Dresden because his wife, children, mother, sibs and other relatives lived in Vienna. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Michael Romanov. You have new messages at ww2censor's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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)‎ | +/−

Ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've move my post up to the already existing discussion, so it is now at: User talk:Jcb#Commons:Deletion requests.2FFiles in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel. Ww2censor (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I saw it and added few more words in support of the request. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


Publish the entire letter?[edit]

USSR 1944-04-14 cover content

I am hesitant to publish the entire letter (total 8 pages) which is in a 1944 cover. It might be trivial, on the other hand it could be of historical importance. What to do? Could you -at first glance- check if this is worth it. Thx!Arno-nl (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)