User talk:Polarlys/Archiv1

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

Archiv 1

Contents

PD-Old-Bilder

Könntest du bei deinen PD-Old-Bildern bitte noch eine Quelle angeben? Sonst kommt irgendwann die Vorlage nsd und das Bild wird in ein paar Wochen gelöscht.--Borheinsieg 17:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ich wünschte, das wäre oftmals möglich. Leider hat es sich unsere Kultur zu eigen gemacht, Bücher zu zerfleddern, so dass ein Stich wie Image:Johannes Bohn 2.png kaum noch einer Veröffentlichung zugeordnet werden kann. Wenn man im VD17 (z. B. Image:Gottfried_Olearius_-_Biblica_Theoretico-Practica_Annotata.png) oder in ordentlichen Portaitsammlungen nichts findet, ist es nahezu aussichtlos. In Hinblick auf Stiche, Gemälde und Photographien kann man nur hoffen, dass die Verantwortlichen sehen, dass es eben alt ist,zu Lebzeiten des Abgebildeten entstanden sein muss und zwangsweise unter PD fällt. Was ich partout nicht einsehe, ist eine Copyfraud-Webseite zu verlinken, die sich die Werke einer seit 200 Jahren toten Künstlers zu eigen macht und bei „Verletzung“ des „Urheberrechts“ rechtliche Schritte androht. --Polarlys 00:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nein, das ist schon OK so, die Bilder werden nicht gelöscht. Aber wo hast du das Bild denn her? Mehr brauchst du ja überhaupt nicht anzugeben.--Borheinsieg 00:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Das meine ich, mehr ist ja garnicht nötig.--Borheinsieg 00:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Das ist eine anständige Seite, die oftmals auch sehr hochwertige Bilder liefert, teilweise auch mit Angabe zu Werk/Autor. Einen vergleichbaren Link kann man aber auf eine Copyfraud-Website nicht erwarten. Grüße, --Polarlys 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, ich denke auch, dass es keine Probleme geben wird. Du kannst also weiterhin unbesorgt die Bilder hier hochladen, man sieht ja wirklich, dass es PD Old sein muss. Oder evtl. könnte man eine Bemerkung machen wie „taken from a copyfraud website“.--Borheinsieg 00:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

People by alphabet

Hi, I notice you reverted a couple of edits I made to remove category from some images, from Category:People by alphabet. I was going through from the category page and it was only after I'd removed some that I realized they were the same ones I'd removed the day before, and that you had reverted. I don't want you to think that I was ignoring your comment, but I didn't see it until after. On the page Category:People by alphabet it has a heading that says images are not be linked on that page (ie the page is to link article titles rather than images). On the ones I've removed since, I have put a better edit summary to make it clear. Sorry for the confusion. Rossrs 06:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I still have problems with commons’ sorting. Page or category and so on. --Polarlys 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So do I!  :-) Rossrs 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Campeon.jpg Source

Hi Polarlys!

I, Monika Wnuk, working with Infineon Technologies and updating our "Infineon" Wikipedia entry, uploaded two images to Wikimedia Commons, which we (Infineon) own: Campeon.jpg and Campeon1.jpg. These images are free for usage under the Creative Commons restricted license cc-by-sa-2.5. I've already assigned this license. Now you say that we need to apply a source/copyright. What exactly should I apply besides "Infineon Technologies"? Do you expect a contact PERSON?

Thanks, best regards, Monika Wnuk, Infineon Technologies, C WEB

Hallo Monika. Oft werden Produktphotos oder Photos mit Firmenbezug hier unter „Autor: Firmenname“ hochgeladen. In 90 % aller Fälle heißt das: „Ich habe das Bild von der Website kopiert und hier unter Missachtung von Urheberrechten eingestellt.“ Dass dies bei dir nicht der Fall ist, glaube ich. In der Regel würde ich wohl eine zuständige Abteilung als Verantwortlichen angeben, nicht nur einen Firmennamen. Habe den Baustein rausgenommen. Grüße, --Polarlys 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Polarlys. Vielen Dank. Ich habe die zuständige Abteilung hinzugefügt. Viele Grüße,

Monika Wnuk

Wrong license ?

Hello,

I do not understand the comment wrong license you put on some drawings of the coats of arms of municipalities of Luxembourg.

  1. The text of law you refer to is mainly about the national emblems of Luxembourg, not about the coats of arms of cities.
  2. This same text only gives some exemples of the forbidden use of the coats of arms (fraud, etc.) but do not at all stipulates that — as your license say — the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg can be used without restraint.
  3. This law may concern the blazon (the description and the meaning of the coat of arms) but not the drawings that can be done. Here is a comparison to explain what I mean: the operas of Mozart are in the public domain, but if I make a new record of Don Giovanni I will have a copyright on this record. I suppose it is the same for the Luxemburgish coats of arms: this law say they are free of copyright, but when I make a drawing I am the owner of this drawing and can put a license on it.

In this case, it is not very important because the license I am speaking of is a free license, which is a basic of Wikipedia, but I wanted to make you realise that when you change the license on my drawings you — in a way — are stealing my right on my own creation. Anyway, I suggest you modify the text which appears on your license to make it clearer, and that you add your license to mine if you like but without deleteing mine.

Thanks in advance, Bruno Vallette 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the case that "when I make a drawing I am the owner of this drawing and can put a license on it." Recordings as such are protected by laws different from copyright. Mozart's work is in the public domain, but recordings are protected indepent from copyright for 70 years from publication (varies from country to country). There is no equivalent protection for reproductions, for good reasons. --Rtc 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These changes are a serious problem, what you did was actually illegal, I only checked a few of Spanish Inquisition's Luxembourg coat of arms. These are not free images in any respect. These are the intellectual property of Spanish Inquisition, only he could place them in the public domain. I recommend you revert your changes ASAP. And as Bruno already explained, the law cited only applies to national emblems, even in that case it does not apply to graphic interpretations but to it's and use (one cannot claim property over the coat of arms itself, but then that's common to most other coats of arms) etc.--Caranorn 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop to threat me, what I did wasn’t “illegal” in any way. I’d appreciate it, if this discussion wouldn’t take place on several pages. Thank you. --Polarlys 14:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ich habe zu keinem Zeitpunkt gedroht, ich habe sogar klar gemacht dass ich nicht drohe. Ich schreibe nun hier deutsch um klar zu stellen dass ich auch verstanden werde. Und natürlich ist die unbefugte Entfernung von Lizenz Angaben illegal.--Caranorn 14:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nicht, wenn jemand ein unhaltbares Copyright an diesen Bildern für sich in Anspruch nimmt. Es ist eine Farce, wenn jemand ein Wappen nutzen will, was in vergleichbarer Form seit langer Zeit besteht, selbiges aber mit GFDL etc. lizensiert ist. --Polarlys 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Das Bild besteht nicht seit langer Zeit, sondern nur dessen Beschreibung oder Idee. Natürlich ist damit das neuzeitliche Bild Urheberechtlich geschützt. Ansonsten geht die Diskussion ja jetzt unter Commons:Administrators' noticeboard weiter.--Caranorn 14:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Transfer to commons

Hi,
I read your message. Thank you for your conciousness and sorry for the time I made you lost.
I didn't know the tool you suggested me. Indeed, it seems very helpfull and could facilitate me the transfers I need to know. I will place it on my user page.
I think the choice when we upload a picture (or anything else), for the licence, is not very flexible... for example it's quite impossible to put the media in PD when your not the author. Do you agree ? So I was in a dilemma. Moreover, I don't understand perfectly (but I try) the licence problem.
Well... thank you again, and best regards. Gemini1980 11:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Polarlys 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Commonshelper-Fehler

Hi, habe versucht den Fehler zu reproduzieren, aber kein Glück. Habe de:Bild:Nationalpark Warthemündung.jpg von selben Benutzer versucht, es funktioniert. Falls Du ein Bild findest, das den Fehler auslöst und auf der Original-Wikipedia noch existiert, gib mir bitte die URL, so dass ich es testen kann. --Magnus Manske 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Magnus! Ich habe auf de.wp das Bild de:Bild:Castor und Pollux.jpg wiederhergestellt, ebenso de:Bild:Neustadt in Sachsen.JPG. Die Bilder existieren hier als Image:Castor und Pollux.jpg und Image:Neustadt in Sachsen.JPG. Ich benutze CommonsHelper recht häufig, der Fehler tritt (gefühlt) vielleicht bei jeder 7. oder 8. Datei auf, ohne dass man irgendein Muster feststellen könnte. Grüße, --Polarlys 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Mh, mal noch was anderes: Soll „Results“ bei Push for commons die Anzahl der aufgerufenen Ergebnis limitieren? Irgendwie funktioniert das bei mir nicht, ich wende es meistens auf Bilder eines Benutzers an, bekomme aber trotzdem Dutzende ausgegeben. Grüße, --Polarlys 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Danke für die Fußstapfen

Wie kann man nur so doof sein wie Yann? --Historiograf 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging transferred images

Thanks, I was looking for something like that --Sailko 11:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

correct licence from de.wp

Weshalb ist das Bild PotsdamBabelsberg MaschHausPark.jpg nicht „korreckterweise“ in Category:Potsdam, Germany und Category:Havel gewesen? Botaurus-stellaris (03:46, 7. Mär. 2007)

Ging beim Kopieren der korrekten Lizenzinformationen verloren. Habe es wieder eingetragen. --Polarlys 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nintendo GameCube black.jpg

It could be considered a derivative however it seems to me that the game cover is a relatively minor part of the whole photograph. Feel free to nominate it for deletion, as some may have opinions that differ from mine, however I don't feel it's clear-cut enough to be speedy deleted. Thanks, Yonatanh 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help

Ok, sorry for mistakes I made. I've got no excuses. I will check the other imports I made. MaCRoEco 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) --Polarlys 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Johann Christoph Dreyhaupt.jpg

Hello,

This is not a copyright violation. Regards, Yann 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ll contact you via mail, okay? --Polarlys 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but I think better to keep the discussion here for the record. Also this painting may be modern, but then it seems much more than a work from a student. Anyway, I am not an art expert, so I can't be sure. Best regards, Yann 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, post what you want from my mail here to refer to it if needed. I don’t have a copy … Regards, --Polarlys 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:SwietochlowiceSkalka.jpg and other

You are vandal? What do you do? MaciekChorzów 12:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a vandal fighting for free content. Please add sufficient licence information to your images. --Polarlys 14:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I added sufficient licence information to my images. MaciekChorzów 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find a permission for GFDL on these webpages? --Polarlys 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hei Polarlys.

Jeg husker at jeg har sett at du kan litt norsk? Jeg forsøker meg derfor på å skrive på norsk.

Jeg ser at du har arbeidet veldig godt på Commons den siste tiden. Jeg tror du vil bli en god administrator her. Du har jo også erfaring fra tysk Wikipedia. Har du lyst til å bli administrator? Jeg kan gjerne foreslå deg. Hilsen Kjetil r 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way (and in English this time), see Benutzer:Addicted/Mail MSF-Logo and Image:MSF Logo fr de.jpg. To me, the statement does not seem adequate for a GFDL claim (“Freigabe zur Verwendung in der Wikipedia Enzyklopädie”). Have I missed something, or do you agree? I find it highly unlikely that MSF use a GFDL license for their logo. Kjetil r 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hei Kjetil, I won’t answer in your language: Whenever I attended a language course at university some time ago, I had no practice since and my grammar book is out of reach.
MFS-Logo: The licence is insufficient: just “for Wikipedia”, no GFDL is mentioned in the “Website-Editor’s” answer (is he allowed to give such permissions?). I uploaded the logo on the German wikipedia again with „PD-Schöpfungshöhe“ (Threshold of originality) and „Logo“.
Admin: Thank you for your confidence but I think I still need some time to get used to the Wikimedia Commons universe. And yes, endless maintenance lists are frightening ;-) But I don’t negate that it’s attractive idea to work with extended rights on Commons. Hilsen --Polarlys 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will delete the logo from Commons.
Take your time and get used to the Commons universe. When you feel ready, e-mail me or drop me a note at my talk page, and I will gladly nominate you. Hilsen Kjetil r 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Schon gesehen?

Moin! Das hier haettest Du mir auch mal frueher sagen koennen! 8-)) Danke fuer den Tip! --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ach, Commons ist auch mir teilweise ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln :-D --Polarlys 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wenn Du mit sieben mal hinkommst. 8-)))) --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tool for flickr

Hi, some weeks ago you kindly linked me a tool to get correct upload of pics form all wikipedia projects. Do you know if there is something similar also for flickr pics? Thanks! --Sailko 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sailko, you might want to check out Flinfo - “the easy way to upload pics from Flickr”. Kjetil r 19:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bild:Wernervhaeften.JPG

Hallo Polarys. Is the PD rationale correct? Do portraits really have a protection period of 25 years in Germany? Kjetil r 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hei Kjetil! This image is a “Lichtbildwerk”, so the protection period is 70 years pma. There is the term „Lichtbild“, a simple photography (for example done by an automat), with a protection period of 50 years after publication. Often people upload (old) portraits, war photos as “Lichtbilder”, but that’s mostly incorrect. See de:Bildrechte#Lichtbilder or en:Image copyright (Germany). BTW: No responsibility is taken for the correctness of this information ;-) --Polarlys 10:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just saw:
1965

Im Urheberrechtsgesetz von 9. September 1965 (in Kraft ab 1. Januar 1966) wurde zwischen Lichtbildern (§ 72) und Lichtbildwerken (§ 68), bei denen eine eigene geistige Schöpfung vorliegt, unterschieden. Die Schutzfrist betrug jeweils 25 Jahre. Das KUG war abgelöst.

1985

Mit der Gesetzesänderung vom 24. Juni 1985 (BGBl. I S. 1137) waren einfache Lichtbilder 25 Jahre geschützt, Lichtbilder als Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte aber 50 Jahre. Lichtbildwerke waren jetzt bis zu 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Autors geschützt. Nach § 137 a Abs. 1 UrhG konnte sich die Schutzfrist entsprechend verlängern, wenn sie bis zum Inkrafttreten noch nicht abgelaufen war. --Polarlys 10:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the German I learnt in the Gymnasium is clearly insufficient when it comes to understanding legal stuff. ;-)
In Norway we have "fotografisk verk" and "fotografisk bilde", where the former is protected 70 years pma, and the latter for 50 years after publication. Seems similar to the German system. In Norway, portraits are explicitly defined as being "fotografisk verk."
The reason I asked was because the image was uploaded to no.wikipedia, citing de:Bild:Wernervhaeften.JPG as the source. I guess I can delete it then. Thank you for your help, --Kjetil r 01:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamorlan

Awesome, thanks for the helping hand and the notice, my mistake. Cheers, Gizmo II 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bitte um Bildlöschung

Hallo Polarlys, könntest Du bitte dieses Bild 40px löschen? Ich hatte es seinerzeit unter einem falsch geschriebenen Namen hochgeladen und dann Löschung beantragt. Es tat sich bisher aber leider nichts. Grüße --Botaurus stellaris 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, ist offenbar schon weg – ich bin hier kein Admin. Grüße, --Polarlys 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Einordnung von Bildern in Jahreskategorien

Hallo, Polarlys (danke übrigens für den Hinweis auf Commons Helper), auf Empfehlung eines anderen Benutzers frage ich dich, wie Bilder in die Jahreszahlkategorien einzuordnen sind. Gehören dort nur Bilder rein, die ein prägendes Ereignis für dieses Jahr darstellen, oder gleich alle Fotos, die in diesem Jahr geschossen wurden? Letzteres ist mir nicht selten aufgefallen, so sind z.B. auch Bilder von Tieren oder von Zierfiguren ohne direkten Zeitbezug in den Jahreskategorien zu finden. Gibt es bestimmte Regeln für diese Kategorien? Bitte um Antwort, vielen Dank! :-) --Grandy02 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Grandy! Sagen wir es so: Die Mediensortierung auf Commons ist mir ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln. Teilweise werden Themenseiten anglegt, teilweise werden Bilder nur in Kategorien sortiert. Was die Kategorisierung angeht, so prallen hier auch verschiedene Ansätze aufeinander. Während auf de.wp ja z. B. ein Physiker in die Kategorien Physiker und Deutscher (Singular) kommt, gibt es hier eine Kategorie Deutsche Physiker (Plural). Teilweise werden Leute auch nach vernachlässigbaren Details ihrer Kleidung (Kategorie:Ruff) sortiert. Was ich damit sagen will: Ich blicke hier nicht durch. Teilweise werden durch die automatische Kategorisierungsfunktion von Programmen wie Commons Helper auch die absurdesten Kategorien zugeordnet und belassen. Da sollte man im jeden Fall jeweils nochmal darüber gehen. In die Jahreskategorien würde ich abgegrenzte Ereignisse in Unterkategorien (!) einordnen, darüber hinaus Kategorien wie Geboren/Gestorben. Persönlich kategorisiere ich sparsam und wäre für eine generelle Reform hiesiger Strukturen. (Ich weiß, das war nicht unbedingt eine Antwort.) Grüße, --Polarlys 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

PolarBot

Hallo Polarlys! Läuft das automatische Übertragen noch in der Testphase oder ist da dauerhaft viel manuelles Nachbessern nötig? Vielen Dank jedenfalls für die Hilfe, systematische und umfangreiche NowCommons-Aktionen wurden in letzter Zeit wohl eher selten vorgenommen. Ich frage mich ja, wie das Tool (benutzt du den CommonsHelper?) Bahnstrecken-Karten wie diese als Wappen erkennen und kategorisieren kann :-). Gruß

Das Python-Skript setzt auf Magnus’ CommonsHelper auf, kategorisiert also auf die gleiche Weise. Ich bessere manuell nach, das ist der größte Zeitaufwand. Mittelfristig will ich auf de.wp mal ein kleines Projekt für den CommonsTransfer ins Leben rufen, langfristig erspart das Aufwand, fehlerhafte Lizenzierungen, aufwändige Löschungen usw. Wenn du ein paar dutzend/hundert Dateien vergleichbarer Art zum Übertragen hast, so könnte ich das durchführen, wäre aber im Nachhinein auf Hilfe angewiesen. (Entfernen der de.wp-Kategorien, die werden leider immer mit übertragen, Rekategorisieren.) Grüße, --Polarlys 12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Skulpturenmeile Hannover

Moin Polarlys, Warum keine Categorie? Weil die Bilder jetzt zweimal auf der Seite Skulpturenmeile Hannover stehen: einmal die drei Bilder als Images und jetzt wieder herbeigerufen als Media. Das ist doch ein bisschen viel für so eine kurze Seite/Categorie? Oder tue ich etwas Falsches?--Gerardus 07:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, jetzt habe ich es gesehen. Hier gibt es ja keine grundsätzliche Einigung hinsichtlich Sortierung mit Kategorie oder Seite, oft wird beides verwendet. Wenn man eine Übersichtsseite macht (Bsp: Johann Christoph von Dreyhaupt, noch ziemlich leer), so sollte diese Seite in eine Kategorie eingebunden sein (Category:Johann Christoph von Dreyhaupt), in der auch die Medien eingebunden sind. Bilder, die mittels „Galerie“ in Kategorien eingebunden sind, sind mir neu – aber warum nicht. --Polarlys 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Polarlys,

Danke für das Antwort und den Hinweis. Ich dachte nur: eine Bildergalerie eingebunden in einer Kategorie hat das Vorteil, dass mann nur so eine richtige Titel beifügen kann. Zum Beispiel "Skulpturenmeile_Rot" ändert mann dann einfach in "Symphony in Red (2000)". Oder ist das eine falsche Methode?--Gerardus 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Das sollte man eher mit Bildunterschriften in Galerien machen. Da geht es dann auch mehrsprachig. --Polarlys 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Polarlicht

Ein Polarlicht als Dankeschön für die bereits zu Hunderten transferierten Bilder an nur drei Tagen PolarBot :-) --Notschrei 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So tolle und vor allem umfangreiche Unterstüzung für dieses Projekt gibt es selten. P.S.: das Angebot für eine hier zum Glück eher unbürokratische Adminwahl steht immer noch. Du bist ja auch viel mit Lizenzen, Löschanträgen usw. beschäftigt, da ist das langfristig bestimmt eine große Arbeitserleichterung. Eine tolle Hilfe ist auch User:Orgullobot/commands, Admins können dort hunderte Bilder in Sekunden umkategorisieren lassen, während solche Botumbenennungen als Nicht-Admin leider Tage bis Monate dauern können – aber den Bot hast du ja selber :-). Viele Grüße--Notschrei 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Danke, danke :-) Am automatischen Transfer reizt mich z. Zt. v. a. die technische Seite. Momentan löse ich ja die verbleibenden Bildkategorien auf de.wp auf. Von meiner Seite steht weiterhin das Angebot, abgegrenzte Bildkontingente auf Wunsch zu transferieren.
Was die Adminwahlen angeht, so denke ich, dass es in einigen Tagen losgeht, Kjetil hatte mich auch bereits gefragt und ich habe ihm vorhin via Mail zugesagt. Ggf. kannst du dann ja dort abstimmen ;) Dir ein schönes Wochenende, --Polarlys 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So das mit den abgegrenzten Bildkontingenten muss ich mir mal überlegen. Was genau soll das denn eigentlich sein :-)? Bilderkategorien gibt es ja keine mehr, bis auf die automatisch durch die Lizenzvorlagen erzeugten. Würde die Angabe eines Artikels wie der hier reichen? Oder evtl. die Angabe einer (Artikel)Kategorie, wo dein Bot dann automatisch alle Nicht-Commons-Bilder raussucht und transferiert? Gruß --Notschrei 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ich meinte damit Uploads eines Nutzers/Dateien in einer Kategorie/Dateien ähnlichen Namens („Wappen von …“). All das kann ich (über Umwege) mit dem rudimentären Bot erfassen und übertragen. Was definitiv (momentan) nicht geht, ist von Seiten (siehe dein Beispiel) auf die eingebundenen Bilder zu schließen bzw. Artikelkategorien hinsichtlich der Bilder abzuarbeiten. Themenkategorien gibt es auf de.wp übrigens noch, gut 600 Bilder sind drin. Grüße, --Polarlys 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Die Vorlage:Wappenrecht verwenden übrigens 2997 Bilder :-) --Polarlys 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the greeting. I hope to make some useful contributions. Brother Francis 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are any questions, feel free to ask. --Polarlys 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mona Lisa en Copyleft.jpg

Hallo,

I can't see why you asked for this image to be deleted, what is the problem? Michelet-密是力 06:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw no usage within the project’s scope and I believe we should focus on high quality content regarding reproductions of such masterpieces. --Polarlys 10:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It was for internal discussion indeed (opposition copyright <> copyleft). But is that sufficient for deletion? Michelet-密是力 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please ask the deleting sysop: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AMona+Lisa+en+Copyleft.jpg --Polarlys 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Michelet-密是力 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to adminship

Congratulation. With 26 supports but no opposition, I grant you adminship.--Jusjih 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) --Polarlys 11:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome bots

Hi Polarlys, I've noticed you have also started running welcome.py recently. As there are now 3 bots running the same script on this wiki (SieBot, Yonabot and PolarBot), I have decided to stop my welcome.py. IMO it's overkill to have more than 2. Thanks for taking over. I do hope you'll be able to continue your service. Cheers! Siebrand 09:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s overkill. I just noticed that there are times when nobody welcomes new users, so I helped out a bit. My service doesn’t run continuously. Regards, --Polarlys 11:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Glückwunsch. :) Marcus Cyron 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nach der Erfahrung auf de.wp geht man das ganze ohne jegliche Euphorie an, aber trotzdem danke! ;-) --Polarlys 12:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
hähä - ich denke, hier ist es weniger Stressig, da es keine richtige Community gibt. Marcus Cyron 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Commons ist eher eine Arbeitsplattform, wir sind dafür ein sozialtherapeutisches Integrationsprojekt mit Artikeln :-) Genug gelästert, werde mich jetzt hier erstmal umsehen, wie man ggf. den Wartungskram etwas automatisieren und beschleunigen kann. --Polarlys 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation?

Hello, Polarlys! I received a letter from a flickr user in German and was wondering if you could translate it for me into English; Babelfish didn't do a very good job as it has to do with copyright, etc., and I need a human translation to be able to understand what he said. If you don't mind/are willing to/have the time, could you drop me a line on my talk page and I'll e-mail it to you? I believe your Commons e-mail is activated :) Thanks in advance, -- Editor at Largetalk 16:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ll do my very best, send it to me via mail. I hope it’s no prosa text … --Polarlys 17:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sent via e-mail. Don't worry about getting it perfect, I just need the facts so I know whether the images can be used or not, or if I need to contact someone else. The gist I got was that I had to contact the company, because they hold the copyright? ... or something like that... -- Editor at Largetalk 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Aah, that clears things up. Thanks. I didn't get the "I got them from the press archive" part in the machine translation, it came out differently. Thanks a bunch :) -- Editor at Largetalk 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. --Polarlys 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Men Bilder

Ich glaub ich bin ein bisschen spät, aber hier mein Mailwechseln mit den Yes Men (From: Andy Bichlbaum <admin@theyesmen.org>):

Dear Patrick,

That's fine! Please take what you need.

Best TYM

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Patrick Multhaup wrote:

> Dear Sirs, > > I'm currently working on an article about the Yes Men for the german > wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men). Currently there is > one thing missing for the article. > > That would be a picture of the Yes Men, preferably "in action" at some > conference (additionally a picture of Gilda would be very good). You > released the content on your website under the "Creative Commons > NonCommercial 1.0" License, which is good in my opinion, but sadly > wikipedia wants all meterial published on their website also to be als > useable for commercial use (preferably GNU-FDL > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html or cc-by > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ ). > > It would be greatly apprecciated if you would allow wikipedia to use one > or two pictures under one of those licences. > > > Thanks in advance > Patrick Multhaup

Hallo! Dann verfahre bitte gemäß Commons:Email templates. Grüße, --Polarlys 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PolarBot

Hallo. Soll der PolarBot keinen Bot-Flag haben oder ist der grad in der Beantragung? --BLueFiSH 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallo! Ich hadere da noch mit mir. Für Aktionen wie die derzeitige wäre ein Bot-Flag gut, andernseits ist das Ziel der Massenupload fremder Dateien von de.wp. Grüße, --Polarlys 09:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dann wäre es gut, ihn auch nur dafür einzusetzen. Für die Entfernung der Vorlage reicht auch der andere Bot aus, der das zeitgleich mit dir gemacht hat. Alternativ würd ich sonst über einen zweiten Botaccount nachdenken. MfG --BLueFiSH 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Mal gucken. --Polarlys 16:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heitor

Could you please take a look on this:

Thanks. Lijealso 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The fourth hint on copyright so far. Please tell him in your language, that he should stop uploading copyrighted material copied from unfree sources. Thank you. --Polarlys 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Lijealso 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

closing deletion requests

Hi! Thanks for the help on COM:DR.

If you close a deletion request there. Please make sure that the {{delh}} goes before the heading of the deletion request. Thank you. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FImage%3ACaricatura_de_Zapata_3.jpg&diff=5448781&oldid=5443829 --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, someone else showed it in a different way ;-) --Polarlys 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving_sidewalk_scheme_v2_no_circles.svg

I noticed you deleted Moving_sidewalk_scheme.svg but Image:Moving_sidewalk_scheme_v2_no_circles.svg remains, does that not also fall into the same category of derivative works? --121.73.5.55 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. --Polarlys 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Catmore

I saw your bot working all alone, thought I'd help. ;) Yonatan talk 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, should I request a bot flag for it, whenever it’s used for file transfer from de.wp to commons (like SieBot)? --Polarlys 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. It depends on whether you wanna review all the photos yourself or if you want other people to review them too I guess. By the way, if I'm already here, you think you could link to the deletion request you're closing in the deletion summary when you delete it? Don't worry about it anyway, I didn't do it at the beginning too. ;) Yonatan talk 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Mhh, I’ll look for a way to automate it a bit (filling in the link). Regards, --Polarlys 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if you make a script or something as it'd be helpful to all of us. I think in the long run it saves time anyway as it helps you avoid comments like the one below. Yonatan talk 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The script is available now, have a look in my latest contributions and honour DerHexer from de.wikipedia.org for his work. --Polarlys 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle bush.jpg

Why this image was deleted? This was my work! No copyrighted! Ten Wikipedians has in own user sites. --83.11.58.211 14:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Uncle_bush.jpg. --Polarlys 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploads

Darf ich fragen, ob du die Bilder halbautomatisch hochlädst? Es wäre nicht schlecht, wenn man sie vorher etwas selektieren könnte, Bandspam-Bilder waren auch darunter. Grüße, --Polarlys 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh... Yes, I'm using CommonsHelper, but a better way is using CommonsHelper Helper. // Liftarn
Oh, so you speak English. I just wanted to ask you to pay attention not to upload “bandspam” images (orphaned files, showing premature band members and so on; we get dozens of articles à la “we founded our band yesterday, rock like hell and currently work on our myspace site” day by day) from de.wp or images that collide with Commons:Derivative works. Regards, --Polarlys 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I can guess what a German text says, but it's not very accurate. For instance I assumed you asked if I used some half automatic way to move pictures to Commons. Photos from concerts can be interesting even without the band being interesting. // Liftarn

Eichmann

Hi, you shouldn't have deleted this image, as it was in the public domain and was being used in articles. Note for you at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eichmann3.jpg. Do you have a link to where the image was, so we can re-upload it? SlimVirgin 20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was enought time to participate in this debate. “According to Israel's copyright law, works are protected until 70 years after their author's death. Pictures are protected for 50 years from the day the picture was taken, unless the pictures were taken by a public authority (the government) in which case the pictures are protected for 50 years from the day of publication.” The photo was done in 1961. --Polarlys 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to monitor two websites; almost no one does. This image was uploaded to Wikipedia for use on Wikipedia in a featured article. The next thing I know it's been uploaded here and deleted. The source says it is public domain. [1] It's the Eichmann trial for heaven sake. Of course it's in the public domain. What source did you look at that said it was restricted? SlimVirgin 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Credit: USHMM, courtesy of Israel Government Press Office. So it was done by a public authority, it’s protected by copyright until 2012 because Template:PD-Israel applies here. USHMM is quite famous for releasing files as “public domain”, whenever they are still protected for decades. --Polarlys 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't been released by the museum, but by the Israeli government. When you say the museum is famous for releasing images they shouldn't release, can you give an example? In my experience, they're known for the opposite i.e. claiming copyright on images that have in fact been released, or on which there is no copyright for some other reason. But if you think it's protected by copyright, why not add "no rights reserved" instead? Why delete it? SlimVirgin 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Show me an explicit permission by Israeli government regarding this photo, different from Israeli copyright law. And yes, I have seen enough photographs showing persons of Nazi Germany, released into the public domain by USHMM. This one for example. Why is it in the public domain? Hoffmann died in 1957, so the image is protected (§ 64 UrhG) until 2028. --Polarlys 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hoffmann took these images for release into the public domain at the time. Do you know what the Eichmann trial was? Why on earth would the Israeli government want to restrict the use of images from it? And can you answer my question about why you didn't simply add "no rights reserved" if you think the image remains under copyright? What you seem to be saying is that you know more about copyright law as it pertains to Holocaust-related imagery than the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and perhaps you do, but can you see why that's not something the rest of us would assume? SlimVirgin 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hoffmann didn’t release anything into the public domain. He owned the publisher Heinrich Hoffmann. Verlag national-sozialistische Bilder with several hundred employees and got rich selling pictures like this. Why should we add the template copyrighted free use if we don’t know if “the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose.”? For the rest of your posting: w:Appeal_to_authority. --Polarlys 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please answer this question: if you believed the Eichmann image had not been released, why did you not simply add "no rights reserved" instead of deleting it? SlimVirgin 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Because that implies that “the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose”. --Polarlys 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Katyn Photos

Guten Tag Liebe Herr Polarlys! Warum Likwiedieren Sie die Katyn Photos (drei oder Vier) aus Commons? Das ist alles aus Polnische und Englische, Francösische, Spanische, Italienische Wikipedia! Bitte reaktiwieren diese material. Sehr danke. Antwort bitte nach Polnische Wikipedia - Wikipedysta:Roland von Bagratuni, oder Ungarische: User:Roland von Bagratuni. Sehr danke! Wiederschön--Roland von Bagratuni 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no account on these wikipedias, so I’ll answer here: We can’t protect copyright violations from deletion just because they are used. Ich habe kein Benutzerkonto in der polnischsprachigen bzw. ungarischsprachigen Wikipedia, deswegen antworte ich hier: Wir können bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen keine Rücksicht darauf nehmen, dass sie irgendwo genutzt werden. Grüße, --Polarlys 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Katyn Images

Katyn images are PD-Polish ( made by Polish or unknown authors and published in Poland before 1994 )and its deletion is not unterstandable without POV ( not essential) reasons. There are no basis to such deletion. With best regards

Andros64 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Article 72 UrhG, en:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images, …. Why is the author Polish, when he is unknown?. --Polarlys 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anfrage

Zuerst noch mal Glückwunsch für die Adminwahl – hatte ich leider ganz verpennt. Du hattest geschrieben, mit deinem Bot Dateien mit ähnlichem Namen automatisch hierherverschieben zu können. Ich hätte da was: alle Dateien die in SAW.png enthalten (das sind so Lagekarten für Gemeinden, z.B. de:Bild:Leppin in SAW.png). Sollten insgesamt 119 Dateien sein, die alle in eine Category:Locator maps of municipalities in the Altmarkkreis Salzwedel einsortiert werden müssten. Ginge das evtl.? Gruß--Notschrei 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo! Ich hatte die Krücke, äh, den Bot, jetzt einige Tage nicht laufen, ich werde bei Gelegenheit mal gucken … Die Kategorie zu ergänzen ist kein Problem, CommonsHelper (darüber läuft es ja), wird aber auch noch andere Kategorien ergänzen :( --Polarlys 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Kleine Anmerkung: Seit heute stimmt die Übersichtskarte (Kreise) nicht mehr. Grüße, --Polarlys 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Nö, erst in zwei Monaten (siehe de:Kreisreform Sachsen-Anhalt 2007). Der Altmarkkreis Salzwedel und der Lkr. Stendal sind dabei die einzigen, die unverändert bleiben. Sonst hätte sich das Umschaufeln weniger gelohnt :-) (wären höchstens noch als "historische" Karten brauchbar gewesen). Ich denke mal, dass Schiwago sich dann um das Überschreiben der Grafiken mit der neuen Übersichtskarte kümmern wird.--Notschrei 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ach, stimmt. Ich habe Schiwago auf das neue Heim seiner Dateien hingewiesen, es sind mittlerweile alle übertragen und kategorisiert. Richtig flüssig läuft es leider noch nicht. Grüße, --Polarlys 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Super! Etwas ungünstig ist bei dem Commons-Helper, dass er vor alles ein Original Text setzt usw. So wie bei Image:Winkelstedt in SAW.png kann man es derzeit wohl nur manuell machen, noch mit interwiki-Link und weiteren Anpassungen. So, als Dankeschön darfst du dir jetzt einen Landkreis aus Sachsen-Anhalt aussuchen, aus dem ich dann sämtliche Gemeinden entstubbe :-) (irgendwann sind sowieso alle dran). Viele Grüße--Notschrei 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hatte die spontane Idee, mir mit einem Vorschlag etwas Arbeit abzunehmen, doch diesen Kreis hatte ich dummerweise schon selber bearbeitet … Ich bin für den Burgenlandkreis, über dessen Umbenennung man sich zur Zeit so vortrefflich zu streiten weiß … Richtig sauber bekommt man es mit CommonsHelper wohl nie hin. Bei derartig „technischen Dateien“ ist das zu verschmerzen, Porträts u. .ä arbeite ich immer manuell nach, um eine ordentliche Beschreibung zu haben. Grüße, --Polarlys 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sehe ich auch so, dass das bei den Lagekarten nicht so wichtig ist. OK, dann der Burgenlandkreis (mit Landkreis Weißenfels), da gibt es zwar kaum noch Extremstubs wie sowas, aber etwas mehr Fleisch unter den Rippen könnten alle vertragen. Wirkliche Informationen zu Geographie und Geschichte fehlen in den Burgenlandgemeinden fast vollständig, wie sie eigentlich bei der Entstubbung Standard sein sollten und größtenteils sind. Gruß--Notschrei 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ich fand das Ort-in-Deutschland-Projekt vom ersten Tag an beeindruckend, das Anlegen, das Entstubben, die Wartung der Box mittels Box, die Ersetzung der Karte, die Pflege der Wappen. Was nach diesem soliden Gerüst kommt, ist leider oft ernüchternd: LInkspam, pov-lastiges Heimat-Wischiwaschi, Werbung, irrelevantes Zeug zur Geschichte von Vereinen. Beobachte selber einen ganzen Kreis und einige Dutzend anderer Orte. Vielleicht sollte man versuchen, für jeden Kreis einen (zuverlässigen) Paten zu finden, der über die Artikel mal drüber guckt und sie dann auf die Beobachtungsliste setzt. Grüße, --Polarlys 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sowas gibt es eigentlich genau in der von dir gemeinten Form (siehe hier, kannst dort ja „deinen“ Kreis eintragen :-) – die meisten Kreise sind aber leider noch unbesetzt… Ansonsten wird ja hoffentlich der Großteil von IP-Link-Spam, Geschwurbel, die örtlichen Tischtennisvereine usw. bei den RC abgefangen, aber vieles bleibt natürlich hängen und wird erst Tage und Wochen später korrigiert. Die Ortsartikel sind für sowas naturgemäß besonders anfällig. So schlimm finde ich den Zustand derzeit eigentlich nicht, es gibt nämlich auch eine solide Grundbasis von Mitarbeitern, die den Müll aus den Artikeln immer wieder rauswirft. Derzeit die größte Not herrscht eigentlich beim Entstubbungsprojekt, wo insbesondere noch hunderte Mikrogemeinden aus Thüringen und Rheinland-Pfalz auf einen ordentlichen Artikel warten müssen… gruß--Notschrei 17:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Borrado de imagen: Muralla de Legio (León España)

Buenos días.

Muchas Gracias `por borrar la imagen de la muralla romana y medieval de Legio (León, España). Es un trabajo propio, como indica la ficha de datos que cargué con la imagen. Se ruega la reponga en su lugar.

La sobrevigilancia en wikipedia, da igual la sección incluyendo los archivos commons, es tan reprensible como el gamberrismo; demuestra buena intención y escaso conocimiento.

Caligatus. History Doctor.

P.S.: si no sabe castellano, apréndalo.

I don’t speak your language, sorry. --Polarlys 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you might wanna use this tool in the future to get an admin who does speak the language to respond. Yonatan talk 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vieno ja Oski Simonen 1930.jpg

Hello, you asked for more information about the copyright of this photo. All I know is that this photo is taken in 1930, and the author isn't mentioned in the book where I scanned it. Thus, I think, the author hasn't claimed authorship as he hasn't signed his work. At least the Finnish copyright law says that if the work has been published without the name of the author, the work is public domain after 70 years of publishing. What must I do to keep the photo in Commons? Thank you. -Simop 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a different point of view regarding anonymous works, thank you for your explanation. Here in Germany the term is 70 years as well, but the work is just considered “anonymous” if the author isn’t identifiable with a reasonable effort. --Polarlys 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the template. Fortunately, the Finnish law doesn't demand any reasonable affort. Only if the personality of the author happens to be found out, then the license must be changed. -Simop 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alice Liddell 80 ans.jpg

I can't find the deleteion request for this image.Geni 18:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alice Liddell 80 ans.jpg. --Polarlys 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish

Ich habe mal die Antworten auf Reptil's posting gelöscht, damit keine Trolle gefüttert werden. --rtc 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In Ordnung, mir ging es primär um eine weitaus weniger schwarzweiße Form der Wahrheit … --Polarlys 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bildtransfer

Du schreibst: "Hey! While transfering images from local Wikipedias to Wikimedia Commons please pay attention to use the correct licence tags from the original uploader and to mention his name – otherwise it’s a violation of copyrights. Commons helper is a nice tool to automate image transfer – give it a try."

Kannst Du mir ein Beispiel nennen, wo ich den Autor nicht korrekt genannt habe. Bloß der Vermeidung von Fehlern wegen. Qualia 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Das kann ich jetzt wirklich nicht mehr rekapitulieren, ich setze diesen Text manchmal auch, um einfach auf Commons Helper aufmerksam zu machen, wenn man sieht, dass der Nutzer die Bildinformationen (mühevoll) irgendwie anders kopiert hat. Grüße, --Polarlys 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo's that I took at Anfield

Hey Polarlys, why did you speedily delete my images and say my images are copyvios? Those are my images taken at Anfield on May 1. I took those photos while I was watching the Liverpool vs Chelsea match. --Gzill 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don’t believe you. All images are professional photos, sold on http://www.fotosports.com/ --Polarlys 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

fotos minhas

todos estas imagens são de minha própria autoria, alguma dúvida?

Flaksbaum 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Flaksbaum

? --Polarlys 09:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

photos from my own Flaksbaum 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)flaksbaum

Image:Rabbit Jeff Koons jpg

Hello Polarlys, The image was uploaded with the friendly cooperation of the Commons Helper-tool from En-Wikipedia. I got no warning and everything seemed ok.--Gerardus 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sculpture is copyrighted, you are not allowed to take a photo of it and release it under any licence. Regards, --Polarlys 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Polarlys, you are absolutely right. My question remains however: why doesn't Commons helper-tool warned me that there was no acceptable license?--Gerardus 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons helper can’t identify the content of any media. If you upload a copyvio, put a GFDL template in it, Commons Helper won’t notice that the shown object is copyrighted. --Polarlys 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No fair use on Wikimedia Commons

Thanks for the message and sorry for my mistake. I started on Wikimedia Commons yesterday and it's all kind of new for me. I guess that when I want to use fair use, I have to go the the English Wikipedia. Can you tell me if that's true? - Regards - Mdd 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I don’t know if are other Wikipedia projects allow fair use, Commons does not. See Commons:Licencing. Regards, --Polarlys 14:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I allready uploaded this picture again in the English wikipedia, bu also made a small mistake there. I choose the fair use & bookcover, because the picture came from a bookcover. Do you know if I'm going to be in trouble again? Maybe you can even cause it overthere? That would be nice, because I just want to get it right. - Mdd 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no experience working on en.wikipedia.org. Regards, --Polarlys 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks anyway. I'll just wait and see what happens there. Rgeards - Mdd 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you do

Nice to meet you.--Hisu 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Unfortunately I had to delete your upload (Image:NORTHKOREANNN.jpg), since en:fair use isn’t allowed on Wikimedia Commons. See Commons:Licencing. --Polarlys 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Keith Richards

Could you please show me what license you want to that image? [2] thank you.Machocarioca 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

See Commons:Copyright tags. --Polarlys 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Machocarioca

Template:Please link images

Hallo Polarlys, schau mal bitte auf die Seite, ich denke da ist irgendetwas nicht richtig gelaufen beim markieren von Bildern mit {{Template:No permission since}}. --GeorgHH 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis, wieso das so war, weiß ich aber auch nicht :-/ --Polarlys 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rivera

Hi Polarlys

I´ve noticed you have deleted several images from paintings by Rivera in the page of Museu de Arte de São Paulo, in the Portuguese Wikipedia and other Brazilian artistas in the page of Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo

According to Brazilian Law, as was inscripted in the image´s description (I don´t know if you can read portuguese) we have this license for use of images:

"It won´t be considered violation to the author´s copyright the reproduction of works of art, since their used as a way of explain educational texts, and observed the mentioning of the author and the source" (law 9.610/98, 46, VIII ) - Brazilian Code of Copyrights

And Also, Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.


This is aplicable to works of Brazilian artists and works of foreigner artists located in public collections in Brazil, as was the case of the image of Rivera´s painting you deleted, which belongs to the São Paulo Art Museum, a public collection, listed as national patrimony in Brazil and has its copyrights absolutely free for educational purposes. The same is valid to the Pinacoteca do Estado´s works.

Since Commons is a virtual depository of archives, not connected to copyright laws of a specific country, but a mist of all of them -- and there´s not a specific common to Brazilian Wikipedia -- I think you should pay more atention to specific cases.

Paintings from modern works of art from Public American Collections, such as Picasso´s and Dali´s from NGA and others, are freely used in the wikipedia. Brazilian´s law is very similar.

Therefore, I´m posting the pictures again. Hope you understand.

Best,

naherty

This is en:fair use and fair use is not allowed on commons. --Polarlys 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"permanently located in public places" means places accessible 24/7 without restriction (paying entrance fees etc.). It does not mean owned by a public institution. Commons is primarily there for user-created content, just as wikipedia, not for collecting existing works. All these pictures have to go and have to stay deleted. --rtc 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Wrong again. It means exactly what you said it doesn´t mean. Brazilian code state is about "reproductions of any works of art", in these exactly therms. You have no idea of what you are talking about. The picturs will be posted again.

Is it just my impression or you just can´t admit that you are sometimes wrong? Gosh...

I´ll explain again. Try to keep your mind open to ideas of someone WHO´S NOT ENGLISH, GERMAN OR AMERICAN this time, which means, different concepts of law and justice.

Fair use is not an applicable doctrine in Brazil for one simple reason: our country IS NOT conducted under COMMOM LAW. Brazilian system of rights is based under the Roman tradition (CIVIL LAW), unlike USA, England or Germany. This means our government don´t give a damn to any of your doctrines as what it comes to their application in our territory (including the virtual one). This includes fair use. Our laws (and our notion of what is legal), as well as Portugal´s (and therefore applicable to the pt.wikipedia and to images and author´s copyrights) are based under WRITTEN codes. Not ideas or doctrines. Can you understand that?

Now, unless you believe that your judgement of the question is above mine just because you´re German and therefore YOUR way of doing and understanding things is the right one, pay attention to this:

Brazilian jurisdiction about images use and author´s copyright states that Brazilian people is FREE to copy and share ANY works of art which belongs to Brazilian public collections (wether the authors died more than 70 years ago OR NOT), without prejudice to the authors. Far from ignoring author´s rights, this license regognizes and protects those principles, making possible the educational and creative use of works of art. Unlike common law´s countries jurisdictions, which results on the restriction of public access to works of art as a way of protecting economic interests of a few owners, Brazilian law is more interested in making works of art accessible to the largest amount of people as possible. I don´t know what you think about that. But it don´t give you the right of deleting images of works of art published by Brazilians in the Brazilian Wikipedia to Brazilian people. In short, it is very much possible to say that you are restricting OUR rights and breaking OUR laws when you do that (see: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/pt/).

Now, what OUR CODES about copyrights say is:

"Works of art (paintings, drawings, photographies, sculptures and general images) permanently displayed in public institutions CAN BE freely reproduced, by any written or eletronic media, without prejudice to the author." - Brazilian Code of Copyrights (Law 9610 from 19/02/1998, title I, par. IV, art. 48)

In short, it is a right of any Brazilian citizen to reproduce images of works of art of any brazilian public institution withou prejudice to the author - and display it in any kind of media - wheter Brazilian or not.

So... Can you give me a valid explanation about why did you deleted those images?

I believe that if you´re not informed about other countries laws about copyrights and reproductions of works of art, you shouldn´t act in the way YOU think is appropriated. Those images were legal in any therms under Brazilian jurisdiction.

As I´ve said before, I will post those pictures again. If you delete them again, I´ll be forced to inform Brazilian authorities about this harm to Brazilian people rights.

Thanks for understanding

Naherty

I think the user should be blocked, as he has ignored the principle number one, which is that commons is a privilege, not a right, and he has written a legal threat, and announced to keep uploading the illegal copies. First of all, noone has the right to force Commons to keep pictures on its servers, regardless of whether they are illegal or "merely" not compliant to COM:L. It's the Foundation's private property, and it decides what it keeps there and what can be deleted. You are not in a position to make any demands whatsoever about that. The translation "Works of art (paintings, drawings, photographies, sculptures and general images) permanently displayed in public institutions CAN BE freely reproduced, by any written or eletronic media, without prejudice to the author" is a blatant lie. The UNESCO translation is very clear, there, Art 48 reads "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes" ([3], p. 11) and is exactly Freedom of panorama, COM:FOP#Brazil with the usual restrictions, see Template:FOP. A "public place" in the sense of Freedom of Panorama is a place accessible 24/7 without admission outside of any building. --rtc 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A. varius.jpg & A. varius range.png

Hey, I was just wondering why you deleted these photos from the A. varius page. From my understanding after reading the terms and conditions on the IUCN website the images were free to use for educational and non-profit purposes (i.e. wikipedia). If this is not the case thats fine, I would just like an explanation. Also, are pictures found by searching google image free to use? Thanks for your time. Eekamike

That’s not enough: „The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. The Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use. Commons also does not accept noncommercial-only content.“ Regards, --Polarlys 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Polarlys's recent edits

Hi. Please ensure that you follow step "3. Notify the item's uploader or the creator of the page" of the instructions transcluded by {{delete}}. You did not do that recently for the following edits: 1 2

Also, please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At 12:37 (UTC) yesterday (12 May 2007), you provided an edit summary for this edit, but it was incorrect - you were making a new post regarding "some opinions please" but your edit summary said "/* To create an account to vote */". At 17:07 (UTC) yesterday (12 May 2007), you archived this section 1d6h43m early in this edit, without an edit summary. Why?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you want from me? I deleted > 1000 copyvios here yesterday (every one with an edit summary) and did 200 other edits. I run bots on several projects and I am an active user and administrator on de.wikipedia.org. Sometimes I forget edit summaries and sometimes I don’t care about them. --Polarlys 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

About the picture of Ste Germaine

I'have seen that you wont to delete this picture. Why ? It's my own work, a picture of an old little statue, belonging to my family from the end on the XIXe century/the begining of the XXe century. I took it with my own camera, in my house... What do you want more ? There is no signature on this statue, it has no value ! If one day you come in Normandy, I can show it to you... I think it is not fair to delete this picture, and I hope you think the same. And... I apologize for my english too.. Theoliane 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sainte germaine.jpg. Regards, --Polarlys 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bild geloescht

Hallo Polarlys, gerade habe ich gesehen, dass Du es warst, der ohne Ankuendigung ein Bild geloescht hat. Jetzt hatte ich schon hier beim Help Desk nachgefragt - koenntest Du Dich gerade dort melden? Danke, Ibn Battuta 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Ibn Battuta! Schau hier: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Polarlys&page=Image%3AUniversity+of+Virginia+Cavalier+mascot.jpg
Es wurde der entsprechende Baustein gesetzt, es war in diesem Sinne eine „Schnelllöschung“. Grüße, --Polarlys 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Genau das verstehe ich ja nicht - siehe help desk (deswegen verlinke ich doch dorthin): Was ist das Problem? Auf der von Dir verlinkten Seite steht nur "derivative work". Dazu mein verständnisloser Kommentar am help desk. Dank im voraus, Ibn Battuta 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Gerade zufällig noch den Kasten oben auf Deiner Benutzerseite auf dem Bildschirm gehabt (sonst lese ich so'was nie)... Nur falls es Dich interessiert, Du sprichst im Spanischen von Dir im Plural (Estos usuarios no entienden español). Sofern Du Dich als einzelnen Menschen verstehst, wäre Este usuario no entiende español. empfehlenswerter... :o)) (zumal Du im Portugiesischen und Polnischen ja Singular benutzt) --Ibn Battuta 16:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Danke für den Hinweis, ich habe es dahingehend abgeändert. Die Sätze waren irgendwoher kopiert, ich bin keiner der Sprachen mächtig. Zum Thema: In der Löschbegründung habe ich Commons:Derivative works doch verlinkt? In Kurzform: das Maskottchen (nachfolgend: „Werk“) ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Du magst die Rechte an deiner Fotografie inne haben, über die Urheberrechte des abgebildeten Werkes verfügst du jedoch nicht. Grüße, --Polarlys 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha, es ging also darum, daß Du das Maskottchen für urheberrechtlich geschützt hältst? (Sag das doch gleich...) Hm, bin mir da nicht so sicher. Auf welcher Grundlage soll es geschützt sein? (Das Logo der Uni, ja, aber das meinst Du ja nicht, oder?) Bevor ich jetzt lange im Internet suche, frage ich mal lieber gleich Dich, vermutlich weißt Du's ohne lange Recherche? Danke, Ibn Battuta 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Der Person, die es zur Löschung markiert hat (Rtc), traue ich einen großen Sachverstand in dieser Frage zu, ich stimme an dieser Stelle mit ihm überein, nicht zuletzt aufgrund hinreichender Erfahrung hinsichtlich der Löschung von Comicfiguren und Actionfiguren auf Wikimedia Commons. de:Schöpfungshöhe ist für diese Maskottchen gegeben, für weitere Details einfach mal Commons:Bearbeitungen überfliegen --Polarlys 10:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Da diese Figur nicht zu den "Comicfiguren und Actionfiguren" gehört, kann ich Deine Analogie leider nicht nachvollziehen. Ich hätte gehofft, daß selbst (oder gerade?) Commonsmitarbeiter, die viele Bilder löschen, das nicht ohne einen begründeten Antrag tun. Ich werde mich mal bei rtc melden, vielleicht weiß der ja mehr. Gruß, Ibn Battuta 17:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Metabolic pathways small.png

Hi there. I was wondering why you deleted this file. It was simply a conversion to PNG of a work of the United States government (from NASA, see [4] and [5]). I thought U.S. works could be edited and converted without any problem, as they are in the Public Domain. Regards, Fvasconcellos 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The given source was http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map01100.html. --Polarlys 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I'll contact the original uploader on the English Wikipedia about it. Fvasconcellos 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded it from that NASA source. The link you give as a source is dead. This seems to be some kind of mistake, who uploaded the file into commons? I'll put it back into Wikipedia in the meantime, while we sort this out. TimVickers 17:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The links works. I restored the files again, have a look Image:Metabolic pathways small.png and Image:Rutas metabólicas.png. --Polarlys 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work for me! I see the problem though, so NASA took it from KEGG, how annoying. I'll have to generate a replacement. TimVickers 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The files are deleted again. I think the encyclopedic value of this pathway visualisation wasn’t too high anyway: For “beginners” there were to much details (whenever unmarked), for other audiences they weren’t detailed enough. Personally I own this one (from Roche I think), but it’s a bad template for our purpose …) --Polarlys 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Helmut Newton Grave.jpg

Hallo Polarlys,

erst heute habe ich entdeckt, dass du am 18:42, 29 April 2007 das von mir aufgenommene und hochgeladene Bild des Grabsteins von Helmut Newton mit der Begründung "copyvio, nicht von Panoramafreiheit gedeckt" gelöscht hast. Zum einen empfinde ich es als sehr unhöflich, mich hierüber nicht zu informieren, zum anderen hätte ich gern gewusst, wo geregelt ist, dass Grabsteine nicht von der Panoramafreiheit gedeckt sind. Gruß --Rlbberlin 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Für das Bild wurde eine Art „SLA“ gestellt („copyvio“), ich wüsste nicht, warum ich da im Vorfeld nochmal darauf aufmerksam machen sollte (kleine Anmerkung am Rande: Es gibt Tage, da lösche ich hunderte Bilder aus ähnlichen Wartungskategorien). Grabsteine mögen prinzipiell von der Panoramafreiheit gedeckt sein, der Grund für die Löschung war jedoch ein meiner Meinung nach dort nicht dauerhaft angebrachtes Bild, welches Hauptinhalt des Photos war. Sollte ich dessen Charakter verkannt haben, so stelle ich das Bild natürlich umgehend wieder her. Grüße, --Polarlys 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In den Grabstein ist eine Fotografie (auf einer Glasplatte) dauerhaft eingearbeitet, ähnlich wie es vor allem bei Gräbern in Südeuropa üblich ist. Das Grab von Newton ist ein s.g. Ehrengrab, wird also wohl samt Grabstein dauerhaft dort bleiben und nicht nach üblicher Fristablauf von 30 Jahren eingeebnet. Ich versuche es nochmal mit Image:Friedhof Schoeneberg III - Helmut Newtons Grave.jpg. Gruß --Rlbberlin 01:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ich kenne den Friedhof sehr gut (habe den Artikel [6] verfaßt) und kann nur bestätigen, daß das Foto dauerhafter Bestandteil des Grabsteines ist. Alles andere als ein Foto würde ja auch Helmut Newton nicht gerecht werden ;-) viele Grüße --Axel.Mauruszat 06:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So ihr Beiden, das Bild ist wieder da. Verzeiht meinen Irrtum, ich hätte mir denken sollen, dass es keine selbstklebende Plastikfolie mit Bild als „Devotionalie“ eines Fans ist – wie es wohl beim Grabe von Bill Kaulitz der Fall wäre. ;-) Grüße, --Polarlys 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kein Problem, sowas kann ja schon mal durchrutschen. Gruß --Rlbberlin 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Meine Quote ist ganz gut, auf 2500 Löschungen war das die zweite oder dritte ernstzunehmende Beschwerde ;-) Grüße und schönen Abend, --Polarlys 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What URL ?

Hello Polarlys, Thanks for writing in my usertalk , but please clarify what url (I think you've meant image) you found unacceptable ? If you are talking about DFS 346, all images of this plane were taken BEFORE critical date (plane crashed in september 1951), and author is unknown. I may assume that under this circumstances all these images are suitable to use with {{PD-Russia}} tag Best wishes ! Ntrno 12:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ntrno. It’s perfect if you have a certain date, gathered from a special event. Please point that out in the description, it’s interesting and useful for licensing. What I meant by “suitable source”: Websites usually use images from books, archives or even other websites, mostly without annotations regarding the real source and it’s often difficult to reveal the copyright holder. Marxists.org for example gives away images under free licenses they copied from the web. Please consider this problem, of course it’s often difficult to find images. Feel free to revert my annoying template. --Polarlys 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC) PS: I had to laugh about your hidden comment ;-)

Image:06 orlov.jpg

Dear Polarlys. Could you please help me to undelete the file Image:06 orlov.jpg and correct the copyright license in order to prevern the fuirther deletion? I got the permission to use it at wiki projects, APS grants the copyright for Yuri Orlov photo. Wed, 02 May 2007 15:24:06 -0400, Kerry Johnson (APS) wrote:
Please include this credit line: Used with permission by the American Physical Society, photo by Claude Levet
Perhaps, I did not found the correct key which assigns the appropriate copyright tag. What option should I choose at the uploading to avoid problems?Domitori 08:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if the American Physical Society can give such an permission, since this photo was done by Claude Levet. Please use Commons:Email_templates. I don’t know the appropriate copyright tag, C. Levet has to choose it. I suggest a Free_Creative_Commons_license. Regards, --Polarlys 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia

  • Be my guest -- so long as you've crossed your eyes and dotted the tees per procedures. Which is to say, properly list each and everyone, and get a consensus. (You might want to wait a bit for most of them to become redirects or disconnected--no reason too work extra hard)

    We discussed this evolution in progress on the VP last month, (or a bit before) and the new Wikipediacat1A does what you can't do with interwiki's -- promises a long term link to article pages in ALL languages. (Why some of you confuse activity with progress is beyond me. With your hostile attitude towards technical progress it's a wonder you aren't still using a typewriter! But if you throw them out, all you are doing is handicapping those trying to find things, keep the category systems reasonably consistent, and so forth. I wouldn't be too proud of the extra effort you're demanding others to experience because of why? No good reason.) // FrankB 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop your personal attacks. Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/01#Template:Wikipedia was opened four months ago, there was enough time to participate. --Polarlys 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What Personal attack? and Duh! - great edit summary! And I did participate-- on the SINGLE TEMPLATE LISTED PROPERLY, and I'm not complaining here about that. Your close certainly applies correctly to Meta's {{Wikipediacat}}.

OTOH, if you expect me to ignore a years plus work because of narrow minded shortsightedness, forget it. You're asking for a fightl. You are the one throwing out man months of efforts and justifying it in a bare figleaf of listing one ambigous TFD! Wikipediacat is a Meta (also mulitlingual site) template. It's been around since forever, but I really don't care whether the commons links to sister sites the same way as other wikis funded by the corporation or not. Linking the three big sets of links which have interwiki's for all is the disputed action. You haven't followed procedures.

The others are not discussed individually, but mentioned. Wikipediacat1A has no relationship to the use of the former. They are very different in effect, scope and purpose. That's not due process, they were not tagged properly, nor were they listed. No matter how you try to wiggle it past, the process is being abused. Some were mentioned conversationally and others with a Specialpages link--and so far as I can see haven't been individually tagged at any time.

You super-nationalists had no consensus on the pump, and now you are clearly abusing that TFD and your authority. You are also ignoring the support on the village pump for connecting to articles so people could reach those interwiki's. Worse, if a user browser languge javascript patch for a user's language (should be an easy thing technically-- a new magic word) the new version template will extendable to for all what you can't do with an interwiki, which was the goal all along. You'd be better off deleting the sisterlinks kludge. It's so unweildy, no copycats have been applied so far as I can see. // FrankB 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What I meant by “personal attack”? You act in a very aggressive way. What do you want right now? A restoration of Wikipediacat1A? --Polarlys 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Wikipediacat1A. That’s what the request for deletion was about. --Polarlys 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you need to get the right name and refile the deletion request. Not my problem. Sorry.
Sorry if being blunt seems aggressive to you. Perhaps Older and more confident? can explain that. It's not like these templates haven't been discussed with quite a few other admins here over the years, including with Deusentrieb.

And what are you doing modifying this (catlist templates--any!) kind of thing? You're clearly overstepping your office, and again, if we can get the java language link, this technique becomes viable for all languages AND FIXES a BIG SHORTCOMING in mediawiki default page displays as the up-tree really aids proper categorization, and can actually be used for navigation as it's visible in the default skins. The discussion on these was pretty neutral on the VP.

As for what I want, if the template wasn't listed in that deletion explicitly, yes you should undo the damages you've done. That would include the WikiPcat'XX' variants, but you may feel free to change all those to Wikipediacat1A AND then delete them with my blessings. I started some of that last night, but wanted to go through the one list (Wikipediacat1A's) first, then see if a parameter switch would do the task on the two 'M' suffixed ones. I got involved on other wiki business since and in between there is the need for RL work and feeding my family. College tuition is not cheap! I was going to leave that sort of clean up (deletions) for later and just redirect for now, but since you've got the BOT to do all the work, go for it. However, I believe the arguement order in WikiPcatM/WikiPcat1M or both is reversed, so those may need swapped. As a rule of thumb, no arguments, works fine. Article names ending with an 'S' are unlikely or goto redirects pages if they are otherwise matching the category page name [Which in English, normally end with an 'S']. The category link should and will not be showing a proper badlink if it's wrong as they are a full url--they need a quick test in otherwords, as do the articles.

Bring it up again on the village pump. But don't generalize so much anyone can question your actions. // FrankB 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree it was proper to delete {{wikipedia}}, but I take exception to your deletion of {{wikisource}} and perhaps other links to specialized Wikimedia projects. This is not an issue of having giant templates for a general encyclopedia article in every language. Image:Advertising Record.ogg linked to a transcript of the recording; it would be nonsensical to link to this on the interwiki, which on the sidebar would be misleadingly labeled just "English".--Pharos 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the request for deletion: It’s possible to use a good file description to link ressources on Wikisource, Wikiquote, … I agree, that interwiki links are not suitable for this purpose, but the template wasn’t either. Every Wikisource and Wikiquote project has works by Karl Marx for example, you can’t link them from the Commons page via templates. It’s also not practical, just to link en.wikisource.org if there a translations available --Polarlys 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not about general links, like the collected works of Karl Marx, this is about content directly related to the content of the media file. Obviously a voice recording will only be in one language, and that would be the wikisource page linked to; if there are any text translations in other languages these are secondary will be on the interwiki of the direct transcription page. I can't help but feel you went beyond the scope of the deletion request in deleting {{wikisource}}.--Pharos 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You can’t limit the usage of such an template, dividing between “useful” and “not useful”. This recording is a good example for the use of the deleted template, but some dozen other templates of this kind just linked to en.wikisource.org because there is a page with that name, no matter if there is good content and no matter if there are dozen other wikisource projects in other languages with works by this artist. --Polarlys 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Polarlys, please take a look at Commons:Undeletion_requests#Inter-project_templates. Thanks! / Fred Chess 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint, I knew there was something wrong about these old requests for deletion nobody wants to work on. --Polarlys 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What is possible and not possible may come to surprise you. But not if you throw away the building blocks others are using to develop the tools needed to the task. See {{Sisterlinks}} for example. It can currently link all sites and all categories in all languages. What you are trying to toss, will do better than that and be much easier to use as it will have article links (wikipedia term) or topic links (the terms for, say, the wikisources or wikibooks). // FrankB 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this image Meßkirch 1575.jpg I had a functioning link to the specific description in the late medieval chronicle which is available on the german wikisource. I ask you to repair this link, template or not. Who breaks it, mends it! --Wuselig 21:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Polarlys 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanx --Wuselig 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Polarys, I just wanted to say "nice work" on closing Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Wikipedia. It's not fun to close contentious debates, and your closing comments and thoughtful and well reasoned. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PolarBot

I think will be good idea to add bot status for this account. Please add request on Commons:Administrators. --EugeneZelenko 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am not sure, since I use this account also for file upload. --Polarlys 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You could create different account for image uploads only. Same as User:Bryan do with his bots. --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

no licensing mark

Dear Polarlys, could you please help me? You have marked Image:V.I.Vorotnikov.jpg for deletion due to licensing reasons. There was specified link to the page where author explicitly grants permissions to use it in any way, but this page is in russian. I did not find english version of this page. What can I do to save this image in wikicommons? Thanks in advance.--Stopar 04:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stopar! I tried to decipher the „copyright page“, but I wasn’t able to find any hint on public domain. If you are sure about this licensing, please remove my template. Regards, --Polarlys 08:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that I misused the term "Public Domain". Sorry, I'm a novice. The „copyright page“ contains permission to use it for any purpose if source (this site) is specified. Please, check if I specified correct license type now. Thanks in advance. --Stopar 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

de:Bild:Philipp Missfelder.jpg

Hallo Polarlys. Is the Fotodatenbank of the Junge union really PD? I am unable to find it, do you think the license tag is false? --Kjetil r 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hei Kjetil! I don’t know. We got a lot of photos from Members of the Bundestag (Missfelder isn’t), where a permission is archieved on OTRS (513073). I don’t know if this image is covered by this permission. A lot of so-called “public domain” sources for images related to German politics are highly questionable (see de:Wikipedia:Public-Domain-Bilderquellen#Politik). Maybe User:Cducsu may help? Regards, --Polarlys 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Slipknot picture.jpg

Servus, laut Löschlogbuch hast du gestern das von mir hochgeladene Bild Slipknot picture.jpg gelöscht. Ich hab es wie du den Angaben entnehmen kannst von flickr und dort ist es unter cc ShareAlike 2.0 freigegeben. Wo ist das Problem? Danke schonmal für ne Antwort. --Jodo 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wenn jemand ein Promobild irgendwoher kopiere, es bei Flickr unter einer freien Lizenz einstellt, also eine Urheberrechtsverletzung begeht, so sollten wir schon den Blick haben, dies zu sehen. --Polarlys 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, wenn du das eindeutig als Promobild intentifizieren kannst. Bei der schlechten Qualität bin ich von dem Gedanken abgekommen. Grüße --Jodo 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

Hi, this tag is nonsense :This image is missing permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission. If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and reference it at upload. Unless the permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified:

The author is unknown, so how provide a permission? it has a source but do not have an author, I think you didn't read it carefully. The image is 80 years old so is licensed as PD-old. The author doesn't matter. It is a public domain image by age (both).

Image:Stenroos.jpg

Image:Img-071005-224.jpg

No, it’s not. If the author was 30 when he took this photo (1924) and died with 80 (1974), the image is still protected until 2044. Just as an example, but generally: „life of the author plus 70 years.“ Sorry for setting the wrong tag. --Polarlys 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the author was 50 and died with 60 (1934), we have 73 years since his death. As the author is unkown all this talk is just conjecture, so the right tag is PD-old as I placed. Otherwise, you are claiming for sources but the source is linked there, please replace or delete the tag. C'mon, be real. Thank you. Kid33 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Kid33

If we deal with such possibilities, all photos taken before 1937 “are in the public domain”. But they are not. When you copy an image from a site where no author is given, it’s not an anonymous work. Looking into a serious collection would presumably reveal a name. --Polarlys 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus about this subject here some time ago in a discussion. If you're not a copyright lawyer (and I doubt it) you're just "thinking" and "presuming". Images without copyright or author's indentification from more than 70 years ago are allowed. We don't work here based on presumption, neither Povs. You are speculating on Povs. We work on facts. An image from 1924 with no known author is acceptable here by any standards. The source is a serious one. It is not anonymous, but unknown, either to IOC. Your objection to the image here is "If this", "If that". This image is placed for years in many sites and magazines, IOC official site too. Author? Unknown. Images here aren't deleted by povs. The PD-old tag is simple, just read it. But now in curious, what's an anonymous work for you? Kid33 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Kid33

And please, stop tag it as "unsourced", this is bizarre. Kid33 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Kid33

I don't read French, but it seems to me that following the link LES AUTRES JO at the bottom of paris 1924, we see a source book 'livre "les marathons olympiques" de Raymond Pointu. Calman-lévy.', which further research shows as ISBN 2702133800 and ISBN 978-2702133804. In addition, the same image is at http://multimedia.olympic.org/pic/gal1924s_l_10.jpg, on a website which is "© IOC 2007. All rights reserved."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm Sorry. Be new aqui no commons and not understand the politic, regras e leis. But, please not me bloqueie. Be tentar do the right. And be brazilian também. Eduardo Pazos 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm already taking care of the user up here. Dantadd 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I won’t block you. But please read Commons:Licenciamento. Thank you. --Polarlys 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lee-chang-dong.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lee-chang-dong.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Polarlys 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Adress of the owner : Grands Films Classiques (Les) (FRANCE)

  1. 49, avenue Théophile-Gautier, Paris 75016 - FRANCE
  1. EMail : grands.films.classiques@wanadoo.fr

[7]

this is a link wich show the copyright; this is for the article http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Chang-dong so what I should do now? DARUMONT

Hey Darumont. You need the photographer’s permission. Have a look at Commons:Email templates for further help. --Polarlys 11:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Escudo Castilb.jpg

¿Por qué ha borrado usted el escudo de Castilblanco de los Arroyos que he publicado en Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaporandalucia (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can’t understand you. --Polarlys 14:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Seaporandalucia was asking "why did you delete Image:Escudo Castilb.jpg that was used by Spanish Wikipedia article w:es:Castilblanco de los Arroyos?". The reason you gave here was "In category Unknown as of 14 May 2007; not edited for 8 days". This was due to lack of {{image source}} since 11:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) per this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. No information at all were given. --Polarlys 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Im no Speak veri goud the english im speak Spanish but I have a question will ask to him my friend who speaks Spanish I I am about to here mainly to raise images in the Spanish Wiki but you do not worry single you do not speak to me with English very great if you please to better consult in wiki Spanish my user to me is Vivi andres 23 speakme in English there I I will understand to you or hablame in this does not concern thanks to receive to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivi andrés232 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

English: Please, ask us in English and Spanish, possibly in the Commons Village Pump, perhaps I or someone else who understands Spanish more than Polarlys can respond.
Español: Por favor, preguntamos en Inglés y Español, posible en el Café de Wikimedia Commons, es posible yo o alguien que entienda Español mas que Polarlys puede responder.
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos deleted

Hello,

Why did you delete some pictures of mine depicting François II recumbant statue in the cathedrale of Nantes ? I've just learned that from my watchlist of the article fr:Tombeau de François II. Were the copyrights not correct ? If so, tell me, but please, undelete these pictures. Best regards. --Jibi44 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored them already, sorry for my mistake. --Polarlys 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Danke ;-) --Jibi44 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Fair use is not allowed in Commons

Hi Polarlys

I see you have deleted my 2 images that I had uploaded yesterday. Well, I guess how can I pick these images to my Oldsmobile's article. Is it possible or not? May I have another alternative?

Thanks --Lallistaderaimon 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is possible on en.wikipedia.org. --Polarlys 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you deleting Nazi photographs?

Why are you deleting Nazi photographs? Photographs from that era are all in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.226.92 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied the above from this edit. What makes you write that? According to my understanding of {{PD-old}}, photographs taken in 1939 in Germany (or anywhere else in the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years), even if they were taken by someone who died in 1939, will not be out of copyright until 2009.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We had this all before, images from certain books or calendars, § 72 UrhG instead of § 64 UrhG, “Photographs from that era are all in the public domain” set phrases … --Polarlys 10:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurz korrigieren

Kannst du bitte mal kurz Template:Second Life mit Template:Second Life/de vergleichen ob das passt, was ich übersetzt habe?
Das was ich ändern würde wäre von "[...]geistigen Schaffens in Second Life als ein dem Teilnehmer, der es erschaffen hat, gehörendes Werk." auf "[...]geistigen Schaffens in Second Life als ein dem erschaffenden Teilnehmer gehörendes Werk.
Danke D-Kuru (10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Help with eddie woods photographs required

I have two photographs I would like to use in the Wiki page about of Eddie Woods which have been deleted from Wiki Commons (correctly as I now realise), but I am not sure if they come under 'Fair Use' either, so not sure how they can be used. Details about the deletion, including a comment by you, are at the 'talk' page for 'Woodstock' (who is the subject Eddie Woods). The problem is one photo was taken in 1963 of the subject by someone unknown. The subject owns the only known copy but was not the creator. The second photo was taken of the subject under his direction using his camara and film and he owns the original negative. I have statements (which I can supply) from the subject, and the creator (who is not the owner) of the second photo releasing them for use on wikipedia. Sorry if I am missing something obvious, but after a lot of reading, I have failed to find any thing that covers either of these situations in any of the guidelines. Thanks for any help you can give. Chrischmoo

  • No 1: No use possible, the unknown person owns the copyright for still some decades.
  • No 2: Person A owns the photo as a print, person B took it and person B allows the use?
  • Note: “for Wikipedia” is always insufficient – free content can be used everywhere, in every context, commercial and modified.

--Polarlys 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quick. I was under the impression (possibly false but I remember reading a report of a UK court case some years ago) that if you paid for the film, you own the copyright even if the photograph was taken by someone else. Likewize if you paid a writer, copyright of what they write is owned by you (the Guardian newspaper won a court case brought by a paid staff writer). Re No 2: person B took it and yes he does allow the use. I am now trying to get him to upload to Wiki Commons, is that the right/best solution? Thanks again, Chrischmoo

Hehe, that sounds kind of strange :-) I’ll buy w:Neo Rauch some canvas and then I’am the copyright holder? Nooo. I don’t know about this Guardian case, but I don’t think you can compare it. If person B took the picture, you can upload it here under any suitable free license. But please note: “for Commons” is not enough. ;-) --Polarlys 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Point taken re "for Commons" not enough. As for the issue of owning the film giving copyright despite not being the creator, I will have to research copyright law a bit more to be satisfied I am wrong. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the person who pays for the creation of something (be it a bathroom or a work of art), including materials, usually has full ownership (and responsibility) in law, which in the case of media would usually include copyright. For example there have been many cases of session musicians being paid very little by the hour to work in a studio (i.e. reggae artists in Jamaica) - and they have zero rights to the result, even if it is a huge hit. I will try to check this out further and get back to you with the results, thanks for your time. Chrischmoo

I believe the phrase you are both looking for in this case is "work for hire", and that if copyright was mentioned as part of the purchase of the work, then the copyright was purchased.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Derivative problem solved?

I have uploaded a new version of the image of Image:Nick Rayhall Tech Center Sign.JPG with a deliberate distortion of the drawing of the new building shown on the sign. Please let me know if this qualifies. This should as no longer a problem with the "derivative" issue. Moreover, the building that is shown on this sign is open for public view. It is a government-funded public-use facility. Thank you - CZmarlin 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know. There is no freedom of panorama in the US. --Polarlys 11:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Freedom_of_panorama, "In the United States, "freedom of panorama" exists only for buildings (17 USC 120)." Therefore, I will soon take a photograph of the actual building because it is almost finished. Then i can upload it have it linked to the updated Concord University article section. However, the real problem is I think the US has too much "legal" paranoia!! Thank you, CZmarlin 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "legal" paranoia in the US, it is a difficult balancing act between the copyrights of the individual creator, the copyrights of the creator's industry, the usage rights of the individual user, and the public good. I think in the US the copyrights of the creator's industry are overemphasized due to paid lobbying by creators' industries (as are the rights of many other industries), specifically including the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in this case, as well as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which were behind the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that was similar in many ways to the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD). October 28, 1998 and May 22, 2001 were very chilly days for the usage rights of the individual and the public good.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi!! I have a question. Can you tell me wich ones of the images that I have uploaded has copyright violations?. Thank you!! PS. I you want, you can reply me on my discussion at Wikipedia en Español. Bye. --Snakeyes 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but some of them like: 'Decasalinitas.jpg', 'Ceiba1 209.jpg', PITAL2.JPG', 'PinosSanIgnacio.JPG', 'Cayaguanca.jpg', are my own work, I shot those pictures. --Snakeyes 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
„ElSalvador.com“ doens’t sound like „free content“, even if a free license is missing. --Polarlys 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I know, I have no discussion about that, but the ones above, are my work. Why they were deleted?. --Snakeyes 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not delete them. Maybe there was no license. „PITAL2.JPG“ was from „ElSalvador.com“, as you stated in the description. --Polarlys 16:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you're right. But, even so, I had that doubt, about the others, because as I told you, they're my work, and I still don't know why they were deleted. Ok man, I appreciate your comments and help. I will take care of that in the future. Take care!! --Snakeyes 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki bot

Yep. Up until recently we had just one bureaucrat so all requests went on his talk page. Anyway, I suggest you ask here or here. I asked on Harel's talk page for you. Yonatan talk 08:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Polarlys 10:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio requeste

re: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Milano_-_Pirellone_col_sole_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_-_3-jan-2007_-_01.jpg&curid=1574192&diff=5897975&oldid=5897200 and several other ones, could you explain why you removed the request? Removal of copyviol requests are considered vandalism. Please read here, where I was invited by an adm to do the exaxct opposite to do what you pretend I should do.

--User:G.dallorto 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am the average vandal. If there was any discussion before, please include this in your request. No sysop will delete several dozen images without knowing the interpretation of regional law by others. Some of your request remind me of copyright paranoia. --Polarlys 15:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regeln auf de-WP

Was sind nun eigentlich die Spielregeln auf de-WP? Bin selbst dort kaum aktiv, bin aber über dieses Bild hier gestolpert: de:Bild:Books smoulder in a huge bonfire 1933.jpg. Ist das in de-WP als "anonym 70" ok? Ich frage mich überhaupt, ob das hier ok sein sollte. NARA gibt "International News Photos" als Quelle an, was eigentlich alles Mögliche bedeuten kann... Lupo 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Lupo! Nein, würde auf de.wp nicht akzeptiert werden, dort gibt es zumindest eine 100-Jahre-Regelung für „anonyme“ Werke. („Wenn wir den Urheber nicht kennen, gehen wir bei Bildern, die sicher 100 Jahre alt sind, von Gemeinfreiheit aus.“) Zum Thema „International News Photos“: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/225_inte.html Grüße, --Polarlys 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC) PS: Welche ist deine Muttersprache? Erst nahm ich Englisch an, dann Französisch und nun Deutsch …
War's mir doch so. Danke für den Verweis zur LoC! Also selbst wenn das ein INP-Foto wäre (und nicht nur ein deutsches Nachrichtenfoto, das im Archive der INP gefunden wurde), scheint dieses Bild kaum "free" zu sein. Wohl auch hier nicht. Lupo 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: See User:Lupo... meine Muttersprache dürfte am fehlenden Esszett leicht zu identifizieren sein: Schweizerdeutsch.)

Image:Bousakla07large.jpg

I am the author of several photographs downloaded in wikicommons under my alias Pylambert. I formally agree to license under the given license all files downloaded by myself under the alias Pylambert.
Pierre-Yves LAMBERT
aka Pylambert on various wikis (commons, fr, en, de, nl) --Pylambert 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help with "original source" for Image:Teltschik2.jpg

Hi, would you please help us with the "original source" issue raised at User talk:MECU#Image:Teltschik2.jpg? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Polarlys 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Why did you delete the photo of the Chinese troops in "Nazi" uniforms?

Why did you delete that photo of the German-trained Chinese troops at w:Chinese Civil War on May 22? For those who don't know what I'm talking about it is still at answers.com/topic/german-trained-divisions-in-the-national-revolutionary-army

11:27, 22 May 2007 Polarlys (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:NRA Germandivs inspection.jpg" (In category Unknown as of 12 May 2007; not edited for 10 days)

What does that mean? If it is in unknown category so far as copyright restrictions are concerned, why not just leave it there? It enhanced the article. 69.154.215.19 01:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No source, no author given. See Commons:Licensing. --Polarlys 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It might help to rethink the naming of the series of categories which includes Category:Unknown as of 12 May 2007, or at least to add "what was unknown" to the deletion summaries.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Hello! Just a note; some new users have been pointing out that they didn't receive the "new messages" bar when welcome bots left them a message on their talk page. Since bot edits marked as minor don't leave the bar, could you change things so welcome messages are not marked as such? This will help newbies who may not see the message otherwise. Thanks! -- Editor at Largetalk 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

People don’t see the bar if my edits are marked as minor? That’s new to me. My bot doesn’t run with a bot flag by the way. --Polarlys 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Austrian armed forces

  • 1) Since when does wikiedia only accept free content? Why must wikiepdias content be commercially usable now? Is this meant to facilitate theft of our work by answers.com etc.?
There is no theft. There is free content. If it was “theft”, copying files from the Austrian Armed Forces was also “theft”. Wikimedia Commons accepts free content only from its beginning on: “The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose” Republication and distribution must be allowed, Publication of derivative work must be allowed, Commercial use of the work must be allowed. --Polarlys 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 2) Is this a threat? "make yourself aware that you are uploading copyright violations since the uploader is responsible for this"?
No. --Polarlys 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) The Italian Army has only one condition: "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." so the image Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png can be used!
“permission for use in Wikipedia” is stated in the descriptions. That’s not enough. Please don’t remove the request for deletion, that’s the business of someone else. --Polarlys 12:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 4) As you are obviously going through all my images now- instead of adding all to the deletion request or deleting them, how about a bit of constructive work and leaving a comment on the talkpages aking for a clarification of the license??? Noclador 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There is enough time to do this now. --Polarlys 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1) Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png if you would follow the link given in the description page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito you come to the email of the Italian wikipedia were it states under "Autorizzazione": "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." so, if I'm not allowed to change your error than you remove your deletion request and remove the words "for use on Wikipedia". Then the image should be fine.
2) "Wikimedia Commons accepts free content only" does this mean that wikipedia has a diffrent image policy??
3) wg. dem Bild der Grünen, das check ich noch mal ab. Noclador 12:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wir sprechen beide Deutsch? Gut. Ich spreche kein Italienisch, ich habe nur deine „für Wikipedia“-Ergänzung gesehen. Bitte lass trotzdem einen Dritten über den Antrag entscheiden. 2. Ja, das war schon immer so. Auf de.wikipedia.org und vielen anderen Projekten ist es ähnlich. Soweit ich weiß, wird die Foundation diese Linie noch verstärken. Grüße, --Polarlys 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, re:[8] - it might be a good idea to clarify COM:SCOPE if this is the case, especially under under Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository which suggests that text files are not to be uploaded to Commons. WjBscribe 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea about the text? :) --Polarlys 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd need to know exactly when we will host text files first :). WjBscribe 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I just know the situation on de.wikisource.org: They transcript texts from old bookss and put them in a wiki. After proofreading it again and again, some of the texts are offered as pdf - for downloading, better layout, further use and simpler reading. --Polarlys 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User

Hi Polarlys, excuse for the disturbance. I think there is a problem with this user, Romek79. In spite of the warnings, he still uploads images from flickr.com without indicate a direct link to the image. Moreover, the license is probably wrong (CC-BY-SA-1.0 from flickr.com?). Thanks for the attention --Trixt 00:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked and warned him. --Polarlys 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Zahnbroschüre

Welche Lizenz wendet man bitte für nationalsozialistische Propaganda an? Ich denke nicht, dass jemand sein Vorrecht auf eine Nazi-Zahnbroschüre (von mir selbst eingescannt - von der Oma) erheben möchte. Die NSDAP womöglich? Könntet ihr möglicherweise auch einmal eure Augen öffnen? --TheTexecuter 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gar keine. Die Werke der dahinterstehenden Künstler dürften in der Regel noch einige Jahre/Jahrzehnte geschützt zu sein. „Selbst eingescannt“ zählt leider nicht. --Polarlys 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Der Status der NSDAP scheint dir nicht bewusst zu sein. ALLE Werke, deren Besitzer die NSDAP war/ist (außer der verfassungswidrigen), sind zu wissenschaftlichen Zwecken freigegeben. Grüße, --TheTexecuter 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Aha, wo auch immer das steht und was auch immer „wissenschaftliche Zwecke“ sind (selbst wenn es so wäre, wäre das nicht ausreichend, Wikipedia und Commons akzeptiert nur freie Inhalte für jegliche Form der Verwendung): Die Rechte von Grafikern, Fotografen, Malern … dürften davon unberührt sein. --Polarlys 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images deletion

Please read my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Sonic the Hedgehog. BeŻet 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BT-2005-47-Neues Bild-16-Wp.jpg

Hallo. Guck mal nochmal ob das Bild jetzt klar geht. Es wurde nach deiner Löschung wieder hochgeladen. MfG --BLueFiSH 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo! :-) Ich weiß es nicht, dasselbe Bild findet sich auch auf der MdB-Seite wieder. --Polarlys 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sperrung

Hast Du also einen admin dazu gekriegt mich zu sperren. Bravo! Vor allem da Du Dir die Sperrung mit Lügen erschwindelt hast: „LöschSüchtiger Idiot“ aus welchem Deiner Finger hast Du Dir das gesaugt? Das steht in keinem meiner posts! "sämliche Richtlinien zu Bildlizensierungen mit Füßen trtt" Dass die Bilder des österreichischen Heeres gelöscht wurden habe ich akzeptiert, dass Du jedoch drauf bestehst die Bilder des italienischen Heers zu löschen, obwohl eine Lizenzierung vorliegt, welche von den italienischen wikipedia Administratoren akzeptiert wurde, ist eine Frechheit- denn damit stellst Du Dich über die Gesamtheit der italienischen wikipedia und maßt Dir an über unsere Köpf zu entscheiden, obwohl Du in keinster Weise am Projekt ital. wikipedia mitarbeitest! "gegen mich aufwiegelt" ach, weil ich den fleißigsten editor betreffend ital. Heer informiert habe, dass Du trotz 9 posts die ich Dir geschrieben habe, immer noch auf Deinem falschen Standpunkt verharrst und Dich jeder konstruktiven Kooperation verweigerst! "in meinem Beiträgen auf Commons rumvandalisiert" ach wo bitte? Da ich auf der deutschen wikipedia gesperrt bin kann ich mich nicht mal verteidigen...Toll- so macht wikipedia Sinn! Noclador 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. „LöschSüchtiger Idiot“: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Empar&diff=next&oldid=32868589 Hinzu kommen weitere Beleidigungen, die wohl nicht minder schwer wiegen.
  2. Ich bestehe nicht auf einer Löschung. Ich bitte um eine Klärung hinsichtlich der Freigabe. „Benutzung erlaubt, Quelle nennen“ heißt nicht „CC-by-SA-25.“
  3. Das Löschen von Löschanträgen ist für mich Vandalismus. Wie fändest du es denn, wenn ich irgendwelche Dateien löschen würde, ohne zu fragen? Das ist dasselbe. --Polarlys 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Aquaesulis.jpg

This is the first file I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. When I did the upload, I selected one of the Creative Commons licenses, I believe the first on the list. I don't understand why it did not "take," as I learned when I saw the warning you put on the page. Can you advise me? Diese Frage können Sie meinetwegen auf deutsch antworten. -- Alarob 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the warning template with a license template. I still don't understand why this didn't happen during the upload, when I selected the same license from the pop-up menu. -- Alarob 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know. --Polarlys 00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll blame it on my newcomerhood. I thought there might be a step I was missing. The learning curve is steeper than I expected after a year on Wikipedia, but I'm not complaining. -- Alarob 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If there are any questions, feel free to ask :) --Polarlys 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with verifying source

Hello,

User Florentyna (talk · contribs) has added licenses and a source to problem images but I can't verify the source (home.arcor.de/beutersitz), or rather, the absence of a license on the page makes me suspicious. The site is in German and I am de-0 :). Could you please have a look into it? I suspect that the user may have authorization but is unaware of the permissions system (not to mention licensing questions in general). Thanks, PatríciaR msg 10:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Patrícia! I think he is connected to the club and has access to its archives and publishes it’s content. I am sure, he is not the copyright holder (= the photographer). At the moment I am just to tired to deal with things like that again and again. :-( Regards, --Polarlys 12:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Would you advise me to mark all images with {{subst:npd}} then? If this user has a way to authorize use of the images (whether by asking the photographer or something), the permissions system should be encouraged, I think. Thanks for your help :) PatríciaR msg 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neuer Spam

Hi Polarlys! Ich bin nicht so ganz einverstanden mit dieser Löschung. Vllt. Ist das script nonsense, aber ich verwende auch dieses Bild als Erklärung meines Monobooks in de.wp und außerdem als Erweiterung meiner Diskussionsseite in Commons. Ich möchte dich darum bitten das Bild wiederherzustellen. Grüße, __ ABF __ 09:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dieses Projekt ist kein Spielplatz, es ist noch weniger Spielplatz als Wikipedia. COM:SCOPE: „Wikimedia Commons is a project concentrated on content, nothing else.“ Vielleicht magst du es lustig finden, aber ernsthafte Benutzer nerven derartige Späße, insofern sie regelmäßig Post haben, die mit einem vergleichbaren Warnhinweis einhergeht. --Polarlys 11:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Vllt. verstehst du mich nicht richtig, aber ich bin auch ein "ernsthafter" Benutzer. Das mein Script die Usermessage verfälscht, was macht das aus? Ich finde das einfach auflockernd. Grüße, __ ABF __ 13:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Nein, wenn du dich mit sowas beschäftigst, bist du kein ernsthafter Benutzer, sondern ein Kind, das spielt. --Polarlys 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lass das mal bitte...

...nach 4 Minuten schon einen Baustein reinzuknallen, während ich noch versuche rauszukriegen, warum der Thumbnail nicht korrekt generiert wurde und ob ich neu hochladen muss. Übereifer ist nix gutes :-) FRZ 11:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ich sehe nur, dass dieses Bild innerhalb der letzten 12 h hochgeladen wurde. Grüße, --Polarlys 11:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Du siehst die Uploadzeit und kannst dem Uploader ruhig 15 Minuten geben, um alles fertigzustellen. Ansonsten erhöhst du zwar deinen Editcount, machst aber mehr Hektik als notwendig... FRZ 11:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ach Franz … mein Editcount ist mir derartig egal. Ich weiß nur, dass dieses Projekt ziemliche Probleme hat, dass jeden Tag hunderte Dateien ohne Lizenz/Quelle/Erlaubnis reinkommen und dass man damit umgehen muss. Mein Tool erzeugt eine Liste der innerhalb der letzten n Stunden/Tage hochgeladenen Dateien und ich arbeite da teilweise hunderte hintereinander ab. Grüße, --Polarlys 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay okay, dann mach es halt auf deine Art :-) FRZ 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Kann mir aber kaum vorstellen, dass dein Tool alle durcheinander anzeigt und man sieht bestimmt eindeutig, welche zuletzt hochgeladen werden und dann schaut man auch nochmal drauf, wenn dein Tool dazu nicht in der lage ist oder benutze das einfach nicht, wenn du damit nicht arbeiten kannst! FRZ 12:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Wieso so böse Franz? War es denn so schlimm? --Polarlys 12:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Wie schon oben gesagt: "Übereifer ist nix gutes" :-) aber ich denke sonst haben wir das hier jetzt beendet! schoenen sonntag noch FRZ 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alevi26

Hi, thanks for dealing with the suspicious uploads from this user so quickly. As you may have noticed half of the user's uploads were copyvios, the rest were very suspicious. A few uploads remain but I think they are OK. Thuresson 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sysop on en.wp? His text contributions were also copyvios, but he removed the template again and again. Regards, --Polarlys 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not but at least two of the articles Alevi26 created at en: are simple cut-and-paste jobs from various websites. Thuresson 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinweis no source-tagging

Hallo Polarlys, bei mehreren deiner heutigen no source und no license ist der uploader nicht benachrichtigt worden, das soll wohl nicht so sein. Ein paar Beispiele sind Image:Flag of Canada and the United Kingdom.png und Image:XHJD-1 b.jpg. Gruß --GeorgHH 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neulich hat mir dabei noch ein Bot hinterhergeputzt, wo isser denn? :( --Polarlys 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bardenas Reales de Navarra 3.JPG

Hello, I feel much the forgetfulness to put the license. I have already corrected it. A greeting --Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

-) --Polarlys 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you´re starting to abbuse now...

Why in hell did you delete the image "Valeriovillareale_-_bacante01.jpg" which I had upploaded? The image is from a work of art of an artist dead since 1854 (as was stated in the image). Can you explain that. Reupload the image, you had no right to delet it 201.52.128.136 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The sculpture is not copyrighted anymore, but the photography, since this is a reproduction of a 3-dimensional object. See Commons:Derivative works. --Polarlys 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This make no sense. Paitings are three-dimensional works too. You have no idea of what you are talking about. The reproduciton of a work of art made more than 70 years ago is free. An sculpture is a work of art. Besides, you can´t go simply erasing images which you don´t want in Commons, you have to WARN and show some respect for people who are working in here.
That’s wrong. You are right, when you say, that a painting is three-dimensional as well, but not in a juristic way. Read the page mentioned above, there are photographic reproductions of three-dimensional works (sculptures, vases, …) and two-dimensional works (drawings, paintings, pages of books). And: Someone put a copyvio hint on the picture, I don’t have to warn anybody to delete it some hours/minutes later. --Polarlys 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Own works

Why "Macuspfachada3.jpg" and others like that has a warning advising it might be deleted if I took it and uploaded it myself? The license is given in the picture and it is written I am the author. I´m not getting what kind of uploads you allow here. I can´t even upload my own works? Dornicke 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1 with a name. 2 without. Same object. Because of this, I marked all of them. --Polarlys 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So, you marked my own pictures to deletion because my name is not in them? Is that it? Dornicke 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. We need something like „own work“ as source and in the field author a user name or a nick name. --Polarlys 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The name was given. What I have to do now to keep the images? Pray?
Just a question: Who is Jan Dornicke. You, right? But who is Lucas B. Salles? --Polarlys 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Jan Dornicke is a Flemish painter of the 16th Century, as you can see here (http://web.artprice.com/artistdetails.aspx?idarti=OTcxMjQ4MDI3ODA3MjI=&l=es). It is also my nickname in Commons and Wikipedia, as I usually write about art. My name is Lucas B. Salles. Therefore, we are the same person. That´s allowed, I believe. Dornicke 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but how should we know this? „Lucas B. Salles (User:Dornicke)“ was a good possibility to point this out. After adding the requested information, you can remove the template. Regards, --Polarlys 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.

Copyright violations

Hi. You send me a note about my uploaded images. Why they are copyright violations ? I asked authors or owners of copyrights of those photos for permission to upload it here and they agreed. I choose Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 licence, because it's licence for images that have copyrights and I have to give authors name to use it - so I did. What I've done wrong ? Regards. Kac zoR 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn’t the author „unknown“? I saw no permission, often people upload images from band websites and we usually delete them because they are copyvio in 98 % of the cases. Regards, --Polarlys 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. In one photo author was unknown, but the band owns all copyrights. Next time I'll write full information. Regards. Kac zoR 22:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

<s>{| border=1 cellpadding=5 cellspacing=0 align=center |- bgcolor="#aadf85" align=center !   [[Image:Paper airplane-abf-.JPG|70px|right|Just fly and go the right way]][[Image:La Palmyre 063.jpg|100px|left|In this Image you can see me!]] Thanks for your Vote (oppose) at my stopped [[Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/ABF|RFA]]. Even if it is stopped, it was a nice experience for me and I learned from it. Perhaps I´ll try it again in a few month, and I would be happy if you would give your vote (best a support;)) again. Thank you again, [[User:ABF|<sup>__ ABF __</sup>]] 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |}</s>

Dieses Gespamme auf Benutzerdiskussionsseiten gab meiner Stimme den letzten Rest. --Polarlys 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Polish text in User_talk:Andros64 - I simply asked Andros to avoid comments like "admin abuse" and "trivial photo" - let's just stick to discussing the legal situation of the photos. // tsca [re] 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that’s just reasonably. :) --Polarlys 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you want to have a look at this

  • 1) I wrote today to the Italian Army asking them to renew the license- I told them that an answer would be needed within this week. So could you put on hold the deletion request until-let us say next Monday- to wait for their answer?
  • 2) Have you seen this picture: en:Image:Type-77.jpg. Gon4z has a record history of vandalism en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive253#Gon4z_for_the_xth_time and has uploaded this image today as "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain". Funny though that the image in question was taken in 1997 (left upper corner) by www.medialab.com (lower left corner). So, while we wait for an answer from the Italian Army could you lend a hand by having a look at the aforementioned image? (I would do it myself, but as the last days have shown me, when it comes to images and licensing I am definitely no expert.) Danke Noclador 22:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. Sure. We even could wait some more weeks. Es ist nicht mein Anliegen, hier irgendwas zu löschen, mein Anliegen ist eine solide Basis für unsere Dateien.
  • 2. Erledigt, alle seine Uploads zur Löschung vorgeschlagen, gleichzeitig dauerhafte Sperre angedacht ;-) Grüße, --Polarlys 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


  • 1) Danke, ich habe dem ital. Heer vorgeschlagen folgenden Text an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org zu mailen:
"The Italian Army as owner and author of the material published on its webpage (www.esercito.difesa.it) releases aforementioned material under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Cc-by-2.5 license, which stipulates that the source of the material (Esercito Italiano- Italian Army) always be named."
Ich hoffe, das passt, falls nicht lass es mich wissen, ich kümmere mich dann darum, dass es genau so bei permissions ankommt wie es erwünscht ist.
  • 2) Danke. Ich bin zwar müde, aber werd mich jetzt wieder mal daran setzen, aus ca. 20 Artikeln Gon4z radikal-islamische/albanisch-nationalistische grammatikalisch horrenden "Beiträge" zu entfernen und ihn zum 8 oder 9 (!) mal in den letzten 4 Wochen ans Administrators noticeboard zu melden, damit er dann wieder nur für 48h gesperrt wird... Grüße aus Südtirol, Noclador 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Das klingt doch prima. Auf en.wp sperrt man leider etwas zurückhaltend, habe es mit nationalistischen POV-Pushern dort auch schon erlebt, immer eine dritte, vierte und fünfte Chance. In der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia gibt es glücklicherweise ein paar Nutzer, die auf den Balkan so gut es geht aufpassen. Aber auch dort haben wir ja einen ganzen Trollzoo zu diesem Thema. Schlaf gut. --Polarlys 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe Gon4z nun mal wieder gemeldet: hier und hoffe, dass diesmal ein admin die cojones aufbringt eine wirkliche Sperre auszusprechen (und nicht wie x-mal bisher 24h sperren und dann gehts von vorne los). --Noclador 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

answer whith slowness

good then if I have doubt in the coffee responds and pardon to me by tardansa nonwise that was answered in the discussion of the other--Vivi andrés232 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NDH

I ask why the Kvaternik image was dleted without any disccusion. You say I need permission. How can I get permission from something that does not exist and has no legal succesor. The Arhiva JNA does not exist, jut slike the SFRY monistry of defence, and bot ha ev no legal succesor. SO I akd why the pic was deleted without any disccusion and talk, and I ask fo the returning of the pic. --Edgar Allan Poe 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Edgar_Allan_Poe#SFRY_images. If you don’t know the legal succesor, don’t upload copyrighted images. I deleted them. --Polarlys 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:練習彈.jpg

Please delete the file.--Seeder 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


What if..?

“PD-GermanGov” and “Nazi_symbol” ?

You deleted the images of 14th Ss Division posters, so i think they can be uploaded under these jurificaiton. If the territory of Reichkommisariat Galicia was the German territory? And, than, the disclaimer can play the role. - Zac allan 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

„Nazi symbol“ is no license template. PD-GermanGOv doesn’t apply here (I think): „Please note that this template only applies to statutes, ordinances, official decrees and proclamations as well as judgements.“ --Polarlys 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my... What can you advise me to do? Please, tell just anything... I donno what to do more, and i don't want to upload just only in my Russian Wiki, cause it's a little bit egoistic. - Zac allan 12:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is fair use allowed on your wiki? --Polarlys 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but it's not the very best, cause i wanna share these pictures with other wikies. OK, i'll do fairuse, but if any ideas arise, please let me know. Thank you! - Zac allan 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Storchenzentrum Bornheim

Hier Mundartpoets Kommentar: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Mundartpoet&curid=326824&diff=33125217&oldid=33111927#http:.2F.2Fcommons.wikimedia.org.2Fwiki.2FImage:StorchenzentrumBornheim.jpg

Hallo! Dann nimm den Baustein bitte raus. Normalerweise wird sowas hier via OTRS geklärt. Der Satz „Wenn es irgendwelchen Leuten nicht reicht (…)“ spricht aber Bände. Die Freigabe sollte auch durch Dritte nachvollziehbar sein, da muss man sich nicht drüber aufregen. --Polarlys 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User Rtc

Hello, may I ask if you are a friend of Rtc? Cheers, 85.131.20.41 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know him, all I know is his work here and on de.wikipedia.org. He is a reasonable man. --Polarlys 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, was just asking for no particular reason. 130.232.146.149 06:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bilder Grüne/ Esercito

  • Hi ich hab eine Frage: Der Parteisprecher der Grünen Südtirols hat am 10 Juni folgende email an permissions-de@wikimedia.org und permissions-commons@wikimedia.org gesendet (ich bin neben ihm gestanden als er sie schickte): "Die Grüne Partei Südtirols als Inhaberin der Rechte am Bild „Grüne- Verdi Südtirol.gif“ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Gr%C3%BCne-_Verdi_S%C3%BCdtirol.gif und http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gr%C3%BCne-_Verdi_S%C3%BCdtirol.gif gestattet, das genannte Bild (auch außerhalb und völlig unabhängig von der Wikipedia) zu nutzen, unter der Lizenz "Attribution ShareAlike 2.5" (cc-by-sa-2.5), weltweit und zeitlich unbeschränkt unter den Bedingungen der angemessenen Nennung der Urheberschaft der Grünen Partei Südtirols und der unveränderten Weitergabe des Bildes". Heute hat Benutzer Chaddy das Bild statt als "Attribution ShareAlike 2.5" als "Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe" und "Logo" eingetragen mit der Begründung: "der zitierte Text passt nicht, "unveränderte Weitergabe" ist nicht WP-konform; da das Logo aber keine besondere Schöpfungshöhe erreicht, ist es gemeinfrei"... Das Bild ist sicher NICHT PD, dass das mit der "unveränderten Weitergabe" ein Problem ist, war uns/mir beim erstellen der email gar nicht bewusst, wir haben uns mit dieser Formulierung auf share alike beziehen wollen, also dass das Bild auch bei einer Verwendung außerhalb Wikipedia weiter den Grünen attributed wird. Das Logo selbst ist in Italien markenrechtlich und parteirechtlich geschützt, daher habe ich mich mit dem Parteisprecher auf "Attribution ShareAlike 2.5" geeinigt, da sein einziges Interesse darin liegt, dass falls es jemand weiterverwendet, weiter klargestellt wird, dass es einen Rechteinhaber (die Grünen) des Bildes gibt! Die Grünen sind froh und wollen, dass Ihr Logo auf wikipedia in Ihren Artikeln steht, denn mit einem Kreuz über dem Parteilogo wird in Italien gewählt! Doch es wird langsam zu einer wirklichen Qual die richtige Lizenz zu finden... Kannst Du helfen? Danke.
  • Wobei eigentlich könnte man das Bild von der dt. wikipedia löschen, da es sich ja auf commons befindet, doch ich befürchte, dass es nun auch dort Probleme geben wird, da die email in der englischen Version ja identisch zur Deutschen ist... Sollen die Grünen sie noch mal schicken und bei beiden die Formulierung "unveränderte Weitergabe" rausnehmen???
  • Ich habe heute das italienische Heer genervt, dass sie endlich die permission schicken sollen, angeblich sei die sie schon geschickt worden... Was beim ital. Heer nicht viel heißen muss... ich habe sicherheitshalber neben dem Administrator der Heereswebsite heute auch noch die Bitte um Lizenzierung an den Generalstab, das Verteidigungsministerium, an das Alpini Kommando, sowie an zwei mir bekannte Offiziere des Generalstabsbüros für zivil-militärische Kooperation geschickt. Die zwei sind Alpini und sind eher für schnelles Handeln zu haben als Rom...
  • Danke für die email- ich verstehe schon, dass Ihr auf commons aufpassen müsst- leider ist es so, dass selbst ich als wikipedianer mit weit über 2000 edits noch immer nicht genau weiß, wie es eigentlich mit den Lizenzierung von Bildern läuft! Die erste wirklich brauchbare Hilfe in dieser Hinsicht war der von Dir empfohlene Link http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Rtc/Checkliste Ich glaube die meisten Uploader wissen gar nicht, was sie eigentlich alles beachten müssen und vielleicht wäre ein verpflichtendes Tutorial für alle neuen User auf commons (durch das man sich Punkt für Punkt durchklicken muss) ein Schritt, um den Menschen erst mal bewusst zu machen was alles beachtet werden muss! Auf jeden Fall Danke inzwischen, --Noclador 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hallo! CC-by-SA-2.5 und „unverändert“ widerspricht sich etws, dass der Urheber immer genannt werden muss, ist durch die Lizenz gegeben. Im Rahmen der de.wikipedia.org ist das Bild als „PD aufgrund geringer Schöpfungshöhe“ durchaus verwendbar, ich würde die alte Lizenz aber zusätzl. ergänzen und gut ist. Bei Logos ist es besser, die Duplikate auf Commons nicht zu löschen, man weiß hier leider nie, was damit geschieht – unabh. von einer Freigabe. Oha, ich sehe, für das Heer ist der Notstand eingetreten :-) Die OTRS-Leute sind hier latent überlastet – keine Sorge, das wird schon bearbeitet und auch Löschanträge werden hier nicht so schnell abgearbeitet. Ich ergänze noch einen entsprechenden Hinweis. Grüße, --Polarlys 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"die alte Lizenz aber zusätzl. ergänzen" da bin ich überfragt, wie ich sie ergänzen sollte... auf CC-by-SA-2.5 oder auf den markenrechtlichen und parteirechtlichen Schutz hinweisen? oder aber darauf hinweisen, dass die Grünen das Bild auf wikipedia haben wollen? sorry, wenn ich damit nerve, aber nach den bisherigen Erfahrungen fühle ich mich wie in einem Minenfeld und bewege mich nur noch vorsichtig :-) --Noclador 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Habe die Vorlage zusätzlich ergänzt und die OTRS-Freigabe erwähnt, auf marken- u. namensrechtlichen Schutz weißt die Vorlage „Logo“ hin. Grüße, --Polarlys 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Danke. und Danke auch für den Aufschub bei den Bildern des esercito. --Noclador 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yu tank.jpg

You made a mistake. It only needed a more detailed tag. --Orlovic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are their files in the PD? --Polarlys 12:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I researched and retagged it {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. Please do not use the obsolete tag {{PD}}. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi! You have deleted a number of pics that were uploaded as my own work and were clearly marked as such (They all had exactly the same info as this one; notice how clearly it says "source: self made"). Please explain to me why you deleted them. --Cessator 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot of Princeton photos without a license, we tagged them and waited a week but nothing happend. What’s the license of your choice, I’ll restore them. --Polarlys 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
But they were licensed, exactly the same as this one, GNU Free Documentation License. --Cessator 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
They were not, believe me: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:East-Pyne.JPG&oldid=5339212 :-) I restored them and added licenses. Regards, --Polarlys 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems they weren't. Thank you. --Cessator 01:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems

I have replied to a couple of your thread there. In particular, I answered you on user:Romek79, where I belive that the suggestion by Kjetil is not the best one, and gave my own suggestion. I only wanted to inform you that I have replied, in case you want to reply, since you might not have been watching the page. / Fred J 11:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am watching the page, but I am not willing to check all these uploads. Unfortunately you are always alone on Commons if it comes to annoying tasks like this one. --Polarlys 11:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, true :-)
Fred J 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Came across this by accident. I did this today. Checked 1000 images, tagged almost as many... :( Siebrand 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me of the day when I deleted 800 files by this golf fan (captured from tv). --Polarlys 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image size

Hi, ich hab übers WE eine Grafik der Struktur der kolumbianischen Armee gezeichnet: Image:Colombian National Army.png Als ich die Graik in voller Größe 7988x2651 hochladen wollte, konnte commons kein thumbnail davon erstellen, statt dessen erschien dieses graue Kästchen: Image:Colombian National Army test version.png Jedoch ist die Grafik unter dem direkten: link in voller Auflösung auf commons zu finden... Inziwschen habe ich eine um 50% zusammengeschrumpfte Version auf commons hochgeladen Image:Colombian National Army.png. Frage: Was ist das Problem bei der Version mit der vollen Auflösung? Gibt es ein Resolutions Limit bei commons? (Ich arbeite grad an den Grafiken der US-Army und der Russian Ground Forces... welche noch um einiges größer sein werden als Colombian National Army). Vielen Dank, --Noclador 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Noclador! Ich weiß nicht, ob ggf. diese Einschränkung (Man beachte das Datum!) noch besteht: „As of October 19th, 2005 the MediaWiki software can’t handle PNGs larger than 12.5 megapixels—about 3500x3500 pixels—but otherwise images in such high resolutions are fine.“ In dieser Form kann man davon eigentlich nicht ausgehen, da die kleine Version ja auch größer ist. Die genannte Fehlermeldung habe ich ungefähr vor 2 Monaten hier zum ersten Mal gesehen. Ich habe das Problem mal weitergeleitet: Commons:Graphics village pump/June 2007. Grüße, --Polarlys 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ich habe mir die Antwort von Xavier auf Commons:Graphics village pump/June 2007 durchgelesen. Falls es am Programm zur thumbnail Generierung liegt, werden wir wohl nichts machen können... Danke für Deine Hilfe.
Zweitens kennst du einen admin auf der englischen wikipedia? Es gibt da user:Domobran der seit Tagen Bilder hochlädt die massenweise gelöscht werden- da falsche Lizenz, keine Freigabe und copyvio... Letzthin beginnt er Bilder als self-PD hochzuladen und begründet dies mit "This was approved by the croatian armed forces" z.B. en:Image:216dcceef15fd4846c21f05e1706f322 large.jpg, en:Image:M2 01.jpg, en:Image:6321-1.jpg, usw. usf... Ich habe alle Bilder zur speedy deletion vorgeschlagen- aber er wird sie erneut mit einer anderen Lizenz bzw. unter anderem Namen hochladen. Frage: an welchen admin empfiehlst du mir mich zu wenden? Danke, --Noclador 07:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paul von Hindenburg.jpeg

Hallo, wo liegt bei dem o. a. Bild das Problem? Es ist doch offenbar vor 1923 in den USA veröffentlicht worden und damit PD-US? (Ruhig hier antworten.) --Svencb 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Die Lizenz ist völlig unbrauchbar, da es wohl das Werk eines deutschen Photographen ist und in Europa auch erstmalig veröffentlicht wurde. --Polarlys 21:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Genau das hatte ich seinerzeit (ca. 2005?) auf Commons mal gefragt - die Antwort war, dass das "überhaupt erstmalig" nicht relevant sei. Um für PD-US zu qualifizieren, müsse die in den USA (!) erste Veröffentlichung des Werks vor 1923 erfolgt sein.
Ich lasse mich gerne eines besseren belehren, bitte sei dann so gut und verweise auf die entsprechende Dokumentation der Regelung. --Svencb 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags & sources

Hello. I unfortunately don`t know who the author is when it comes to some of my pictures (and I suppose nobody knows, especially that my sources can`t provide me with this information), i deleted the deletion tag becouse i provided the source - these are polish books published before 1994 as desription says, according to the polish law I applied the following tag (some of my downloads says: "author unknown" because my sources can`t provide me this information): {{polishpd}} Spetsedisa 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this tag requires an author. Sometimes you assume that the photographer was German, but you use this template. If a picture was published in a polish book 30 years later, it doesn’t mean, that the photographer was Polish as well. --Polarlys 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
All right, I guess I know what you mean, I have some authors of these pictures, I`ll complete all necessary information. Please inform me if something is wrong. Thanks. Spetsedisa 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don’t cheat. We need images with reliable source information. Better no image instead an image with intetionally false information on author, date and subject. --Polarlys 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don`t cheat, all this information is true, according to the books. If you don`t belive me it is your problem, not mine. I gave you the names and sources. I know some of authors, the others I don`t know because either my source don`t provide this information or author is completely anonymous - for example this picture [[9]] that you marked for speedy deletion, the author is anonymous - German officer who gave this picture and several others to the Polish Military Mission in Berlin in 1950, how could I know what was his name ? Nobody knows that, so you requiring me about an author of this particular picture is just weird. There are many other pictures of unknown authors, such as [[10]] the same situation, this picture was found by Polish military officers into nazi SS member collection, and also nobody knows who made it. You asking about an author is, as I said, unreasonable because nobody knows who the author is (of this particular two pictures, also others). Spetsedisa 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of your deletion requests were unreasonable, you might firstly discuss it, I remind you that some authors are anonymous and will be anonymous until the end of this world - my previous example was:[[11]][[12]]. Please explain how could I know who personally author is if the pictures was given to Polish military officers anonymously ? You know perfectly well that this is impossible, so why are you requesting this pictures for speedy deletion ? Spetsedisa 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if they are anonymous works, they are not PD in 2007. The first file was already deleted here some time ago. --Polarlys 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the tag "polishpd", if the pictures were published in Poland before 1994 without clear copyright notice (as my sources are) they are considered a public domain. The deleted items that you`re talking about were uploaded without "polihpd" tag, If you agree that author is anonymous (you said "even if they are" which means that you agree) and if you consider "polishpd" tag valid, according to the broad discussion here [13] you should immediately withdraw your deletion request because you simply have no reason requiring to remove this two pictures. I, and nobody is able to know who the author is, it is impossible. Spetsedisa 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I dont understand why are you still trying to delete this file[14], it is firstly at the time property of a Polish State - everyone could see it in Warsaw City Municipal Archives , it was published without copyright notice in Poland before 1994 - that`s why "polishpd" tag is valid, and I know the authors - nazi architects Hubert Gross and Otto Nurnberger - so I completely don`t understand this deletion request. Spetsedisa 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I think that you had absolutely no right to say that I`m cheat, it was unfair, I feel offended now and I expect at least a short "I`m sorry". This authors are true not false. Spetsedisa 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a work by a German author. As a work by Hubert Groß († 1992) it is copyrighted until January 1th 2063. I never said „you are a cheater“, I said „please don’t cheat“ before you added more information. Unfortunately people often cheat regarding authors, dates and descriptions while uploading „free“ content. If you are offended at this comment: I am sorry, but you misunderstood me. --Polarlys 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It`s kind of you, thanks. You`re right Hubert Gross created this in Warsaw, but firstly it was isued not by himself but by Warsaw City Archtectural Bureau (he was hired by Warsaw Municipal Office) in other words he stopped to be an author (when it comes to copyright issues) while Warsaw City Architectural Bureau issued it in 1940 - which means that this is public official doccument, according to a polish law such documents are the state property and they are a public domain. Secondly, it was published in Poland before 1994 without a clear copyright notice, it means that they are also a public domain - "polishpd" tag applied. Thirdly, it is now the property of a Polish State (Warsaw City Archives). The same situation is about author of my downloaded picture [15], the author is a polish photographer Jan Bulhak [16] who died in 1950, but he published this picture before 1994 without a clear copyright notice in 1971, and according to polish law (see "polish pd" tag) this is considered a public domain (a lack of clear copyright notice). See, that is characteristical for "polishpd", author may die even in 1995, 1997, or 2002 year, but if he published in Poland something before 1994 without a copyright notice (in a communist Poland it was a frequent practice), everybody may publish it as a public domain. Please read again "polishpd" tag desription and you`ll se it clearly. So the seme is when it comes to German architect Hubert Gross - his work was issued as a official document and is a state property, and published in Poland without a clear copyright notice before 1994, it is not important, from the point of view of some of polish copyright rules, ("polishpd" tag) that he died in 1992. Please read the tag description again, you`ll se what I mean, it states clearly - everything published in Poland without a clear copyright notice before 1994 is considered a public domain. I know that is not typical in Germany for example, but I can`t help it - I didn`t created this law and its rules.Spetsedisa 09:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)