User talk:Sandstein/Archive 1

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

Contents

Image:Meadow gate on Enterkin Pass, Scotland.jpg[edit]

Hi, please note that CC-NC-ND is not a free license. Commons only accepts CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (and CC-SA I guess). Thanks --pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I misread the Flickr licence tag, as it was from a photographer who has put many photos under a CC.BY licence. TheBernFiles 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_family_shrine.jpg This is a Shinto and not a Buddhist shrine. By the way, I'm from Geneva. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Jeltje

Bildfrage[edit]

Servus Sandstein, mir ist da ein Fehler aufgefallen bei dem Bild. Das ist ein M48, stimmt auch mit dem Ausstellungs-PDF des Museums überein ;). Wäre nett, wenn du es noch mal unter richtigem Namen hochladen könntest. Andere Frage wo ist das Bild zur "Schweren Haubitze 1942" oder wie lässt sich die Namensgebung erklären? ;) Hast du auch noch die restlichen Ausstellungsstücke abgelichtet? Wäre super! Mach weiter so! Gruß Darkone 09:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, danke, da habe ich tatsächlich zwei Bilder verwechselt. Ich werd' das korrigieren. Ich habe sehr viele Bilder von den Heerestagen, die ich sukzessive hochzuladen vorhabe. Vom Panzermuseum hab' ich ca. 50%, auf den anderen Panzern turnten dauernd Kinder rum... TheBernFiles 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Jaja die lieben Kleinen ;). Darkone 09:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Image:Jokulsarlon lake, Iceland.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Jokulsarlon lake, Iceland.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


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

201.9.255.12 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. As is noted on the image page, the image was licenced CC-BY when I uploaded it. The photographer then changed the licence to "all rights reserved", which is possible on Flickr.com. This is not technically relevant for Commons, as Creative Commons licences are irrevocable, but if you are the author and would like it removed, please say so. TheBernFiles 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Image:Popiah.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Popiah.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


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

gildemax 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As in the above case, the image was licenced CC-BY when I uploaded it. The photographer then changed the licence to "all rights reserved", which is possible on Flickr.com. This is not technically relevant for Commons, as Creative Commons licences are irrevocable, but if you are the author and would like it removed, please say so. TheBernFiles 07:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Featured picture[edit]

Hawk eating prey.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Hawk eating prey.jpg, which was nominated by AzaToth at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hawk eating prey.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Diligent 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Vacuum_tube_multimeter.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vacuum_tube_multimeter.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I used the wrong external link for the picture; this has now been rectified. Sandstein 11:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Flickr user Chylandra[edit]

Hey, I noticed you uploaded a lot of images from this user. We had a complaint from the author to remove them, and since we have no proof they were ever under a free license, we have no choice but to do so. Sorry to remove your hard work! Just letting you know why they're being deleted. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Well, since we have the Flickrreview system now, I suppose these surprises won't happen that often any more. Sandstein 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing[edit]

There was no significant objection to your request to be allowed to review Flickr images. Please read all relevant instructions and the licensing policy. You can then start reviewing Flickr images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there![edit]

About the image of our Federal Council, I agree that what you said about the terms and conditions, and what it said would be a violation of international copyright laws, however, as usual I am contacting the Federal Authorities to see if they will allow us to use this image. As there is no shown author, it would seem that the image is owned by our government.

Please hold the deletion request as yet,

Thanks,

Booksworm 19:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(For a faster reply, please leave a message on my Wikipedia talk page)

Hi. Well, I guess you'll have to wait a few weeks for an answer, so we can just as well delete the image now and re-upload it if permission is granted. (Don't forget to ask for a Commons-compatible licence, such as CC-BY-SA!) Sandstein 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vilhonneur_cave_portrait.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Vilhonneur_cave_portrait.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Yonatan talk 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Steve Jurvetson[edit]

Okay, I will. Photos taken by him probably should be in a separate category from photos of him though. Yonatan talk 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll further explain, the bot basically added {{personality rights}} to all the pictures in the category and sub-categories of Category:Living people, I didn't think of the scenario where there would be a category of a living person but that category would also have pictures he took. Yonatan talk 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's about what I imagined was the problem. Sandstein 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay it finished running, if it missed anything let me know. I don't think we really have a policy on the matter though, I'll move it (orgullobot does it and can be controlled by any admin). Yonatan talk 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Flickr[edit]

I have started this as a central place to discuss issues with Flickr images. Please take a look. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Babel[edit]

Did you consider adding Commons:Babel templates on your user page? This allows other users to see which languages you know. On your Wikipedia page you say that you are fluent in German and English, and less so in French. Thank you for your cooperation. --80.63.213.182 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Sandstein!

If you may remember, you placed a deletion request on the image

. However, what was the final outcome for this picture?

Booksworm 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Basketball[edit]

Hi Sandstein, I'm sorry... I thought that if I put the similar pictures in a single page (in that case Basketball hoop) I could take them out from the main category... It is a bit crowded and there are together people, stadiums, balls... I won't do it again! :) --Roberto 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem! :D Goodnight! :) --Roberto 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Image:Puccini statue.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Puccini statue.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


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

User:G.dallorto 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)--User:G.dallorto 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

For this. I needed that. Happy holidays, Arria Belli | parlami 12:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and happy holidays to you, too. Sandstein 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:December 2007 bombing of northern Iraq.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:December 2007 bombing of northern Iraq.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Also Image:Ruined school in northern Iraq.jpg. This is NOT your fault; I think it's quite reasonable to suspect that the Flickr user downloads photos taken by other photographers and slaps on the border and Kurdish symbols to upload on Flickr.

--Arria Belli | parlami 13:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Please see my comment on the deletion discussion page. Sandstein 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Glückwunsch, lieber Administrator![edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...

Sandstein, herzlichen Glückwunsch! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons.

Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Neil Mitchell.jpg[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello Sandstein/Archive 1!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. 85.182.126.61 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Toffen N.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by John Bot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. -- John Bot(My Operator|My Contribs) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


All your images with regognisable people[edit]

Image deletion warning All your images with regognisable people have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these images, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Image:Antonio Ciseri - Il trasporto di Cristo al sepolcro.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

PD-Switzerland-old[edit]

Dear Sandstein, would you be able to give your opinion on Template:PD-Switzerland-old-unknown, which I have just created ? I am sure there is a lot that could be improved, but I hope the concept is ok. I have a pile of old photos (dating from before 1900) coming from books that could fit into this criteria. The book says that the author is unknown, and indicates from which (public) collection the image comes from. The editor is happy with me scanning the photos, and I am waiting for an answer from the collection. In total, I feel like I should be in solid ground with respect to Swiss law (good sources indicating unknown author), but I'd be glad to have your opinion. All the best, Schutz (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the template is correct, and you are on solid legal ground with respect to anonymous images from before 1900. A separate template may not be needed, though, because we already have Template:Anonymous-EU, which correctly describes the applicable Swiss law even though we are not a EU member state. I've used it on other old images such as Image:Hasler AG Zytglogge Gesamtansicht.jpg. Best, Sandstein (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I remember seeing a Swiss image which was published under this rule, but could not find it anymore — I thought it was perhaps on de.w.o, but no, it was yours ! Well, the new template is here, so there is no point deleting it; I guess it can be useful since it refers to the actual law, and is specific to Swiss images (which is better than "... in other countries ..."). Maybe they can be merged in a way or another, otherwise it does not hurt to have both. Thanks ! Schutz (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Image:Joan Armatrading.jpg[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello Sandstein/Archive 1!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. Royalbroil 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not new here. It's easy to categorize! Royalbroil 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Neues Schloss Bümpliz.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Sandstein!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


File:Prestige_Cosmetics.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

deerstop. 02:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flickr review[edit]

Just curious. Why didn't you submit these 2 images in 2006 for a flickr review:

I believe the Flickr review process did not yet exist when I uploaded these files. No, I have not contacted the photographers. This is not necessary, as CC licences are irrevoceable. Sandstein (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Personally, I try to see if a flickr photographer would license freely images which failed flickr review if the image is historically important. I have had some success with 10 photos. 8 here: [1] and 2 below:

I was shocked that the featured picture failed flickr review! So, I checked and saw its uploader was an Admin. I decided to contact the flickr account owner and he did change the license. He knew his image was being used on Commons--in this case--but no one told him it had failed flickr review until me. Some photographers on flickr are kind and generous while others are plain rude...or just ignore you. But as a friend told me, sometimes getting 25 to 30% of something is better than nothing at all. Thank you Sandstein.
  • With kind Regards from Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Just a heads up. I told Kenny Muir about the existence of this photo on March 11 by flickrmail. Since he is the photographer, he had a right to know. I asked if he was willing to change the license and make it copyright free too. So far...I have not got a response at all. It looks, from his photostream, that he stopped uploading pictures on March 10 and is away. So, if you get an inquiry about this photo, you know that it came from Muir. I see there are 6 images by him on Commons: [2] I am sure it was licensed freely as you claim. Its just a pity flickr review didn't exist in 2005/mid-2006. I hope Muir is openminded about this photo given the number of awards it has won. I guess I'll soon find out. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Update: I notice Muir has uploaded a new picture on March 22. So, he would have received my March 11 flickrmail. Since he did not respond to my message and has not changed the license of this image, I assume he will not freely license the image of Jokulsarlon_lake. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, but this is inconsequential, as CC licences are irrevocable. Thanks anyway, Sandstein (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I tried to get it licensed free. So, my conscience is free. There's nothing more I can do now. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vetterli[edit]

Hi Sandstein,

I am new to this so I hope I am doing it right.

I read your page about the Vetterli and noticed that the second picture is indeed a Stutzer, but from the M81 type. I have more data on this rifle in German and English and know some great websites about the rifle. I am wondering if you would like me to collaborate on your page?

Lennard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.7.35 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Lennard. Thank you for your help. I am not sure what page, or picture, you are talking about. Could you please provide a link to it? Sandstein (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Dear Sandstein,

I'm sorry I couldn't get Ken Muir's image licensed freely. But I got another Featured image which failed flickr review passed here:

I hope this doesn't happen frequently. Its really embarrassing to contact the flickr owner. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation[edit]

OTRS Wikimedia.svg
Wiki-otrs.png
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me! I've applied. Sandstein (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Zaffaraya[edit]

Hy... Wollte dir nur mitteilen, dass die Stadtnomaden nix mit dem Zaffaraya zu tun haben (bis auf freundschaftliche Kontakte) richtigstellende Grüsse

Ein Stadtnomade

Danke! Gibt es verlässliche Quellen (Zeitungsartikel etc.) auf die ich mich zur Korrektur des Bildes beziehen könnte? Sandstein (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

These images[edit]

Have you considered passing these 3 images which you state was uploaded on a free license:

(like you passed the image of the lake) They are good images and the flickr owner knows of their existence. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • NOTE: I don't see any good reason why these images should not be passed Sandstein. If you knew they were licensed freely when you uploaded them, you should just type in a flickr pass. At present, people who see these 3 images will wonder whether you uploaded a copy vio. I thought too that you committed a copy vio even with the flickr change of license tag...for a second there. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Sandstein (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the problem. If any images deserved to be removed from this category, these were the ones. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:December_2007_bombing_of_northern_Iraq.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:December_2007_bombing_of_northern_Iraq.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:December_2007_bombing_of_northern_Iraq.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:December_2007_bombing_of_northern_Iraq.jpg. Sandstein (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hab das Bild gesucht und schnell gefunden: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/news/newsid_7146000/7146562.stm. Gelöscht wegen URV, AFP. --Martin H. (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, tatsächlich. Danke für die Nachforschung. Sandstein (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Walter Yeo skin graft.jpg: unknown author + PD-old?[edit]

Hello! :) I see that you have uploaded the file Walter Yeo skin graft.jpg and claimed that its copyright has expired as over 70 years have passed from the author's death. I found this a bit strange however as the photographer's name is not specified. Although the picture seems to have appeared in numerous newspapers, I was not able to find the author's name with Google either. Could you fill in the author field so that the licence can be verified? –neurovelho 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have used {{PD-anon-70}}, which I have now applied. Sandstein (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

These 3 images[edit]

Dear Sandstein,

Can you please consider typing in a flickr pass for these 7 images:

They are all in use and were originally uploaded by you. Some of them are heavily used, too. I hope you can help here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

All done, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2 images[edit]

Dear Sandstein,

Please consider passing these 2 images which you uploaded long ago:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

3 final images[edit]

Could you pass these 2 images of Indian saris and one of a dessert?

They look quite useful and are used on a few wikipedia pages. I like the photos too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Sandstein, please help pass this 3 images. It is my final request. There are no more images by you in the possibly unfree category...and they are all in use here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you help...with these 3 images?[edit]

Dear Admin Sandstein,

I'm embarrassed to ask you to type in a flickr pass for these 3 photos you uploaded but, in my defense, I just found them today in the possible unfree column:

Normally, I wouldn't care about these images...but it seems a lot of people do care since I see they are used on many wiki pages. (the first 2 certainly) So, do you think you could kindly type in a flickrpass for them? What do you think? Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for embarrassment at all. Done, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind help on the 3 images. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this is the last one:

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After the possibly unfree category was reviewed, 1 'last' (for sure!) photo uploaded by you has turned up:

I don't know much about this place but the resolution is quite high. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's the last one. Its a pity people change flickr licenses so much today but what can one do? Ahhh! Gulp! That image was by Chyland...you know who here I hope it isn't a problem. Maybe you weren't an Admin at the time he filed the complaint. But if you want to revert your flickrpass or nominate it for deletion, please go ahead. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


File:Pepsi in India.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

--Dereckson (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Marusha_11.03.1995.jpg[edit]

Hallo Sandstein - am 29. Mai hast Du die von mir hochgeladene Datei Marusha_11.03.1995.jpg gelöscht. Diese Datei ist ein Scan von einem Originalbild, dass ich 1995 während eines Interviews mit Marusha gemacht habe in der Nürnberger Rosi, dieses Bild wurde freigegeben zur freien Verwendung und auch z.B. in Zeitschriften abgedruckt. Wieso wurde das Bild nun gelöscht?

Gruß [EscoBier|http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:EscoBier] --77.191.24.251 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry für die Verzögerung, ich war in den Ferien. Das Löschlogbuch gibt den Grund an: Personality rights violation, deleted pursuant to complaint by subject's representative at OTRS ticket 2009052910024609. Nach Beurteilung der erwähnten COM:OTRS-Nachricht kam ich zum Schluss, dass die Veröffentlichung des Bildes möglicherweise als Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten der abgebildeten Person beurteilt werden könnte (auch wenn Du es zweifellos mit guten Absichten geschossen hast) und die Wikimedia Foundation daher einem rechtlichen Risiko aussetzt. Weil das Bild zudem auch nicht zwingend notwendig für unsere Projekte ist (wir haben auch File:Marusha.jpg), habe ich es gelöscht. Da COM:OTRS-Korrespondenz vertraulich ist, kann ich auf ihre Einzelheiten nicht näher eingehen. Gruss, Sandstein (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I found these 2 more uploads by you. Sorry to disturb you:

At least the unfree cat is less than 200 photos now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Captain tucker also mentioned to me about a third image now in the not found category: here Admin MGA73 has told me this category will have to be deleted soon and I'm afraid he is quite right here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the notification. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for passing (actually saving) the images Admin Sandstein. It is greatly appreciated. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission question[edit]

Hi Sandstein, sorry to bother you again (on commons this time...). If you have a few minutes, could you have a look at this old ticket: [3], and the followup ticket [4] (both come from me -- and they should be read in this order) ? I want to doublecheck if Template:Swiss_Government_Portrait is correct. The first one seems clear to me (I specify which rights are important to us and the person confirms by writing "keinen Nutzungseinschränkungen"). The second one refers to the permission specified in the first ticket (I asked for the same conditions that in the first ticket). Thanks in advance ! Schutz (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) You may enjoy the rest of the discussion in the second ticket, where the joint work of Wikipedians managed to find and get an error corrected in the official list of Swiss Federal Councillors....

Hi, I'll look at it this evening. Best, Sandstein (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked at the mail exchange and it seems to me that the template properly describes the permissions granted. Best, Sandstein (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks ! Schutz (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Native American boy in Men's Northern Traditional outfit.jpg[edit]

Wait, you want to rename File:Native American boy in Men's Northern Traditional outfit.jpg back to File:Seneca nation girl.jpg? I received a complaint on my en-wp talk page that that outfit is definitely neither Seneca nor female. What's the OTRS ticket in qusetion? howcheng {chat} 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's OTRS ticket 2009090810054341, a message from the original uploader, who claims that it is indeed a Seneca girl. Sandstein (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Here, take a look at en:User talk:Howcheng#Incorrectly labeled image in Wikimedia commons "Seneca nation" category. The links the anon provided to me are pretty compelling evidence that the individual in the photo is not female. howcheng {chat} 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That does look like someone who knows what he's talkong about. I'll revert myself. Sandstein (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image.[edit]

Hey. Was just looking at some images on EN articles, and found that this image had been moved from a local hosting on EN to Commons. I am by no means an image expert, but I am pretty sure that company logo's are Non-Free content. Is this correct? If so, should that image not be moved back to EN? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If logos are not original enough to be covered by copyright, as described at Template:PD-textlogo/en, they are free content for our purposes and can be used here. There are many at Category:Company logos. Sandstein (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


File:UEFA_EURO_2008_flag_Berne.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:UEFA_EURO_2008_flag_Berne.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Bgwiki Bg Site 2009 Plaquette.jpg[edit]

Hello. Could you please check whether the permission from BG Site Foundation, concerning Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bgwiki Bg Site 2009 Plaquette.jpg, has been received in the OTRSystem? It was sent Nov 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM. Spiritia 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide the ticket number? Sandstein (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course not, as I am not an OTRS member. Can't you check for email coming from jury [at] bgsite.org as of Nov 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM? Spiritia 00:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ticket 2009112210013194. It's probably sufficient, even if somewhat oddly phrased. Permission noted. Sandstein (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Holly Sampson image[edit]

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I dug into the history for the two OTRS images you uploaded and put them up as separate files as I felt they could be used elsewhere. For instance, I used the uncropped box cover to illustrate en:Pornographic film. Tabercil (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Sandstein (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bundeslogo.png[edit]

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

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


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

 — PsY.cHo!, 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sand_sculptures_Thorn_-_Knight_Tournament.JPG[edit]

Hello Sandstein, from my point of view I think that the sandsculpture was a permanent installation according to the wikirules. See long explanation at the deletionrequest page. Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad[edit]

Hallo,

ich habe deinen Löschantrag entfernt. Der Flickr-Uploader ist Journalist bei Gizmodo und hat für diese von dem Event berichtet. Wäre das nicht so offensichtlich der Fall gewesen hätte ich das Bild nicht hochgeladen. Die Recherche dafür war sehr übersichtlich. Sorry, wenn ich etwas genervt wirke. Ich finde es halt nervig, wenn man als Antragsteller nicht selbst kurz nach sieht. Gerade als Admin – war ich selbst lange genug in DE – sollte man umsichtiger agieren. Gruß --blunt. (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mir ist schleierhaft, wie ich hätte drauf kommen sollen, dass der Autor bei Gizmodo arbeitet. Das Benutzerprofil identifiziert ihn als "white trash webtard", nicht als Journalisten. Um sowas rauszufinden, ist eine Löschdiskussion ja da. Etwas mehr Gelassenheit würde hier nicht schaden. Sandstein (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Auf der Profilseite bei flickr auf die Website http://mattbuchanan.org/ klicken und dort auf "Work" führt dahin. Aber du hast recht, ich hätte gestern gelassener sein sollen. Entschuldige das bitte. --blunt. (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bild aus Belp[edit]

Hallo Sandstein ich wollte Ihnen zu diesem wunderbaren Panorama beglückwünschen und Sie fragen ob dieses für eine Kundenwebsite verwendet werden kann. Falls ja, welche Bedingungen sind daran geknüpft. Ich frage darum weil ich mit den GNU nicht vertraut bin. Herzlichen Dank für ihr Feedback.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belpberg_und_G%C3%BCrbetal.jpg

Gruss S.

Hallo - das Bild ist unter der Lizenz http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.de freigegeben, d.h., Sie dürfen es unter Angabe des Autors und der Lizenzbestimmungen für beliebige Zwecke verwenden. Dies können Sie z.B. durch folgende Quellenangabe an der Stelle, an der Sie das Bild verwenden: "Autor: Sandstein, Lizenz: CC-BY". Sandstein (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued image promotion[edit]

KHM Wien VIIb 133 - Golden Vandal necklace, c. 300 AD.jpg
An image you created has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Vandalic art.

Regards, --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Berner Fasnacht 2010 033.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Berner Fasnacht 2010 033.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


File:Meg Whitman.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I do not like talking about somebody behind their backs, so I believe I have to tell you that I mentioned you and the block you imposed on me on Englisheh wikipedia here. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr Author releases Meg Whitman image to CC-by-3.0[edit]

The image Meg Whitman.jpg Meg Whitman.jpg has been released by the author to cc-by-3.0 in the comment section of the original flickr upload page. He agrees to allow the image to be re-licensed as CC-by-3.0 and has linked to his main page where the attribution requirement is located for all his images (it will need to be altered on the Wikimedia upload page to fit his requirements)--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is not necessary. CC-BY-2.0 meets the requirements for Commons, and I've never read anything to the contrary anywhere. You should not bother photographers with such non-issues. Sandstein (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You should not accuse anyone of bothering a Flickr author who does exactly as staed in Wikimedia guidelines. Regardless of consensus and agreement to abide by such, you are incorrect in your assesments. There is instruction, direction, guidelines for the exactly what I did. I made a good faith effort to abide by Wiki Commons specific Guideloines and policy that you seem to ignore or be completely unaware of. The issue of attribution in not a non-issue and never will be.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK...if I could find the strike out button or remembered the code I would use it. I have identified my problem and am backtracking the mistake. However I need to understand one more thing. What does this mean;

3.If the image is currently available on Flickr under a license which is allowed on the Commons, but the license on Commons is not the same (such as an older version of the same license), update the license tag on the Commons image to match the Flickr one and modify the review template to....

My orignal assement may have been close enough for the wikipedian that looked to accept it, as the old license does have a replacement (the 3.0) and there is text (somewhere) that I am attrempting to find about flicker uploads that stated that if uploading the old license from flicker to Wikicommons we should attempt to update the licesne ...now this gave the example 2.0 generic to 3.0, but I am still looking for it to see if it was misunderstood.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and...the first assesment is a yes and a no. All licenses are valid that are CC-by and CC-by-sa. Old outdated licenses have new licenses that are prefered and there may be some policy about uploads as I stated above (although, I have to doubt everything but the absolutes at this point) but yes this license was and is an available CC attributed license at Wiki. My original concerns weren't really even this as much as the not being able to find attribution on the flicker page, which as I understand it is a must or contact is needed. And even this was on top of the confusion over the headshot upload that was speedily deleted a number of times. But as far as there being two images, as I understand it, we would err on the side of the freeier image (this is from experiance not reading policy). It is attributed. The only issue I would have at this point is the member account I saw go up for Max Morse during one of the deletions that wiki would have to varify was valid.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
At this point I won't edit the images to avoid any conflict of interest, but I was wondering....since both images are remaining and can be used on Wikimedia, how about the full version of the Whitman image with Romney. All people in the image worked for the compay and it's a better image at full version. That could be used in the body of the article at wikipedia in "Career" The logo there might not pass much longer as fair use in that version and I con't think it can be altered.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Figured out the strike out.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:KHM Wien 32.471 - Constantius II medal, 347-55 AD.jpg[edit]

Hi. The identification of File:KHM Wien 32.471 - Constantius II medal, 347-55 AD.jpg is wrong: the coin is not Constantius II's, but minted in the name of Emperor Valens (you can read his name on the left). --TcfkaPanairjdde (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mao badges[edit]

Hi, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Badge 12.jpg is now eligible to be closed. As I have modified the licences for all the Mao badges that I uploaded as you requested, please would you consider closing the discussion so that the Mao badge image can be used for DYK on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I may not close a discussion which I have myself initiated; another admin has to do that. But I've already noted on the DYK page thet the issue is resolved. Sandstein (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for adding the note to the DYK page. BabelStone (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:George_Soros_-_World_Economic_Forum_Annual_Meeting_Davos_2010.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:George_Soros_-_World_Economic_Forum_Annual_Meeting_Davos_2010.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Fernrohr (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity[edit]

Hello Sandstein, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

question[edit]

Hi, Sandstein, in the past you have removed at least 2 attack images from user pages on English Wikipedia. Wikimedia commons has a similar problem, for example User:OsamaK,administrator Slomox;User:Waraqa and so on. Are you aware about any Wikimedia Commons policies that could be used to remove those? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of any Commons policies that cover such circumstances. You may want to ask on COM:VP. Sandstein (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

EM[edit]

Thanks for your efforts in this matter. Looks like a success. If there wasn't this problem, I'd suggest that WM-CH sends him a print version of all articles illustrated with his photographs.  Docu  at 04:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing by year and month[edit]

Hi Sandstein - I am only doing what others have been doing for years and which seems to have largely been pioneered with Switzerland, so perhaps there are others you should take on too!! You are aware I am sure that the info under the title on the 2008 Switzerland page is: "images/pictures taken in Switzerland in 2008" ie all pictures, not just those you think are relevant. I am not aware of any "rules" about date categories. You might not find museum pictures relevant, but I did and I am sure others will too. The page also contains an image of a plate of food, which hardly fits your categorisation, but I am sure you will take this one up too. Ardfern (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright on "Throne of Weapons"[edit]

Hi - query? I was unsure myself about the copyright on the sculpture. I had rationalised it as being OK as I understood that items on permanent public display were not covered by copyright. Have I made this up? Victuallers (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you mean Commons:FOP#United_Kingdom. You are probably right that this covers this throne. I've commented to that effect in the deletion discussion. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Falsehoods[edit]

Please refrain from accusing uploaders of falseties. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Whcih falsehoods? Sandstein (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alte B.V.-Oel-Tafel.JPG, and all those other DRs today. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What is false about these? Sandstein (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to accuse the uploader here of a false claim. But even when an uploader gives information that is not correct, it is most often an honest mistake. I am not asking you to assume good faith, I am asking you not to make the assumption of dishonesty. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I said nothing about dishonest. But the assertion that these are own works is false. They are derivative works of works by others. Sandstein (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"False claim" suggests dishonesty. And in fact, this was uploader's own photo, the source is "own labor". Commons is awfully unclear to many uploaders: often they do not claim anything else than that the source is their own copy of the work. There are dozens of ways to say that something is not quite correct without implying that someone is lying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that your time would be better spent helping to keep the contents of Wikipedia Commons in compliance with copyright, rather than bothering those who do. Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sandstein. Remember that you were unblocked in good faith. I recommend you to keep yourself out on trouble; you've already been blocked numerous times (including two indefs), and Obelix said that be block reasons (for the latest block) were unjustified. If you continue this way, you will likely end up indeffed (again). Heymid (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I now see the extent of the harassment, and I brought your permanent block of Elkawe to the admin board: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Please unblock Elkawe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "falsely labeled as own work", something like "unfree derivative work" would be better. If the uploader took the picture, it is "own work". Maybe it's someone else's work too, but besides the point. Anyway, all the ones I looked at were of PD-ineligible works. Please don't block people for things like this. Copyright is a very difficult area. I see no sign whatsoever the user was acting in bad faith. Please, at the very least, try to discuss things before simply blocking established users. Thank you. Rocket000 (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking this editor was a bad idea. It is apparent that he does not understand copyright because he consistently labels as his own work images (whether PD-ineligible or not) that are in fact derivative works. I only became aware of him because I was processing an official request for deletion via Commons:OTRS by a rights owner of a map which he photographed and falsely labeled as own work. In my opinion, the Foundation rather narrowly escaped legal action in that case. Are you willing to take the responsibility for the foundation's legal exposure should Elkawe continue to violate the copyright of others because of your unblock? Sandstein (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, baseless accusations. Uploader made a photo of a permanently placed sign. Maybe it was not in a public place, or maybe it was. But that is no reason for banning a valued contributor. And you are not fit to cast the first stone: File:Basler Mässmogge in Trommel.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:De minimis. Sandstein (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, that one can call a false claim. You make a photo of packaging of candy, and then you lie about it, saying "unwesentliches Beiwerk neben dem eigentlichen Gegenstand". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sperrung ?[edit]

Hallo Sandman. Wie ich sehe schreibst du auch deutsch und bist sehr fleißig. Nun verstehe ich nicht warum du mich gesperrt hast ? Danke für deine Hilfe beim löschen vom Park-Bild - Schloß Benrath. Diese Bild-Park-Tafel von Schloß Benrath hing öffentlich aus bzw. für Jederman/Frau zugänglich und ich habe keinerlei Hinweis gefunden, das ich ein Plan vom Park nicht ablichten durfte. Da ich meine eMail sehr selten sichte, weil ich auch sehr wenig bekomme, habe ich kurz vor der gesetzten Frist wegen Bild-Löschung, die Frau Weiss an Commons mit dem allgemeinen Commons-eMail Hinweis verwiesen. Man scheut sich ja überhaupt noch Fotos hochzuladen. Sollten ein solcher Fall mir noch einmal passieren, was garantiert keine Absicht war und ist, werde ich Commons verlassen. Dafür ist mir die Zeit zu schade, das anschließend meine Bilder wieder gelöscht werden, obwohl sie nach meiner Meinung zum teil geschichtlichen Wert haben. Übrigens würde ich es begrüßen, wenn jemand der geperrt werden soll, vorher eine Nachricht bekommt. Danke für dein fleißiges Aufpassen im Commons und einen Gruß vom Elkawe (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo. Wie ich Deinen Mitteilungen in den verschiedenen Löschdiskussionen entnehme (z.B. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unterwegs nach morgen.JPG), gehst Du von der falschen Vorstellung aus, dass es für den urheberrechtlichen Status eines Werks von Bedeutung ist, ob Du Eigentümer des Werkexemplars bist. Dem ist nicht so. Das de:Urheberrecht an einem Werk besteht unabhängig vom allfälligen Eigentum an Exemplaren des Werks und wird mit diesem Eigentum nicht übertragen. Wenn Du ein Foto eines urheberrechtlich geschützten Werks anfertigst, schaffst Du kein eigenes Werk, sondern eine Bearbeitung des Werks eines Anderen, siehe COM:DERIV, egal, ob Du Eigentümer des Werkexemplars bist oder nicht. Die Bildbeschreibung einer Bearbeitung muss daher zwingend das bearbeitete Werk beschreiben und auf dessen Urheberrechtsstatus (Commons:Erste Schritte/Qualität und Beschreibung) eingehen. Daher sperrte ich Dein Konto als temporäre Schutzmassnahme, um den Upload weiterer Urheberrechtsverletzungen durch Dich zu verhindern, bis ich überzeugt bin, dass Du diese essenziellen Grundsätze unserer Arbeit verstehst. Wenn Du dem, was ich gesagt habe, nicht folgen kannst, bitte ich Dich, ab sofort einfach keine weiteren Fotos von Tafeln, Schriftstücken, Logos, Bildern oder sonst irgendwas, was jemand anderer geschaffen hat, einzustellen. Du vermeidest damit, dass Du durch Unwissen weitere Urheberrechtsverletzungen begehst. Die Löschung eines eigenen Bildes kannst Du übrigens auch mit Template:Speedydelete verlangen. Gruss, Sandstein (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Sandstein, danke für deine Antwort. Ich habe schon verstanden das andere Menschen die Schöpfer von Tafeln, Schriftstücken, Logos, Bildern oder sonst irgendwas sind und da es auch dementsprechende Urheberrechte gibt. Aber wo ist die Grenze, wie z.B. bei den LKWs-Logos bzw. Schriftzügen ?. Das Orginal von diesem Bild hatte der Bundesverband Güterverkehr und Logistik Frankfurt a.M. ca. 1980 als Werbungs-Bild veröffentlicht. Werde dort mir die Freigabe zur Veröffentlichung besorgen. Bei den anderen Lösch-Antrags-Bildern sehe ich kein Urheberrechts-Problem, das diese als Bild bestehen bleiben dürfen. (siehe dortigen ergänzenden Text) Gruß + einen schönen Sonntag vom Elkawe (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Entschuldige den Nachtrag Sandstein, denn der soll nur zu meinem besseren Verständnis dienen. Gehe ich recht in der Anahme:
1.) Der Unterschied beim Hinweis „Nachdruck verboten“ ist hierbei der Sinn + Zweck um das bestimmte abgebildete Blatt benutzen zu können, denn bei einem Bild kann das bestimmte abgebildete Papier (Lieferschein oder dergleichen) nicht nachgedruckt werden, zumal wenn das Papier wie es sich auf dem Bild befindet, schon ausgefüllt ist.
2.) Erreicht auch z. B. ein LKW-Logo nicht die nötige Schöpfungshöhe, um ein Urheberrecht zu verletzen, darf es nach meiner Meinung zu enzyklopädischen Zwecken verwendet werden. (Wo fängt die Schöfungshöhe an ? Ich möchte hierbei auch auf Wikimedia internen {{PD-textlogo}} + {{trademark}} Vorschriften verweisen. Wenn meine Ansicht nicht richtig ist, müßten einige andere Bilder von mir bzw. viele andere Bilder aus Commons auch noch gelöscht werden und das wäre wirklich sehr schade. MfG vom --Elkawe (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, danke für Dein Verständnis. Was im Einzelnen die Schöpfungshöhe für den Urheberrechtsschutz nicht erreicht, ist kompliziert, siehe de:Schöpfungshöhe, und muss im Einzelfall beurteilt werden. Gewiss fallen einfache Logos potenziell darunter. In jedem Fall muss aber ein solches Bild mit dem Hinweis {{PD-ineligible}} versehen werden. Daraus und aus der Bildbeschreibung muss klar werden, dass Du das Logo nicht als Deine eigene Schöpfung ausgibst, sondern dass es die Schöpfung von jemand anderem ist. Ob auf einem Schriftstück "Nachdruck verboten" steht, oder ob es schon ausgefüllt ist, ist für unsere Zwecke nicht relevant. Wichtig ist bloss, ob das Werk eine eigenständige kreative Schöpfung ist und daher von Gesetzes wegen Urheberrechtsschutz geniesst. Gruss, Sandstein (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Soweit verstehe ich dich gut Sandstein und Entschuldige das ich deine kostbare Zeit als Admin in Anspruch nehme. Wenn es möglich sein solte, das die LKW-Logos überleben, dürfte ich dich bitten den Hinweis {{PD-ineligible}} passend einzufügen, denn ich weis nicht ob ich es jetzt schon machen sollte. Nun ist nur noch die Frage "Nachdruck verboten" für mich etwas unverständlich. Denn wenn es das Papier bzw. den jeweiligen Druck nicht mehr gibt und man ihn auch wirklich nicht mehr bekommen kann, ist dann das Bild hochladen auch verboten ? Ich persönlich bin der Meinung, das nur der Sinn + Zweck zum Hinweis: "Nachdruck verboten" ein Nachdruck grundsätzlich verbietet bzw. die Möglichkeit oder Vervielfältigung ausschließen soll. Das Papier ist doch sicherlich keine künstlerische Schöpfung, sondern hat wenn überhaupt eine niederige Schöfungshöhe. Die Bilder vom Werkfernverkehr (Buch, Eintragung, Waren-Begleitpapier) sind schon lange nicht mehr gültig und es gibt diese Papiere auch nicht mehr. Allerspätestens ab 1994 braucht man die Werkfernverkehrs-Papiere nicht mehr benutzen, das heißt den eigentlichen kontrollierten sog. Werkfernverkehr gibt es seit der Zeit nach dem GüKG nicht mehr. Ich könnte auch den Verlag fragen und mir die Erlaubnis für die Bilder geben lassen. Es wäre wirklich sehr von Vorteil, um die Geschichte vom Werkfernverkehr auch mit Bildern zu erklären und nur darum geht es mir persönlich. Übrigens, das Bild "Unterwegs nach morgen" hatte es als Abziehbilder, Reklamepapiere und Fähnchen usw., Ende 1970 - Anfang 1980 viele tausend mal gegeben. Werde den BGL um Erlaubnis bitten, das ich das Bild benutzen darf. Gruß vom Elkawe (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Meine Zeit ist nicht wertvoller als die jedes Anderen hier :-) PD-ineligible-Tags kannst Du ohne weiteres selbst anbringen. Wie gesagt ist aus meiner Sicht irrelevant, ob irgendwo "Nachdruck verboten" draufsteht. Denn das gilt für urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke von Gesetzes wegen, und für urheberrechtlich nicht geschützte Werke ist ein solcher Hinweis unbeachtlich. Soweit die Diskussionen zum Schluss kommen, dass die Werke urheberrechtlich geschützt sind, benötigen wir die ausdrückliche Freigabe des Rechteinhabers unter der Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Lizenz oder einer anderen Commons-kompatiblen Lizenz. Diese Freigabe sollte der Rechteinhaber direkt an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org schicken, damit sie im Ticketingsystem der Foundation registriert wird. Gruss, Sandstein (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Basler_Mässmogge_in_Trommel.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Flickr CC 2.0 image[edit]

This image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jerry_Brown_by_Troy_Holden.jpg could use a visual confirmation as the bot may have wrongly flagged it. Please speedy delete if review shows the image not to meet Wikimedia standards....but I thought this was what we discussed before. Let me know if you have time. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this image, http://www.flickr.com/photos/42961457@N04/4341855609, is licensed on Flickr as CC-BY-SA-ND. The "ND" (no derivatives) part of the license is not allowed on Commons. The license tag you applied is wrong. Or was the license on Flickr different when you uploaded it?
I recommend that you always use the tool http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload for uploading Flickr images, as it will make sure that the licensing is correct at the time of upload. Sandstein (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It still shows Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Free to adapt the work. Is that different then a deriverative? Perhaps I am misunderstanding that part. There is no "No deriverative" mark.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see that there is a difference in some manner that is not apparent in the Readable file redirect. I don't understand fully but see the difference between internation symbols even if the = no deriveratives symbol is missing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistyped. The image is marked as "noncommercial", not as "no derivatives". But "noncommercial" is likewise not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Licensing. I've deleted the image. Sandstein (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)