User talk:Stefan2/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

mvp2361372

how much you knwo abuot this this is own work File:Shamushak noshahr.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvp2361372 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echauguette (Bayonne) plaque.jpg

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Echauguette (Bayonne) plaque.jpg.

Hi,
You nominated it for deletion. In your deletion quest, dont forget the other images in Category:Tourism in Pyrénées-Atlantiques... --Tangopaso (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je n'avais pas noté les autres images, mais je les ai proposées maintenant : Commons:Deletion requests/French signs. Je déteste la COM:FOP#France mais je crois qu'il n'y a rien à faire. Ici en Suède on peut photographier tous les immeubles et je pense que c'est beaucoup mieux. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bayonne-Notice 32.jpg

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/French signs.

Bonjour Stefan
Encore un dommage collatéral du juridisme anglo saxon! Au pays de Montesquieu, il conviendrait peut-être de relire L' Esprit des lois ! N'est-il pas stupide de supprimer que le contribuable paie à grand frais pour l'information du public ?...
Je comprends que bien des contributeurs finissent par se lasser.
Tu peux donc supprimer rapidement
Merci
Daniel Villafruela (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Main gallery: User:Rotatebot/Log.
Hope you get not tired to help! Thanks having a look at Rotatebot's log. RE rillke questions? 14:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1. :-) Please have a look at User_talk:Rotatebot/Log#Log_checking. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EURion.SEK.100.front.jpg.
Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EURion.SEK.500.front.jpg.

Dear STefan, please read legal advice first. in http://www.riksbank.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=9094 (only in swedish) guidance is given regarding reproduction of swedish currency. Where did you get the concept that PARTS of swedish currency is copyrighted? --Janwikifoto (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enligt den länken är svenska sedlar upphovsrättsskyddade precis som vilket annat verk som helst. Dessutom ges det en massa instruktioner om hur man kan undvika att åka fast för förfalskningsbrott. Vissa mynt, t.ex. ena sidan av 5-kronan, faller under {{PD-ineligible}}. I övrigt måste man vänta tills konstnären varit död i minst 70 år. Se svar på ena raderingssidan. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jag förstår inte hur du tänker. Jag skickar mail, så ring mig, kanske jag förstår efter muntlig förklaring! --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
user Stefan4 does not reply, does not explain his thinking, and does not reply to email. So my vote is KEEP (I am not skilled in doing the delete/keep logos). It would be beneficial if Stefan4 actually contacts me and explain how he is reasoning. --Janwikifoto (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frågan är besvarad på raderingssidan. Jag föredrar om diskussionen sker där. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact me, to explain your thinking. You obviously understand swedish, and I snet you email, so it would be better to talk. You can also meet me in person in Stockholm. Vänligen kontakta mig, du förstår uppenbarligen svenska, och jag har skickat email, så det vore bättre att prata. Du kan även kontakta mig i person i Stockholm. Jag exister, är en verklig person. --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish logos

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ifealogo-couleur.jpg.
Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Istanbul Bilgi University Logo.png.

I added some informations thoso page. My English is not very well so I hope you see the point. :) --Reality006 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alf-1.jpg

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alf-1.jpg.

Peut être que vous avez de raison. Salut! Ferbr1 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:'_01_mummia_al_museo_egizio_di_torino.jpg rotation?

Hallo Stefan4, I am not sure about your rot. request at File:'_01_mummia_al_museo_egizio_di_torino.jpg - seems more likely to me that the camera was right... Also note that this is an upload after the 1.18 update and the photographer hasn't rotated his image by himself. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, so I have reverted the file to the original orientation. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. :-) --Saibo (Δ) 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not interfere

Dear Stefan,

I have checked the original rotation of all my more than 3,000 uploads one by one (3-day full work!). Please do not interfere with my rotation requests.

Best botanical regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean that I requested rotation for something for which you already had requested rotation for. User:Umherirrender made a useful page for searching for images needing rotation. User:Rillke later made a useful script for requesting rotation: there is a button to reset the rotation done by the MediaWiki software (which is usually correct for old images), but the script does not tell if rotation has already been requested by anyone else. On the other hand, this should not matter since the end result will be the same. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Stefan, I have asked in the previous days a rotation for about 700 of my pictures, which has occurred in the meantime.
During a very last check yesterday I asked for 5 additional rotations, of which 2 were also asked by you. Sorry that I thought that you were reversing my requests. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on rotations

Dear Stefan: Sorry, I am having trouble understanding what I should do about the current rush of image rotations. I do understand that in some process of upgrading they have been rotated from their original orientation. Then I see some automatic bot is going through and resetting them. It would seem to me that it should be possible to reset them to their original position without me doing anything. Is this correct? When I check the various links in the notice on each file's page I cannot understand whether I should add notes or not. If so, it is going to be a big job and as I am not well and bedridden with a house full of guests for Christmas I really don't know how I am going to do this. Also, shouldn't I wait until the automatic reorientation actually takes place and then leave a note on each page if it was not successful? Would you please advise? Best wishes for the holiday season and through the new year. sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. I think I have figured out how to use the rotation request tool now and so I am going through and doing all the ones I have been contacted about. If there are any problems with what I am doing please don't hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Hill, I am sorry for meddling but I hope you won't mind. Information about the auto-rotations are collected at COM:ROTATEFIX. We are working on a list to undo the damage created by the last MediaWiki-Update. So wait 2 or 3 weeks and then, all images should be fixed. Of course you can request rotation by yourself to speed this up for your photos. We are volunteers. If you want to talk to the software-developers responsible for the current situation or want to know more details, write to wikitech-l. Thank you. Regards -- RE rillke questions? 22:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misrotation by automatic bot

Dear Stefan,

Please revert the orientation of picture File:Ottelia alismoidesRHu1.JPG and File:Trapa natans01.jpg, which were originally correct, and are now misrotated by the automatic bot. Thank you, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't rotated by a bot, yet. See File:Trapa natans01.jpg#filehistory, please (no bot there). But the bot will reset the exif-orientation and then it will look like this. It this correct? -- RE rillke questions? 13:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rillke, for your reply. The orientation of Media:Trapa natans01.jpg is indeed correct. That of Media:Ottelia alismoidesRHu1.JPG too. They should thus not been rotated. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links go to full resolution images. Do you mean that the full resolution images are correct when viewed in your web browser, or do you mean that the thumbnails at File:Ottelia alismoidesRHu1.JPG and File:Trapa natans01.jpg are correct? The {{Rotate}} template tells the bot to fix the image so that both the full resolution image and the thumbnails get the orientation of the full resolution image. Is this correct? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I am clicking on the link "Full resolution" the rotation of the two full-resolution images is correct, but the thumbnails should be rotated by 90° and 270, respectively (clockwise, from portrait to landscape). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have requested a rotation by 90° and 270, respectively. All my about 3,500 uploads will be so correctly oriented. Please do not change anything further to them. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly what my rotation templates said. The only thing you changed was that you moved the images back in the rotation queue, postponing their rotation by around two days. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have no problem with the delay, as long as eventually the rotation occurs correctly. Best regards from Belgium (Bonjour de Belgique, Groetjes vanuit België, Grüße aus Belgien), --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I still do not understand why these two pictures, which I have uploaded several months ago and the thumbnails of which were correctly oriented till last week, became suddenly misoriented a few days ago. Is there some instability of the system?
No. If you upload an image and the image is shown on a Wiki-page, even the file-description-page, thumbnails are generated and saved on the server. MediaWiki 1.17 did not rotate them according to the Exif-data. But MediaWiki 1.18 does. Your and many other files contained such Exif-orientation-data.
Some weeks ago, the hard-drive-space on the computers that store the thumbnails was not enough. Therefore the server-administrators deleted the old thumbnails from MediaWiki 1.17 which caused that new thumbnails had to be generated. This time with Exif-rotation. So the wrong rotation was not done by a bot (Bots have accounts and you see them in the revision-history) but by a Software-change of MediaWiki.
If you understood now, please help us to improve COM:ROTATEFIX. Lots of users have the same questions like you had. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gloriosa.jpg

Hello Stefan, it looks like something went wrong with the 'rotation' of File:Gloriosa.jpg. Can you please look into this? - Robotje (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was marked for rotation by mistake. With so many photos being marked as needing rotation, it comes as no surprise that some images might have been tagged incorrectly, but it is good that you noticed it. I have reverted the image to its original orientation. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to understand that if there are tens of thousands of rotation requests, there will be some false positives. Thank you for the action taken. As for the talkback-template, I think it was never really used in the Dutch Wikipedia (I didn't even know something like that existed). - Robotje (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villaggio leumann collegno 02.jpg

Hi Stefan, I'm afraid you rotated the wrong file: Villaggio leumann collegno 02.jpg looks quite odd now! Let mi know, please --Dimod61 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan is not responsible for this appearance. It is a Software-change in MediaWiki (the server-software). Stafan added a template requesting Rotatebot to undo the change automagically done by MediaWiki. Read COM:ROTATEFIX and if you have still questions, you may ask here. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 11:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and tanks anyway. Happy xmas  !--Dimod61 (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utricularia fulva 10.jpg

Hallo Stefan4, ich glaube File:Utricularia fulva 10.jpg gehört so wie sie war - das war wohl ein vergessener Fall ;-) Oder? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 14:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Den bilden skulle förstås inte ha roterats. Jag har återställt bilden. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry - for some reason I thought you were de-n speaker (maybe place a babel box on your page(s)).  :-) Have nice days! --Saibo (Δ) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PIONER Russia

Русский: Логотип проекта Федеральной программы нравственного и патриотического воспитания детей "ПИОНЕРЫ РОССИИ", Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации

English: Project Logo of the Federal program of moral and patriotic education of children "Pioneers Of Russia", the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation

I am the owner and designer. If you disagree, show me the source from where it can be copied?Benteler16 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benteler16. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vers quel homme

Main gallery: File:Vers quel homme.jpg.

I ask to wikimedia permission for this file. Wait before deleted, please. Sorry : I don't speak english.--Claude PIARD (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai ajouté {{OTRS pending}} et supprimé {{Copyvio}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mistake - not wrong EXIF

Hallo Stefan4, just for your information: "the image is physically in correct orientation." - not really at:

That was out of about 8 log pages. I do not know if that is much or few errors as I do not know which percentage of old uploads have correct EXIF (like those two here). :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Stefan4, just for your info (in case you didn't see): http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Halimodendron-halodendron-habit.jpg&action=history - not wrong and wrong rotate request, too. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Stefan4, one time is enough. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about these wrong rotations. Sometimes, I guess I press the rotate button too quickly. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really no problem - many files, some mistakes. :-) Just telling so you know the errors and can optimize your actions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think those two were errors, too:

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those already had the EXIF orientation reset - but you tried again. ;-)

Probably a problem with the list page - I know. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, File:Wespenspinne im Bad.JPG - do you think that needs rotation? — Since some books levitate now. -- RE rillke questions? 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rotation reverted since it looked wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Tickets

Main gallery: File:Alitalia Passenger Ticket Belavia Baggage Check 2007.tif.
Main gallery: File:KMVavia Passenger Ticket 2007.tif.

Thank you for your possible violation of copyright Check. KMVavia and Alitalia - Linee Aeree Italiane are two airlines that were closed during last years, so can you explain me why they are not considered as a free content, i have seen some airlines tickets scans on commons and some of them are of exsiting airlines. Thank you in advance. --User:Alesseus (User talk:Alesseus) 13:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tickets have already been deleted by someone, so I can't check what the reason was. Presumably, they contained non-trivial text or art. In that case, they are copyrighted by someone until 70 years after the last author or artist has died. The fact that the airlines no longer exist is irrelevant. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet

Main gallery: Template:PD-USGov-money.
Main gallery: en:Template:PD-USGov-money.

I added it to templates: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-USGov-money&diff=64451729&oldid=43651958 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-USGov-money&action=history , as current templatea suggest that any photo of US money (escept certain coins) is automatic PD Bulwersator (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good idea. I tagged many of the coins at English Wikipedia and noticed {{NowCommons}} tags on some of them, so I tagged those coins here too. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 21 December 2011 is filed with similar files, as I moved multiple images tagged with this template Bulwersator (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with {{copyvio|[[Commons:ART#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet]]}} Bulwersator (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged many images in en:Category:PD US money as lacking source and licence, but there might be images on English Wikipedia which aren't listed in that category and I didn't have the time to check everything. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transfert d’une demande d’informations

12:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC),

Bonjour,

Je vous transfère une demande d’informations postée sur Deletion requests/File:Etiquette MONCHELET.jpg le 26 décembre 2011. Je vous remercie pour votre réponse.

– Pour éventuellement argumenter dans l’un ou l’autre sens, pouvez-vous rappeler les règles précises de violation de copyright qui s’appliquent à ce document ?
Je vous remercie. […]

Très cordialement,

Βερναρδ [✍]-

J'ai répondu sur la page de discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transfert d’une demande d’informations (suite)

⦚ 20:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Bonjour,

Je vous transfère une demande d’informations postée sur Deletion requests/File:Etiquette MONCHELET.jpg le 29 décembre 2011. Je vous remercie pour votre réponse.

– Bonsoir,
Je vous remercie de votre réponse.
Je ne sais pas si, sur Commons, la charge de la preuve est à fournir par le procureur, ou si elle est du ressort de la défense. Dans les deux cas, elle me paraît très difficile à apporter.
Si je comprends correctement le lien  :
– l’image doit avoir été utilisée la première fois avant 1942 ?
– l’image doit avoir été utilisée la première fois après 1942 ? Quels arguments avez-vous pour dater cette première utilisation après cette date qui vous permet de proposer la suppression du fichier ?
Très cordialement,

Βερναρδ [✍]- ⦚

info at Kazakh woman in her front yard in winter.jpg

Hallo Stefan4, at File:Kazakh woman in her front yard in winter.jpg you missed to transfer this info: "I took this picture. I have never used it anywhere else". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it wasn't interesting since the {{Own}} tag already contains the necessary information (and formally speaking, the text also appears in the quote of the original upload log), but never mind: I've added the text to a more visible place now. I'm currently trying to move over English Wikipedia images needing rotation to Commons so that they can be rotated. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that is much better, I think. The orig log is just for archival purposes. --Saibo (Δ) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChristophHartungMedal.jpg

Hey Stefan, what happened with that deletion request? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's waiting for an admin to close it. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for almost two months now. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Main gallery: File:World copyright-terms.jpg.

I just updated the image, I did not create it. You may want to contact the author, he should be attributed in the image description. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions against two illustrations: Willem ten Berge en Liturgiekkrant

Beste Stefan4,

De ingreep om een foto van de dichtbundel van de cover van Willem ten Berge uit 1926 te verwijderen. Mijn vader was dichter en schrijver, hij was goed bevriend met Jozef Cantre, die voor hem de cover maakte. De rechten op de cover van deze bundel zijn in overleg met mijn broers al jaren geleden door ons vrij gegeven, o.a. aan het Letterkundig Museum, die hem ook al eens opnam in en catalogus. (my picture of the cover of the poetrybook of my father, already given free of rights by the family, long ago)

De andere ingreep in en gedeeltelijke afbeelding van de Liturgiekrant verbaast me ook. Het daardoor gedeeltelijk in beeld gekomen artikel is van mij. Ik was 14 jaar hoofdredacteur van deze krant, en dient slechts, vanwege de kop als illustratie voor het gescheidensiverhaal van de vredesweekthema's. (my picture - partly! - of the paper, contains an article of the writer and that was me and a collegue, it is meant as an illustration of the themes of the so called paeceweek in the Netherlands).

Alsjeblieft nergens aankomen dus, met rechten en zo moeten we ook geen spijkers op laag water zoeken! De Amerikaanse regering maakt het al moeilijk genoeg! (Please, don't create problems, when and where there are not!)


EMelchior (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)EMelchior[reply]

95 Years

I have read the USA copyright law and it says this:

Section 302 (a) In General.— Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death. (b) Joint Works.— In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death. (c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.— In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.


303. Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978 How Current is This? (a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.

I don't see a copyright term of 95 years. Can you explain it to me? Thanks Cameta (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sections don't deal with works published before 1978. Anything published in 1978 or later would generally be copyrighted anyway since it is so recent. You should instead look here. It says that those works are subject to a 28 year copyright which can, if renewed, be extended by an additional 67 years, giving 95 years in total. Because of changes in the copyright law, works first published in 1964 or later are extended automatically. Foreign works are neither required to have copyright notices or to extend copyrights. US copyright rules are very complex, but all possible situations are explained here. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very much. Houston We have a BIG problem. Cameta (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asquith signature

Hello! With regard to the deletion request mentioned on my Talk page, I am not clear on where I should/would leave a comment. But I can say that I am not familiar with copyright issues surrounding signatures, and if the signature is problematic, then by all means—please delete it! Thank you for the heads-up and any forthcoming direction! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Londonjockbooks, please comment right in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herbert Asquith poet signature 1934.jpg on bottom. It is a discussion. This is also in the notice on your talk page ("We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry"). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (no, not Stefan4 ;-)  )[reply]
Comment has been left! Thanks for the direction, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Knovel_logo.jpg

File:Knovel_logo.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

GrapedApe (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lo_zen_garden.JPG

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lo zen garden.JPG.

This screnn shot is free and you should removed the notice because also File:ZenGarden.JPG and File:CSSZenGardenLikeTheSea.png exist in Commons and I received the permission of the author too. Thank you raul (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Bullnese Breed Standard.jpg & File:American Bullnese Original Pair.jpg

Main gallery: en:User talk:Stefan2#File:American Bullnese Breed Standard.jpg & File:American Bullnese Original Pair.jpg]].

The above two images were released to the public domain by the American Bullnese Association and its creator, Robert Rice, to help illustrate the wikipedia article on the American Bullnese. I worked hand and hand with the breed creator to develop the article. These images are not copyright of Dogbreedinfo.com. As is stated on the dogbreedinfo.com site, the images came to them courtesy of the American Bullnese Association. If we could work together to get these images undeleted and restored to the article, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Libby - American Bullnese wiki article

Please keep the discussion at one place. Since you posted a slightly longer message on my Wikipedia talk page, I'm continuing there. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scuttle's Scooters at Tokyo DisneySea.jpg

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scuttle's Scooters at Tokyo DisneySea.jpg.

Seriously, I don't get what is wrong with the photo. That is not too much artwork, that was really taken in that exact spot in that place by a camera. PatrickA.Tagle35 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably copy the improvement comments to en wikipedia, talk page of the article using it, and make a request at the w:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Because I doubt anybody but me is watching the file talk page here, and I can't help fix it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Satish.jpg

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Satish.jpg.

The licence is the same licence given by the original uploader in 2006 on the English Wikipedia here. Osarius (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use batch deletions

Since you nominated a number of my images for deletion, please see the suggestion here for how to make this process less annoying for everyone. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NCLab images uploaded by Jordan

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JordanBlocher.

I am trying to improve and maintain a few wiki pages, NCLab, Hermes Project to name two. I am a research assistant helping develop STEM Education. I have express permission to use the images displayed, they are meant to be distributed and used for any purpose. What would you recommend as a license. All our software is available through github or via our browser interface (NCLab). Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.16.137 (talk • contribs)

Hello, if you look into Terms of Use, they clearly say that NCLab is free for personal, noncommercial purposes. They also have the following Image Policy: Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned. So I believe that there is no reason to delete the images. If you have a different opinion, please let me know. Thank you! PavelSolin (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion at one place. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cashiers Check

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donation to the WMF.PNG.

Stefan, I too was headed for the deletion button. Alternatively, tell me how to fix the license. I can also get the bank to do a fax somewhere. But where? Thank you. Doug youvan (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep deletion discussions at one place. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations

Bonjour Stefan2/4. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous concernant les fichiers provenant du site http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org, lequel sont assujettis au droit d'auteur.

Pour faire court : les fr:blasonnements échappent aux règles des droits d'auteur, mais leurs représentations est soumises aux mêmes règles que les autres œuvres, c'est le cas de ces blasons dessinés aux XX-XXIe siècles (en détail, voir : fr:Projet:Blasons/Droit d'auteur). Voilà pourquoi, amha, les fichiers suivant doivent être supprimés (on notera qu'ils ont tous une version svg libre d'utilisation) :

Cordialement,--Jimmy44 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the File:Georgia diplomatic relations.png map

I have updated the File:Georgia diplomatic relations.png map according to the Bilateral Relations page from the official Georgian Foreign Ministry Web Site: http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=61 In the Bilateral Relations list, countries with whom Georgia has diplomatic relations appear in red and those without appear in grey. There is an internal link to each country name colored in red. An exception should be noted, that Macedonia also appears in red as it has an internal link, but there are no diplomatic relations between them. I have checked each country and in each country page is stated, if Georgia has diplomatic relations with them.

Sorry for replying so late, because I do not visit and update in Wikimedia Commons very frequently. Kindest regards.

Maphobbyist (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink orchids Lewis Ginter Botanical Gardens.jpg

Hi! Why has this image been rotated? Notice the lines on the wall. The bricks are no longer lying down like on en:File:Purple Orchids Lewis Ginter Botanical Gardens.JPG but they are standing up. --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filen hade EXIF-orientering angiven och laddades upp innan Mediawiki började att bry sig om detta, så jag trodde att den behövde roteras. Den ser dock bättre ut utan rotation, så jag har återställt den. Detta betyder alltså att bilden felaktigt varit roterad på engelska Wikipedia hela tiden från 2007 och fram till slutet av 2011 utan att någon har upptäckt detta. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tak for svaret :-) Jeg har ikke helt styr på detaljerne, men der er ændret et eller andet i wiki-koden, så billeder der før stod rigtigt står nu forkert. Så jeg er ikke sikker på, at billedet stod forkert i 2007. Men billedet står rigtigt nu, og det er det vigtigste. User:Saibo ved alt om teknikken, så hvis du vil vide mere så kan du spørge ham. Han er tit på IRC. --MGA73 (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wild muscadine.jpg

File:Wild muscadine.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etiquette MONCHELET.jpg/Demande de clôture de procédure pour sa suppression

⦚⦚⦚ 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC),

Bonsoir,

Le 26 décembre 2011, vous demandâtes la suppression du fichier File:Etiquette MONCHELET.jpg. Vous y apposâtes l’information de demande de suppression.

Depuis maintenant plus de sept semaines le statut de cette image n’est pas géré. Je vous propose de finir votre procédure. Soit :

– ce fichier n’a pas sa place sur Commons, il doit être enlevé ;
– ce fichier n’enfreint pas les règles de Commons, vous voudrez bien effacer ce disgracieux panneau.

Dans l’une ou l’autre alternative, il faut clore la procédure ; la crédibilité de votre demande et celle de Commons de n’héberger que des fichiers « légaux » sont en question…

Je vous remercie d’agir avec célérité.

Cordialement,

Βερναρδ [✍]- ⦚⦚⦚

Hi,

Description and licence of the file was changed.

PawełMM (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But at the same time, you removed the licence. Please don't do that. The page had previously been fixed by the previous uploader. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


ISL001, 002 and so on

Main gallery: File:ISL001.JPG.
Main gallery: File:ISL002.JPG.
Main gallery: File:ISL003.JPG.

Those are Icelandic coins I own and scanned. That's the fact. I've got no time now to lose, so erase them right now, right now, ara mateix. It's quite clear what they are and if the Bank of Iceland really owns their copyright as somebody stated there (I think it was somebody else who marked them that way) may be they can stay. Otherwise I haven't the slightest intention to defend their presence in this site. I have stopped uploanding coins of anything that is not well dead centuries ago. Lose no time and erase them all. By the way, I've also stopped uploading anything in Luxembourg (where everything is copyrighted, it seems) but I have uploaded some pictures of Serra Perenxisa, where I used to live. As far as I know, Serra Perenxisa was made by plate tectonics sometime ago. I've been trying to contact God and Mother Nature in order to get their permission to upload the pics. No answer yet. Should I have to apply for their removal?

Too tired but anyway gratefull for your comments,

81.202.248.41 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! B25es (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. A coin is a 3D object, so the photographer owns the copyright to the photo. For that reason, you need to specify that you took the photos and that you agree to licence the photo under a free licence. Since you wrote that you took the photos yourself, I have added a statement to the file information pages stating that you took the photos. The licence problem could be solved by adding, for example, {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} to all of the file information pages, if you agree on distributing the photos under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence.
There is also an unresolved question regarding recent Icelandic money. There are currently two statements on Commons, one saying that it is allowed and one saying that it isn't allowed, and there is currently a discussion at COM:VPC#Icelandic currency. The {{Icelandic currency}} template might not be valid.
Your problems with Luxembourg might be related to freedom of panorama: in some countries, such as Luxembourg, you can't take a photo of a building unless the architect died at least 70 years ago. It's stupid, I know, but that is how the law is written. In other countries, such as Spain, it is legal to take a photo of any building. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me and thanks a lot! B25es (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Spanish Wikipedia

Would you mind taking a look at the updates at Commons:Village_pump#Nonfree logos? Andrea stated that there are some issues with editing the "no local uploads" template - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

FoP

To say that in Italy there's not freedom of panorama is not technically exact. Actually the only law that protects the copyright is 70+ yrs old (1941) which says nothing about photos taken in public places (as opposite as Belgian and Dutch laws that set some limitations). It's supposed (and I underline supposed) that a copyrighted work (with artistic - cultural - etc. relevance, not a simple building with no artistic value), no matter where placed, can't be photographed safely if their author is still alive or has died less than 70 yrs ago. For the sake of the project I am pretending that Italy has no FoP and acting as such, but note that a member of the Government, expressely inquired about the point, said that (this is the official site of the Chamber (the bold are mine) "In Italia, non essendo prevista una disciplina specifica, deve ritenersi lecito e quindi possibile fotografare liberamente tutte le opere visibili, dal nuovo edificio dell'Ara Pacis al Colosseo, per qualunque scopo anche commerciale salvo che, modificando o alterando il soggetto, non si arrivi ad offenderne il decoro ed i valori che esso esprime" (translated: In Italy, not existing a specific law [about FoP] can be considered legal , thus allowed, freely photographing any exposed work, from the new Ara Pacis building (2000s) to the Colosseum, for any purpose, even commercial with the limitation of not alterating the subject the way it might be considered offensive towards the values that [the work] expresses).

Also note that there was never any official pronouncement about FoP by our Supreme Court, nor there were any cases in court about that. -- Blackcat (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course this doesn't apply to cultural and artistic works hosted in Museums, that are the subject of another law that forbids their photographic reproduction without authorisation.

Don't you think deleting so many images would require a wider community input? --VartanM (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about deletion requests about buildings and/or statues in CIS countries, there is already a policy which says that they are not allowed unless the copyright has expired, see COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union and COM:FOP#Russia. The deletion requests are only about following existing policies. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onödigt?

Kanske är det onödigt att lägga in raderingsvarningar hos användare som bara har redigerat bilderna som andra har laddat upp? Det finns ju kategorier för bilder som har vattenmärken som ska tas bort, användarna som gör det har ju inget med uppladdningen att göra eller något ansvar för eventuella brott mot upphovsrätten.--Ankara (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visual File Change lägger in raderingsvarningar för alla som laddat upp en version av bilderna. Vet inte om man kan ändra det på något sätt. Jag håller med om att det kan leda till en del onödiga raderingsvarningar. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Det har jag missat. Då förstår jag. --Ankara (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression d'images

ça va t'es content ? T'as eu ton quota d'images supprimées ? Abruti, va ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guil2027 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-28T20:33:03 (UTC)

De quelles images parles-tu ? Il faut respecter le droit d'auteur et je propose la suppression d'une image si l'image est illégale. Par exemple, Commons n'accepte pas d'images des bâtiments français et belges si l’architecte est toujours en vie ou mort après 1941. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your astute comment

Thank you, Stefan, for your very astute comment at Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. I've commented further upon it somewhat. I'd love to know your thoughts on that, at Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletition

Hello Stefan, you nominated our pictures to be deleted. Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JordanBlocher

Actually, that is our own software on these pictures. It is allowed to take screenshots and post them in our licence.

I ask you. Please go to https://nclab.com/. Please open Terms of Use on the very bottom of the page, there is the following Image Policy: "Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned."

Stefan, please, confirm, that there's no problem with licence, so I can delete the tags of pictures. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubflaska (talk • contribs) 2012-02-11 18:48:47 (UTC)

I think that this already has been solved in the deletion request. Next time you post something to my talk page, please consider posting it at the bottom of the page instead of posting it at the top. Since this message had been posted at the top of the page, I didn't notice it until today. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

Hi Stefan, you nominated these pictures to be deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commemorative euro coins (Ireland)

Not a frequent user so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to discuss this here or on that page.

Anyway it looks like the reason for their nomination is because Irish money is copyrighted, seen here: Commons:Currency#Ireland

If that's the law and that prevents images of Irish coins being reproduced, then that's the law. Don't know what else there is to be discussed. QC2 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commemorative euro coins (Ireland), please. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hi, ステちゃん :) What do you think of File:Statue of Watanabe.jpg & File:Statue of Watanabe 02.jpg ? Takabeg (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be necessary to find out if it was a work for hire ({{PD-Japan-organization}}) or a normal work ({{PD-Japan}}).
Asakura Fumio died in 1964. If it was a normal work, the copyright to the statue expires in Japan in 2015.
According to this page, the statue was made in 1936, but then it was reconstructed in 1952. If the statue was a work for hire, the copyright expired 50 years after construction. It is not clear if the 1952 reconstruction added any copyrightable aspects to the statue, so it is not clear if the copyright would expire 50 years after 1936 or 50 years after 1952.
There is also the US copyright which expires 95 years after "publication". If the Japanese copyright expired in 1987 (50 years after 1936), the statue is presumably {{PD-1996}}. If the Japanese copyright expired in 2003 (50 years after 1952) or will expire in 2015 (50 years after 1964), the statue would be copyrighted in the United States under the URAA.
I would guess that a statue in a public park often is a work for hire, so {{PD-Japan-organization}} doesn't seem unlikely. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's similar case on this statue. en:Seibo Kitamura delivered this statue to the Nagassaki municipality in 1955 and died in 1987. But, the Agency of Culture says なお，著作者とは「著作物を創作する人」のことであるため，著作物の創作を他人や他社に委託（発注）した場合は，料金を支払ったかどうか等にかかわりなく，実際に著作物を創作した「受注者側」が著作者となります。 (English). As long as I udnerstand, the legal status depends on contracts. むずかしいです (´∩｀。)Takabeg (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Nagasaki statue additionally has the problem that it was copyrighted in Japan in 1996, so it is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2011centrepompidou03.jpg

See also: User talk:Jastrow#Centre Pompidou.

Bonjour ! J'ai supprimé toutes les photos de la liste, mais je n'avais pas vu que le titre mentionnait une photo différente. C'est rectifié, merci de l'avoir signalé. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
I, Cirt, hereby award The Special Barnstar to Stefan4. With recognition for your stand against censorship and in support of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:SCGovResults

I believe that the original uploader actually created these images, since they're all elections with Democrats taking almost 100% of the vote for the gubernatorial elections in South Carolina. ~FeedintmParley 18:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but there is no way to tell without more information. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotated versions

I simply deleted all wrong versions. If I should restore one of your reverts, let me know. Sincerely RE rillke questions? 00:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks correct now, thanks. I wonder how Rotatebot managed to get it so wrong... --Stefan4 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

derivados

See also: User talk:AlejandroLinaresGarcia#Aviso.

The images you refer to are not derivations, there are various objects in the photos for those after 1923. Those of Porfirio Diaz and Francisco I Madero are pre 1923 and public domain.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publication before 1923 only means that the copyright has expired in the United States but says nothing about the copyright status in Mexico. Commons requires files originating from Mexico to be out of copyright in both the United States and Mexico. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, US law is the dominant one here as the Foundation and the servers are in the United States. See all the images in commons for José Guadalupe PosadaAlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for File:DiazFoxMODO36.JPG, it is not derivative as there are two newspapers in the photograph. Derivative applies when there is a copy of a single object.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to COM:L/es#Interacción entre la legislación de derechos de autor de los Estados Unidos y otros países, Mexican works need to be in the public domain in both the United States and Mexico in order to be hosted here. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hot sex barnstar

File:Hot sex barnstar.png
For having intelligence when dealing with topics of sexuality.

Hi, i hope that you will find it a positive thing to receive this barn star. The reason for giving it to you is two-fold. Firstly, it's a way to say thanks a lot for making this project a better place not only to find the information, but also safer from attempted harassment (and i have come to see just how important that last part is). But, secondly, with it i am wishing you a lot of strength, because i doubt that the discussion that is almost over is the end of it; keep in mind that the whole thing has began when i have voted Keep on a deletion request that some admin wanted to end in the delete consensus; and since you have voiced your opinion against this group of people, they won't really let it go (to quote admin Geni "this isn't over"). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I hope it all ends well, but I'm afraid that there may be long and time-consuming discussions awaiting. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, i'm not really interested in discussions any longer. I'm not convinced that those people are ready to listen, and i'm not 13 any longer, arguing for the sake of it no longer interests me. I am considering making a public statement, however. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 19:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain

Hi, I'd like to bring to your attention Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. COM:WPPD aims to support the Commons community's efforts to organise Commons' public domain materials, and to ensure that these materials meet Commons licensing policy. Please consider contributing to developing the project. Rd232 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pictures deletion

Hello Stefan, I saw that you can stop a picture-deletion-process (you removed the deletion tag already to one of my pictures), so please, remove the deletion date from those pictures: File:UrnEst_(imaste)_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg File:Metastasis_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg File:Ogre_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg File:CaughtFlatfooted_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg You can read here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#License_problem_.3F the reason (you answered me there too). Please, I appreciate it. Guy.e (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vital article candidates for attention.png

Why are you questioning my permission grant of File:Vital article candidates for attention.png? You can see that I have uploaded all three versions, refining them each time. How would an email be any more authentic evidence of permission? Npmay (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault not checking enough. I noticed the URL stats.grok.se and tagged too fast. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your comment

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68326145&oldid=68326097 – I hope that you don't mind. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure but reading Category:Mozilla Firefox logos / https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541761 and http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html (linked from http://europe.mozilla.org/sv/pressroom/images/) it seems to me at least one license that is permitted on Commons. What do you think? Regards -- RE rillke questions? 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might have misunderstood something. I have always heard of various copyright limitations concerning the use of Mozilla logos, but the links you provided suggests that all logos since Firefox 3.5 would be fine. It seems that Iceweasel only uses a different name and logo because of trademark issues – I thought that there were also copyrights involved. English Wikipedia has a Thunderbird logo which is claimed to be unfree, but the Firefox article contains a Firefox logo which is claimed to be free. This situation is a bit confusing. There's the issue that it says that licensing policy changed with Firefox 3.5 and I suppose I simply never heard of the changes until today. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Trademark ruling prohibits altering the logo and limits usage but this is a non-copyright restriction. I personally don't know how to behave here. -- RE rillke questions? 16:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark restrictions are usually not an issue here, but if you are not allowed to alter the logo, it sounds like a variant of a CC-ND licence, which is not free enough. Maybe it would be better to ask at COM:VPC or put them all in a deletion request for discussion. I am certainly not sure what to do here.
I think that some of the logos which I tagged as {{Copyvio}} were deleted yesterday. Were they later restored? If not, it might be a good idea to try to locate them in the deletion log in case they should be restored. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think COM:VPC would be a good place. Concerning the deleted ones, one just have to scan through your deleted contribs which is easy because you're using edit summaries. -- RE rillke questions? 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit

The image is, as clearly stated, a screenshot of a GPL'd program. As such, usage is free. Again, this is clearly stated in the description. Please remove your tag and deletion threat. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It had no licence template, so the minor footnote about GPL wasn't easily noticed. All files should have a licence template. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who don't live on commons or know its rules, but who nonetheless like to fix the occasional wiki article we run across, the requirement to include a template of which we have no knowledge or face deletion of a file we spent no mean amount of effort uploading while attempting to comply with the rules, seems a bit silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove tag on File:MythBusters Stars Adam Savage and Kari Byron at Dublin High School Engineering Academy Open House.jpg

I had the copyright holder email the license template as required to the email address specified several days ago. The tag re: license info missing on "File:MythBusters Stars Adam Savage and Kari Byron at Dublin High School Engineering Academy Open House.jpg" can be removed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.178.130 (talk • contribs) 2012-03-15T20:20:08 (UTC)

When sending something there, you should mark the file with {{subst:OP}} so that people know that an e-mail has been sent and so that people won't risk deleting it before processing the e-mail. I've added {{subst:OP}} to this file now. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

In response to [1]: What do you think could be done? There is simply no way to interact with the WMF. They have ears but play deaf every time such a matter arrives, while showing of their muscles. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Afghanistan discussion

I have noticed you have been unhappy with my update of PD-Afghanistan entry on COM:L. Feel free to update it based on what you feel would be inline of current policies. Regards. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You better get busy

[2] you've got a lot of nominations to make.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them probably need to be deleted. Unfortunately, the list also contains a lot of images of free houses. For example, the list begins with File:Korea-Building in Gyeongbokgung palace Seoul-2005.jpg which is ancient (Chosŏn Dynasty) and the fourth one, File:Building in North Korea.jpg, isn't in South Korea, so it is subject to different laws which allow photos of houses. Anyway, no time for more deletion requests for today. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, the evidence of your harassment is clear with this edit: [3] is it not a building in Korea? You took the time to change the category but not nominate it for deletion? It's clearly the focus of the picture. Your behaviour is extremely transparent.--Crossmr (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to create a mass nomination of Rotte Paekhwajŏm images because they look recent but couldn't find any year of construction. The company was founded in 1979 but I couldn't find out whether it was using existing buildings or building new ones. Mass nominations are easier to make if they are all in the same category and besides it makes it easier to look into the matter later. Train stations and sports venues are easier: they need a special design, so it can always be assumed that they were constructed right before the opening. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_1&oldid=572036805"