User talk:Túrelio

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Bahasa Indonesia  dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  euskara  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  română  español  português  English  français  Nederlands  polski  galego  Simple English  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Tiếng Việt  Türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  українська  ქართული  հայերեն  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  العربية  فارسی  +/−

ATTENTION: Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Deutsch  English  français  magyar  日本語  한국어  македонски  português do Brasil  русский  Tiếng Việt  +/−

Please keep discussions together:

  • If I was starting a thread on your talk page, please answer there. I will watch your talk page.
  • If you started a discussion here on my talk page, I will answer here.

All requests for and notifications of re-use of my images on Commons have been moved to Requests & Notifications.

If you can't find a comment or an older discussion here, take a look whether it is in one of my archives:
Archive1 (latest), Archive2 (2007), Archive3 (2008), Archive4 (2009), Archive5 (2010), Archive6 (2011), Archive7 (2012), Archive8 (2013), Archive9 (2014), Archive10 (2015), Archive11 (2016), Archive12 (2017), Archive13 (2018), Archive14 (2019), Archive15 (2020), Archive16 (2021), Archive17 (2022).


Visto le numerose foto rimosse, non metterò più foto che trovo su facebook (che sono foto libere di essere prese perchè ho sempre chiesto il permesso all'autore). Alberto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Davide Lorenzi (talk • contribs)

Translated: Given the numerous photos removed, I will not post more photos that I find on facebook (which are photos free to be taken because I have always asked the author for permission). Alberto. VScode fanboy (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting support[edit]

New year greetings,

Earlier in Octo.2020 @ village pump Copyright received your positive response for assistance in uploading old images from a research paper in PDF but the web link did not open then.

Now I find a new PDF link @

Subsequently after some wait resource request @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange got positive response that 2 images are already on commons and with assistance is now needed in uploading 4 images according to following info.:

Page number and image numbers in bracket: 244(8.2), 252(8.3), 254(8.4), 259(8.6) of new PDF link @ ( For article en:Superstitions in Muslim societies )
8.2: Better image here
8.3: Better image here
8.4: Better image here (on the dropdown at the top of the image viewer, select "f. 38 b")
8.6: Better images here
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 are certainly out of copyright, as understood by Commons policy; they're either super-old two-dimensional works,... 8.6 consists of photos (of a three-dimensional work) over which the Smithsonian claims copyright, and so may still be copyrighted (need to be confirmed for copyright status).

I do not find myself technically competent to complete activity on my own hence Requesting your kind assistance in above respect.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bookku,
I will look into that, but it may take some time. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, I hope I am not making request too early again. It's not that it is too urgent, and you can take your time, but it is quite likely that I might forget myself over a period of time. Since I was visiting commons thought it's better to drop in a message.

Thanks for your support and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Guten Tag. Beschaeftige mich hier seit Jahren als IP mit verschieden Biographien, vor allem betreffend Zweite Polnische Republik. Bei Bearbeitung der Vermissten Personen baue ich ein Info über den zuletzt bekannten Verbleib der Person ein (weil man soetwas in wikidata nicht einbauen kann oder ich habe keine Ahnung wie man es tut). Solche Infos werden sehr oft von "User:Микола Василечко" enfernt und revertiert. Es gibt Biographien mit sehr seltenen Nachnamen die wirkliche "Einzelstuecke" bei der Wikiprogrammen sind und deswegen existieren keine automatischen Kategorien fuer eben solche seltene Namen. Fuer solche Faelle benutze ich die Schablone "DEFAULTSORT:Nachname, Vorname" damit alles richtig kategorisiert wird ... und hier das naechtste Problem : "User:Микола Василечко" enfernt diese defaultsort Schablone und danach es wird nach dem Vornamen kategorisiert. Wenn er schon so etwas tut dann soll er auch dafuer sorgen das die Dateien (die von ihm revertiert werden) nach dem Nachnamen kategorisiert werden. Da ich systematisch mit Bibliothek und Buch-Quellen arbeite ist wirklich sehr schaedigend wenn ich immer wieder in meiner Arbeit zurueckgeworfen werde. Falls Sie nicht in der Lage sind weiter zuhelfen dann leiten Sie es bitte an jemanden der es kann. Hier einige Beispiele: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Vielen Dank. Gruesse. 2A01:C22:8448:7100:1C55:E597:187C:264D 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translated (formatting and links omitted): Good day. I've been dealing with various biographies here for years as an IP, mainly concerning the Second Polish Republic. When processing the missing persons, I include information about the last known whereabouts of the person (because you can't include something like that in wikidata or I have no idea how to do it). Such info is very often removed and reversed by "User:Микола Василечко". There are biographies with very rare surnames that are really "one offs" in the wiki programs and therefore there are no automatic categories for such rare names. For such cases I use the template "DEFAULTSORT:lastname, firstname" so that everything is categorized correctly ... and here the next problem : "User:Микола Василечко"and after that it is categorized by first name . If he is already doing something like this, then he should also ensure that the files (which are reverted by him ) are categorized by last name . Since I work systematically with library and book sources, it is really very damaging when I keep getting thrown back in my work. If you are unable to help further then please forward it to someone who can. Here are some examples: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] . Thanks very much. Regards. VScode fanboy (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dj wilman moreno is a well-known dj who helps many djs who are starting out he is a producer and is verified on Spotify his distributor is amuse there you can also verify it Valem41982 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open deletion requests[edit]

Hello Túrelio, firstly thank you for your speedy deletion logs and deletion requests process. Commons:Deletion requests#Lists of requests Here, there has been a lot of request waiting to be closed since June 2020. For example, there are some requests will be closed what I opened since September 2020. As Commons admins, can you reduce these? Of course, you can't do it alone, I think some Commons admins can it together. Sorry if I'm worrying unnecessarily for deletion requests. Regards. Uncitoyen (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello- I am the true.cooyright owner of two images that are currently being reviewed for deletion. I have created this account to get in touch. I have also emailed the team (as requested) about the issue. No one has responded and the images (and identifiable data!) Is still on Wikipedia. When will this be dealt with? The issue is causing me serious distress XXXANONXXX3245 (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, well, I've already removed GPS-data from both images discussed in DRs. As I am not member of the support-team, I cannot answer for them. But, be aware that we are all volunteers and do this work in our spare-time. --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of Mother Teresa for the Mother Teresa Center[edit]

+ LDM Dear Túrelio, Greetings of peace! I am contacting you from The Mother Teresa Center. The Mother Teresa of Calcutta Center (MTC) is a non–profit organization established and directed by the Missionaries of Charity (Religious Order Mother Teresa founded) to promote deeper knowledge of Mother Teresa’s life, work, holiness, spirituality and message through the preparation and publication of her authentic writings, distribution of devotional materials, maintaining of a website, etc. For more information, please visit . The MTC is an extension of the Office of the Postulation of Mother Teresa which was responsible for bringing to completion her process of canonization (sainthood). We came across your beautiful two photos of Mother Teresa at a pro-life meeting in 1986 in Bonn, Germany on July 13, 1986 and are incredibly touched by the incredible way you have captured Mother in this image. We are contacting you now to request you to share a copy of these photos for our records and also permission to use if needed for our MTC projects to spread Mother Teresa’s message. We would also be interested in any other photos of Mother Teresa that you might have taken. Any information or detail about her is of great interest to us, much in the same way that the memories of their mother are precious to her children. Every photo, document or testimony forms an important piece in a mosaic in her rich life and the more pieces we put together the more complete the picture. We would be very grateful for your help in this and will abide by any conditions that you might have regarding our request. And here comes another special request. We would be delighted if you would be so kind (if and when your schedule permits it) to write for us a short testimony about your experience when you met Mother and took these photos. We would like details if possible: what were your impressions, and what was that interaction like and did she give you any message etc as we would like to keep this testimony of yours in our record. We do not use any other social media except email and so I would be so grateful if you could email me back as soon as possible with your reply. God bless you Sr. M. Callisita, MC Mother Teresa Center of the Missionaries of Charity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr. Preseilla (talk • contribs) 08:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information boards in Innenräumen[edit]

Hallo Turelio, du hast vor einiger Zeit beanstandet, dass ich unter anderem die in Innenräumen des Ökologisch-Botanischen Gartens der Universität Bayreuth aufgenommenen Fotos von Information boards in Wikimedia Commons eingestellt hatte. Nachdem mir die Einrichtung keine Freigabe erteilt hatte, habe ich die betreffenden Dateien wieder entfernt. Jetzt musste ich aber feststellen, dass in Wikimedia Commons sehr viele in Innenräumen aufgenommene Foos von Information boards eingestellt sind, für die ebenfalls keine Freigabe vorliegt. So ist zum Beispiel eine ganze entsprechende Category:Information boards in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum vorhanden. Ich wäre dir sehr dankbar, wenn du dazu Stellung nehmen könntest. Gruß --Schubbay (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translated: Hello Turelio, some time ago you complained that, among other things, I had posted the photos of information boards taken inside the Ecological-Botanical Garden of the University of Bayreuth in Wikimedia Commons. After the institution had not given me approval, I removed the files in question. But now I had to find out that in Wikimedia Commons there are a lot of foos from information boards that were taken indoors, for which there is also no release. For example, there is a whole corresponding Category:Information boards in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum. I would be very grateful if you could comment on this. Regards VScode fanboy (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VScode fanboy, thanks for the translation, but I'm a native German speaker ;-) . --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Turelio, darf ich dich nochmals um eine Antwort auf meine Anfrage bitten? --Schubbay (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Turelio, leider ist meine Anfrage noch immer nicht beantwortet. Nimm doch bitte jetzt einmal Stellung. Vielen Dank! --Schubbay (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Schubbay,
es tut mir leid dass es mit meiner AW so lange gedauert hat. Auf einem so großen Projekt wie Commons treten natürlich immer wieder Inkonsistenzen auf, wie du sie jetzt beobachtet hast. Das liegt meist einfach daran, dass die Kontrolle der neu hochgeladenen Bilder (recent-upload patroling) aufgrund des Volumens nur recht oberflächlich und auch wohl nicht lückenlos erfolgt.
Konkret: was die Zulässigkeit von Infotafeln aus (Innenräumen von) deutsche Museen angeht, ist wesentlicher Faktor die Schöpfungshöhe des Abgebildeten, die letztlich die Grundvoraussetzung für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz darstellt (keine Schöpfungshöhe = nicht schutzfähig). Deren Beurteilung ist aus meiner Sicht aber nicht so leicht. Bei dem willkürlich aus der von dir verlinkten Kategorie herausgegriffenen Foto File:2021 — Zweite Julireise Mateus2019 Batch (207).jpg finde ich, dass hier Schöpfungshöhe besteht, da der Text über die bloße Angabe des Gemäldes, auf das er sich bezieht, hinausgeht. Das gilt m.E. analog für das (ebenfalls willkürlich herausgegriffene) Foto File:Australischer Regenwald.jpg von dir.
Was tun? Ich könnte auf einige der Infotafel-Bilder aus "Category:Information boards in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum" einen Muster-LA stellen, um die Einschätzung der Schöpfungshöhe dieser Art von Bildern auf eine weniger subjetive Basis zu stellen. Wenn dieser LA positiv ausgeht (keine Schöpfungshöhe und Bilder können bleiben), könntest du beginnen, deine Tafelfotos hochzuladen. Alternativ könntest du ein durchschnittliches deiner Tafelfotos hochladen und ich stelle darauf den Muster-LA (unter Verweis auf die Nationalmuseums-Tafeln). --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Turelio
Jetzt muss ich mich entschuldigen, dass meine Antwort so lange gedauert hat. Aber ich war im real life zu stark beschäftigt. Nun zum Sachverhalt. Bevor man einen LA stellt stellt, sollte man User:Mateus 2019, von dem die meisten der in der genannten Kategorie enthaltenen Fotos stammen, bitten zu versuchen, nachträglich eine Genehmigung des Urhebers der Info-Tafeln einzuholen, wie Du es mir seinerzeit auch vorgeschlagen hast. Würdest Du das bitte übernehmen? Vielen Dank. --Schubbay (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Turelio.
nachdem schon wieder fast zwei Wochen vergangen sind, möchte ich dich nochmals an meine Bitte erinnern. Schubbay (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siehe: User_talk:Mateus2019#Fotos_von_Museums-Infotafeln. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Da hat sich leider seit 26. Mai nichts mehr getan. Könntest du dich freundlicherweise nochmals darum kümmern? Vielen Dank. Schubbay (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pics delete[edit]

hi, i would like to delete all my uploaded images. Perencal (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Perencal,
as all your uploads are already from >7 days ago, you need to open a regular deletion-request. However, not as the one you made for File:Muğla 83.jpg, which is incomplete und irregular. On the respective image-page you need to click on "propose deletion" (or what is written there in your language) in the tool-box at the left side of the page. In addition, "user request" is not a valid rationale for images uploaded >7 days ago. --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, This pics do not belong to me. I divorced someone. And she want for it to be deleted.--Perencal (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Túrelio, you did not answer me. Look, I told you, I'm divorced. And that woman said delete the pictures or there is law. please i am in trouble, delete the pictures.--Perencal (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Perencal, ok, this is quite unusual, as originally you claimed it to be own work. As there is a theoretical risk that your divorced partner might sue re-users outside of Commons/Wikipedia, we need to have a record of this issue. So, please send an email with a list of all concerned files and the explaination that they will be courtesy-deleted for the reason you provided above, to (OTRS). They will store this information, but will not make it public (I will have no access to it). They will also send you a ticket number, which I ask you to post here, so that I can mention the ticket at time of deletion.(the ticket-number does not mean access). --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Massive abuse![edit]

Hi Turelio, I have to report massive abuse by User:Dajana L with respect to Coat of Arms of the Government Institute of political science File:Грб Института за политичке студије, Београд.png (uploaded, accorfing to that user, by the former Director of the Institute, that passed away! See here [31] for director Živojin Đurić. In addition, all other hers contributions on Wikimedia Commons were without proper permits or fake(s), as well. 17:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for notifying. However, due to Christmas I can take are about that only on monday. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need to make a license tag[edit]

Hi! I've recently found a photo that is public domain in Kyrgyzstan due to copyright expiration, but I cannot upload it to Commons yet because there is no template for works public domain in Kyrgystan because of copyright expiration (the only tag available for Krygyz works is an exempt tag). Could you create a template for this? Kyrgyzstan has similar copyright laws to many other post-Soviet republics like Uzbekistan (50 year post-publication for anonymous works, 50 years after death of author if author known) that already have tags on Commons. Can you make a tag for this or delegate this to someone who knows how? Thank you!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image files marked for 'Speed deletion'[edit]

Hello!! Sorry, It seems like I disturbed the commons, though I followed the protocols without noticing the errors. I tried to fix some image problems as I've listed below;

  • The youtube link provided as a copyvios for File:Aslay.jpg does not show any image of Aslay or resemblance, I've looked the whole video, you can prove that too. The Image appears nowhere on the internet.
  • I replaced an image file for File:Tanasha Donna.jpg. Will it still be deleted?
  • Image File:Joseph Marwa (actor).jpg is a free image uploaded to Flickr, I uploaded it to the second website (cited as copyvios) myself. I've taken the image down from the second site, hope it can survive. Afyaniuhai (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my time-zone it's too late for a detailed reply today. However, honestly, all your uploads look like they are not your own/original work. --Túrelio (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried fixing them by uploading new versions to some of them and tried both of the nominated Images with with 0 results from the web, that makes me have the original copies of the work, I honestly use web archives to look for one time taken image that was deleted,take them and give them free licenses through flickr(since they've got low qualities). Having a high quality image of a living individual to attach it to any meta page is really hard, but re-owning the low quality images is quite something. Have a good night, Hope you'll reconsider the request. Afyaniuhai (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File deletion[edit]

Hello! I would like to ask you about a deletion of this image: c:File:Гольденберг А.Х.jpg

It was uploaded for an article ru:Гольденберг,_Аркадий_Хаимович about a scholar from Russia by mr. Goldenberg himself, since the current photo is rather old and of poor quality. The photo is from his personal archive. I speak on his behalf as his relative. The image was later deleted by you. Why was it deleted? The cited reason is «copyright violation»; the image, once again, is from his personal archive.

To avoid further misunderstandings, the article itself wasn't written by mr. Goldenberg or any of his associates, his only contribution to the article was an image replacement. Veidenov (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Veidenov,
the reason it was deleted is that it was found in a pdf-file at Such findings generally hint to the suspicion that an "own work"-claim might not be true. Now, if Mr. Goldenberg is sure this image was either shot by himself (option 1) or has obtained the copyright from the photographer (option 2), we may solve this issue by sending a permission. If option 2 is true, then ideally the photographer him/herself should send the permission to (OTRS). If option 11 is true, then Mr. Goldenberg can send the permission by himself. You should go to Commons:Email templates and copy the boxed text under "Email message template for release of rights to a file" (or the equivalent in Russian language (Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/ru)) and paste it into your local text-editor. Then add the filename of the image (from Commons) and the name of the choosen free license. Then, mail it to Mr. Goldenberg and ask him to either send it to the photographer or by himself sign and date it and mail it back directly (not forward) to the above mentioned address. The email will not be made public; only our OTRS-volunteers can read it. --Túrelio (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to specify it a little bit:
1) If we have a photo from mr. Goldenberg's personal archive which is not a selfie, but was taken with no commercial intent, by a friend or a student, and then sent to him, and was never published anywhere, does he have a right to upload it?
2) If we have a photo from mr. Goldenberg's personal archive which is not a selfie, but was taken with no commercial intent, by a friend or a student, and then sent to him, but was later used in a publicatiob, does he have a right to upload it?
It's all a pretty narrow scholarly circle where everyone knows each other and none of the publications are commercial, Russian copiright laws in the field of science are weak and largely neglected, and nobody really bothered with any sort of copyright legalities during the publishing og the book you linked - it was a student's photo made during some conference, it was later used as an illustration for the book which is a collection of articles dedicated to mr. Goldenberg's 70th birthday. It's really implausable that either the publisher (the university where mr. Goldenberg works) or a technical original author of the photo in question (his student) would in any way object to using this image in a wiki article, but also actually bothering with trying to get a technical permission from a student who graduated several years ago would be a pain.
If a photo was taken with no commercial intent, was never used in any commercial way, was sent to a person on the photo in a private manner, and depicts no one elce, does he have a right to upload it without making an original photographer do any paperwork? The old man just wants to look nice in his own Wikipedia article -- Veidenov (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File delation without asking about (Ticket Ticket:202211)[edit]

During the past month and also this month I have been exchanging emails about the copyright of different images uploaded by me, until I proved ownership of them. No one asked me about this particular photo. Before deleting it, and given that it was included in an article and was quite representative, I think it would have been better to ask me about. The photo is my own work. It was made by my mother and she died more than 10 years ago. Could you tell me what is the problem?MorenaClara (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea about which file you are talking. (I've performed 250+ deletions today) --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, likely it is File:Telar antiguo para confeccionar espolines.jpg. It had been tagged for deletion by OTRS-agent Ganímedes for "Impossible to verify authorship." --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is the one (I included the tickect number). Then, what can I do? It is my mums work and now it is mine. I was in the original picture and cut off myself. She died, as mentioned. Ganimedes did not contact me about that picture as she did with others. Any suggestion? Thank you. MorenaClara (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to talk to Ganimedes or OTRS. I am not an OTRS-volunteer, so I don't have any access to OTRS-communication.(therefore the ticket# didn't help me to find the filename) Probably you need to convince them that you are the heir of your mother's work/copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I thought you were an OTRS-volunteer, I was confused. I will try to contact her. MorenaClara (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sports logos[edit]


Firstly, thank you for deleting the Kaohsiung Steelers logo. I was unaware of the high quality rule at the time, but it makes sense from a copyright perspective. Second, I want to ask how it would be possible to add a logo to the wikipedia article. I can see them in the NBA team's pages, euroleague team pages, and it just adds to the page quality, it makes it easily recognizeable. So, any suggestions, svg format or another platform instead of wikimedia commons (they dont allow logos) maybe? Thanks for your hard work and time! MrSplashman77 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MrSplashman77,
if you want to add it to :en-Wikipedia, you could upload the logo locally at :en and then claim it as fair-use (en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline). If you want to use it on a Wikipedia, which has no exemption-policy, then you might ask a user from Taiwan if he/she could look whether the logo is permanently displayed/installed somewhere outdoors and then take a photo of it and upload it to Commons, claiming freedom-of-panorama. If that is not possible, then you need to ask the Kaohsiung Steelers directly of they are willing to release the logo under Commons-compatible free license. --Túrelio (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerda Thune Andersen[edit]

Hi, according to this file these are made by Gerda Thune Andersen: File:Fyrkat Møllegaard.Plaque C. G. Schultz.ajb.jpg, File:Fyrkat Møllegaard.Plaque Else Roesdahl.ajb.jpg, File:Fyrkat Møllegaard.Plaque Holger Schmidt.ajb.jpg, File:Fyrkat Møllegaard.Plaque Olaf Olsen.ajb.jpg and File:Fyrkat Møllegaard.Plaque Sv. Søndergaard.ajb.jpg. Due to the no FOP in Denmark for art and her not being dead yet, or at least not long enough for them to be free, the files should be nominated. Since they're from the same artist, is the nomination supposed to be a single request, or does one make one for each? TherasTaneel (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can combine them into 1 DR. When I want to do this, I start the DR-script for 1 file, and then simply copy the resulting template from the processed file to all the other files and add their filenames to the DR-page. --Túrelio (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I think... I know what you mean, but what about the notification to the uploader, they would only get one, do I add the other files as a list underneath in the same section or use the template for each? TherasTaneel (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, if the files are from different uploaders, then you need to click on the template on the affected files and copy the uploader-notification-link and paste it on the uploader's talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, if you have time, could you clear out the above category? I tend to put all the poor Fleuron-related images in there, they're simply not worth any more effort. I'm not sure if anyone else uses it. Thanks in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'll look into it early next week. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, 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!


Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG conversion[edit]

Hi. I'm wondering if this SVG File:Seal of the City of Salatiga.svg is a valid conversion from File:Lambang Kota Salatiga.png. There're a great deal of changes. I don't see any modifications on the cite website Pinging uploader RaFaDa20631 for any inputs -- DaxServer (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated: I updated the arms on 18 February 2023 as a part of evaluations/corrections among coats of arms of regencies in Java. The original citation/reference is a law/regulation document titled 1997 Regional Regulation No. 5 (Peraturan Daerah Kotamadya Dati II Salatiga No. 5 Tahun 1997, documented at JDIH Kota Salatiga) as I mentioned before... RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong with the file? same CC license. Нейроманьяк (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct. Restored. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File deletion[edit]

Hi~ why the "なぞクー「Goo」" pictures deleted? even Mysterious Qoo did not appear in the introduction of friends on the official website, but Mysterious Qoo is a official character that did appeared in the past. Here are three ads that which Mysterious Qoo's appeared:

①CM 「镜にうつったのは......」(なぞクーWEB篇) (2004年6月) ②CM 「镜にうつったのは......」(なぞクーグッズキャンペーン編) (2004年) ③CM「Qooの乳酸カシス子汁」篇(2005年3月24日) Tamiacoco (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Christian Holst Vigilius, 2022.jpg[edit]

Hi Túrelio. Would you mind taking a look at File:Christian Holst Vigilius, 2022.jpg when you have the chance? This file has the same name as a file you deleted on December 11, 2022, as a copyvio, but I don't think it's the same file. However, I'm also not too sure that the uploader's claim of "own work" is valid either since the EXIF data for the new reference is the kind that often comes from photos downloaded from Facebook. Most of this uploader's uploads are fairly high photos of Danish politicians being claimed as "own work". There's almost never any EXIF data or source information provided to help verify any such claim. That fact that first version uploaded of this file (i.e. the one you deleted) seems to have also been uploaded as "own work" even though it was clearly attributed to someone else and most likely came from some website makes me a bit concerned that the uploader might just be not being sufficiently diligent when it comes things like COM:Own work and COM:NETCOPYVIO. They might mistakenly think that downloading a file from somewhere online somehow means they now own the copyright on the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anders Stjernholm, 2017.jpg is the most recent file uploaded by this user. Its EXIF data also suggest it comes from Facebook and the EXIF data actually attributes to the file to "Roberto Borgen". Unless that can be verified by VRT to be the uploader, it seem the uploader is simply taking photos from online and uploading them to Commons regardless of their copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, Túrelio, may you help me out with these two images? They’re marked as valued, but apparently they were simply cropped from the real valued image: this and this. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author suggested to quickly delete the image[edit]

I'm the author and I would like to delete it quickly image Dự thảo Bảng lương Sĩ quan Quân đội và Công an Việt Nam năm 2021. Because: I'm about to release a new version of the image but it's extracted from a .png file so I need to request that the old image be removed before I can post the new image. Please help me delete old pictures. Thank you. Taitamtinh (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cabot Logo.png[edit]

Hi Túrelio. This is in reference to User talk:Túrelio/Archive17#File:Cabot Logo.png since File:Cabot Logo.png was deleted by Krd on March 28, 2023 per COM:CSD#F5 but then reuploaded the following day by a user named Rockswanson. It still has the same issues as before, and my guess is that the uploader is either Cabotcoop or someone else associated with Cabot Creamery. I don't think this file can be keep without VRT verification or something else showing it has been released under as licensed; at the same time, it's going to start being disrupted if a new account is created to reupload the file each time it's deleted. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern swami[edit]

cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swami Vivekananda 1893 Speech Why We Disagree.ogg and File:Text-Video-World-Parliament-of-Religion-1.ogv. This presumably also applies to File:Vivekananda1.ogg (see its talk page), File:Text-Video-Weltparlament-der-Religionen-SV.ogv, and File:Text-Audio-SV-World-Parliament-of-Religion-disagree.ogv. CC Infrogmation who closed the DR. The videos give Youtube as their source, and the description on Youtube give Wikisource as their source (where the videos were in use until today when I removed them, as they are not compliant with the annotations policy in addition to be being likely copyvios). So almost certainly they are modern user creations by the same person that added them to enWS. The audio file seems to have been confirmed as a modern fake since there are no known recordings of the speech in question. Xover (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Terek oblast 1862.png. This card of the same series. On the external site since 2012 and in the Commons since 2019. You are sought to look in the version of the deleted file where there is a link. 01:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bruckner' Works on the German Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Túrelio,

In the past I have updated the pages on the Bruckner works which were already present on the English Wikipedia and created individual pages for all the other Bruckner works with exception of the piano and organ works and the Kitzler-Studienbuch for which I have created a descriptive list. Thereafter I have translated/adapted all these pages on the French Wikipedia. I am updating these Wikipedia pages every time there is new significant information about the Bruckner works.

I just have started on 14 April 2023 to do the same for the German Wikipedia. I have already created the pages Messe für den Gründonnerstag and Missa Solemnis (Bruckner), and expanded the already existing pages Kronstorfer Messe and Windhaager Messe, but it is not an easy job because of my not optimal practice of the German language. Do not hesitate to have a look on these pages and to improve their content.

Have a fine day! Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Réginald. I'll look into it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletions of fictitious flags[edit]

Hi Túrelio

Is there a way to resquest a speedy deletion of all these flags : Flags of Provinces of Algeria recreated yesterday whereas they had been removed in 2022 ([32])

All these flags are fictitious and fanciful.

The contributor Russian Onest has also uploaded other such fictitious flags ([33]) --Poudou99 (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please take a look at the requests in the category? Some of them have been without any response for more than a month Trade (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simon Ekpa[edit]

Can you do this one too? [34] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Discussion about it at User_talk:Let'sUploadNow#The_image_which_I_uploaded_is_free_of_copyright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update:[35] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more update (on WP):[36] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to tell me to stop bugging you, but:File:Simon Ekpa, 2023. (Official portrait).jpg. IMO these flickr claims are very likely bullshit, the pic has been online since 2017:[37] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interestingly they went via flickr this time, possibly because someone gave them the idea: User_talk:Let'sUploadNow#The_image_which_I_uploaded_is_free_of_copyright. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I don't now the Commons-procedure when the uploader removes a copyvio-tag:[38] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification on German laws[edit]

Hey! I have a ton of photos from CSD Parade 2022. However, I'm not sure if there're any relevant laws that'd prohibit to release such photos under CC BY. Apart from adding a Template:Personality rights, I don't see any hindrances. I know a lot of people, including myself, shield themselves [using hands] if they spot someone taking pictures in public spaces. Do you know if there're some laws that I need to refer to? Thanks for your response! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Túrelio. Can you check to see whether File:AkhterHusainGovernorOfWestPakistan.png is the same as File:Akhter Husain Governor Of WestPakistan.png? My guess is that it is and the uploader simply reuploaded the file after you deleted it the first time. This might also be a case of COM:LL given the file's EXIF data. It's possible that the uploader is manipulating EXIF data given they also uploaded File:FoundationStone-Minar-e-Pakistan.png claiming that it was digitalized in 1980, which seems a bit odd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Löschung von Bildern[edit]

Hallo Túrelio, es gibt ein grundsätzliches Problem mit dem Benutzer A1Cafel, den ich deswegen auch auf der Administratorenseite gemeldet habe (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:A1Cafel). Der Typ lädt hundertfach Duplikate von Flickr hoch, weil er sich nicht die Mühe macht - und ich habe ihn schon mehrfach darum gebeten, sich diese Mühe zu machen! - zu überprüfen, ob die Dateien nicht schon auf Commons sind. Jetzt haben wir einen gigantischen Salat in der Category:European Youth Event 2023, weil es 171 verschiedene Dateien zweimal gibt. Man müsste also 171 verschiedene Löschanträge stellen! Uff! Das ist mir zu viel! Daher schreibe ich dich hier an mit der Bitte, die Duplikate pauschal zu löschen, ohne gesonderten Antrag für jedes Bild. Man müsste A1Cafel bei Strafe verbieten, Flickr-Dateien hochzuladen, er ist zu blöd oder zu böswillig dafür (ich vermute Letzteres). Danke und liebe Grüße Edelseider (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sembra che non tieni nulla da fare[edit]

è possibile che devi contestare anche tutto quello che si fa in un wikipedia che non sia il tuo e sono cose che nemmeno conosci? fare una traduzione per te sarebbe soltanto uno spreco di tempo Giov.c (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted image[edit]

Hi, I believe you may have mistakenly deleted (image, talk) an image. Please compare the deleted image to Edward's figure, here. I know they look similar, because they obviously are displaying the same thing, but they are completely different in terms of origin. If it's possible to undelete, that would be great. Thanks! Let me know if I'm missing anything. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I may have left out attribution, (the image is "inspired" by the paper, of course); please let me know what type of attribution is required, if any, and I can fix the issue.

I will make sure to add the correct tag after it is undeleted, due to Commons:Threshold of originality § Charts. Chamaemelum (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, well, for me they look completely identical. Anyway, I will put it into a regular DR, which allows a discussion and input of others. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here you are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EdwardsFigure.png. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chamaemelum is uploading other copyrighted material and using incorrect licensing [39], [40] (the latter image was not published in the United States) so the claim that it is in the public domain in the United States is not true, so that should be removed. I don't have time to go through this users other uploads but many are suspect and some have been deleted. On Wikipedia this user caused mayhem and ended up getting blocked for disruption. It was later found that they added a lot of copyrighted material. I see a pattern here. It is ridiculous they are claiming above that the Edwards graph is there own but I won't be commenting about this again. It's time consuming having to clean up after a problematic user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Psychologist Guy, I have uploaded very old historical images and got details possibly incorrect, but those are completely different and seperate from the current image, which I made from scratch. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Flag India.svgFlag of India.svg

Rkt2312 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Túrelio!

I noticed that you quickly acted on the copyvio deletions I tagged just now. Thank you very much for your vigilance.

I was just wondering if you had time to do the same for this deletion request I submitted a few days ago with images from the same user: Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/08/16#Uploads_by_User:Theresunset. All of these images were tagged as public domain or with no license at all, and all of them are taken from various internet sources. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this person understands the concept of copyright very well. Thank you very much. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, it would really have been better to put the different file-groups into separate DRs, instead of putting them all into one, as some could actually be speedied due to being clear copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I see it. Source is where the footer says © 2022 copyright Dan Wagner. All rights reserved, but the CC is in the picture. Good catch. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verwijdering van Bestand:20-Voorplaat Bastion Hotels 1990[edit]

U heeft een afbeelding verwijderd omdat deze niet de juiste rechten had. Deze afbeelding is ontworpen en geschetst door Leonard van Veldhoven zelf, zou u deze weer terug willen plaatsen? Vriendelijk dank. J.Bolle (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you are refering to File:20-Voorplaat Bastion Hotels.jpg? Well, you wrote "own work" (of you), which isn't true then. Anyway, if Leonard van Veldhoven is the artist, he needs to send a confirmation of the free license, under which you uploaded this image, to (OTRS). If he is willing to do this, I can temp-undelete the image. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From DR to Duplicate?[edit]

Dear Túrelio, Am I allowed to replace all deletion requests currently at this talk page (that are still open) with duplicate requests? This would make it easier for involved admins, and save time for everyone. Vysotsky (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as obviously nobody commented in the DRs and as the nominator did not link the specific target-files, I see no problem with your plan. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Vysotsky (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roberto Vannacci[edit]

FYI here some information is missing, or the deletion is wrong. I see a link to this website where there is the image used on Wikipedia with the clear information "Foto tratta da wikipedia" (that is "Photo taen from Wikipedia). It was clearly added recently (I had few doubts about that, but webarchive is quite clear). It took me 2 minutes to point out and I was lucky because I remember the image since I have added the P18 on Wiidata, and I know it's that one. Alexmar983 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the information. I've undeleted the image and put it into a regular DR to allow for discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roberto Vannacci.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why reverted? As an uploader I can nominate it for deletion. It is written in the rules. FlorianH76 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) You tagged it for speedy deletion; that's not the same as (regular) deletion. 2) "The rules" allow the uploader to request deletion of an (unused) image within 7 days after upload. This one was uploaded in April and you tagged it in August. So, to request its deletion now, you need to open a regular deletion-request and provide a serious rationale (other than just "uploader request"). --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why uploader can't delete the own upload? FlorianH76 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think of it as gift you gave (in this case to humanity). It's a bit like retracting a gift. Legally speaking: 1) external sites might be using this image, as it was offered under a free license. If the image is deleted, there is some risk they might be sued for copyright-violation and for some it wouldn't be easy to prove otherwise. 2) CC-licenses, if validly given, are considered non-revokable. --Túrelio (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Túrelio,

I request you to kindly revert that picture back since it was originally taken by my cousin Pavan Kumar who visited that factory to witness the new livery of the express train. I need to know how it's considered as copyright. I clearly mentioned that source owner was my cousin. Harshul12345 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harshul12345: Hi, and thanks for your contributions! I see that you have been uploading photos taken by your family members, not yourself. From a legal standpoint, this is technically a copyright violation because you don't own the copyright: your family member does. To make sure everything is legally valid, can you please have your cousin and your brother send an email to The content of the email should be something like this: "My name is [name] and the Wikimedia Commons user Harshul12345 is my [relationship]. I hereby authorize them to upload all photos I take to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license. This declaration is valid for all uploaded items in the future." The email should include the URLs of the files you already uploaded, and the VRT team member will place the ticket number on the image page. You will then be able to use the same ticket number on any future uploads of their photos. Thanks again! holly {chat} 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harshul12345: the mentioned image is a collage of 2 images. The upper one is offered as single-image on Shutterstock and Adobe Stock Images. Both agencies offer it for editorial use only. Therefore, I find your claim "1st Pic - own pic" not credible. And the lower image of this collage, which you credited to your cousin, seems to be a screenshot from this unfree Youtube-video (01:34).--Túrelio (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Turelio, could you please undelete above file, permission has been received from the designer, per Ticket:2023082010001841. I could do it myself, but that is perhaps against some guideline. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ellywa,
✓ Done. Thanks for asking; though it's not necessary, as I trust the OTRS/VRT-guys (and my admin fellows). --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks (2×). Ellywa (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted File:Mojtaba Azizian 01.jpg as a copyvio[edit]

The same file (name) is back, same uploader. I cannot see linkedIn profiles, so have started a DR. If it is a copyvio it could be deleted faster! 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the clarification at the DR 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you saying that a old record company that was shut down years ago owns the copyrights of this image, why did you include it in fast deletions? Lim10Sevdalısı (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lim10Sevdalısı, you are aware that copyright lasts, in nearly all countries of the world, for 70 years after the death of the author/creator? So, if this cover was created in 1968 (as per your description), that is just 55 years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, you have recently deleted the following file: File:JiriProchazka2022.png whereas the YouTube video from which the picture is taken is under the Creative Commons license ( So you chose to delete a file that can be used on Wikipedia...

Could you please restore the file because there was no reason to delete it and in the future, at least, just click on the links to check the Creative Commons licenses of YouTube videos?

Thanks in advance, AideDésintéressée (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. The file had been wrongly tagged. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Túrelio,

die Datei hatte ich zuvor in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Amberger 010.jpg explizit behalten, wie auch auf der Dateidiskussionsseite vermerkt. Dass dieselbe Benutzerin die Datei jetzt einfach als vermeintliche Dublette zur Entsorgung freigibt, ist nicht gerade "die feine englische Art". Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 10:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rosenzweig,
upps, das hatte ich nicht gesehen. Ich kann sie einfach wieder herstellen. --Túrelio (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

scratch deleted page[edit]

Scratch is a free platform and its creators allow sharing contents. 4.3 All user-generated content you submit to Scratch is licensed to and through Scratch under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. This allows others to view and remix your content. This license also allows the Scratch Team to display, distribute, and reproduce your content on the Scratch website, through social media channels, and elsewhere. If you do not want to license your content under this license, then do not share it on Scratch. This over here is the text that you can find here [41]. I'm a teacher and I need my pictures to teach to my pupils, pleas.. I usually take vìcare of the licence of the content I upload to commons. Thank you in advance. Matteo Mattruffoni (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Matteo,
I assume you are referring to the deleted file File:ScratchJrGuidaInterfaccia.png, right? Or also other files?
As I was offline most of the day and don't have enough time at this moment to thoroughly study the above linked ToU, I will conditionally restore the screenshot. But we really need to be sure that a screenshot of the Scratch GUI is really also under a CC license. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Can I use screenshots of Scratch in a book or presentation?
Yes, you can use screenshots / images of the Scratch application and website in a book or presentation, and consider them to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. We ask that you include a note somewhere in your materials saying: "Scratch is a project of the Scratch Foundation, in collaboration with the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is available for free at"." per [42]. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you remove my own picture - that I OWN ???[edit]

Please do not remove pictures that I have posted as my own media. Newart61 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newart61 I see that you claimed that the "owner of original shot is Phil Soussan who has licensed it here." at File:Philsoussan_0525.jpg. Please have the photographer or copyright owner sent permission to COM:VRT. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links on talk pages[edit]

Hi Túrelio! Just out of curiosity. Can you please tell me where I can find such a recommendation that records of external uses of media in the form of external links on discussion pages are welcome. Am I missing something? As for me, talk pages should be intended for completely something else, for example, for discussion of various issues concerning the file, but certainly not to be an archive of external links. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kirilloparma,
we have a template {{Published}} to record external uses. See File talk:MotherTeresa 090.jpg for example. Of course, there is no obligation to record such uses or to use said template. However, I am aware that a number of prolific contributors do actively use it for their own uploads. For myself, I try to record any re-use of Commons-images that I stumble over. However, due to limited spare-time, I usually record only the link to the re-use, but do not complete all data which the template asks for; as this can be done later. --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the small CC-BY icon at the right bottom of the posted page 10:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Thanks for notifying. I had looked for it, before I tagged the file, but did not find it. --Túrelio (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In the source LastFm, there is written: En, cualquier usuario puede editar las descripciones de los artistas. ¡Contribuye cuando quieras! Todos los textos de contribuciones de usuarios en esta página están bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual; es posible que se apliquen condiciones adicionales. Thanks.--Salnitrum (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It states "Todos los textos"; that is not valid for the images. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you take a look into the old version of the deleted category, to repair the redirect, please? I don't see the deleted versions... Wieralee (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have temporarily undeleted the 2nd cat, as I don't know with term is the correct one. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, it appears that you removed the above photo from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation, causing it to be removed from the Wikipedia article Tater Tot (cat). However, the photo in question was actually an original photo taken and owned by the human caretaker of the cat, Ash Houghton (Wikipedia username Inertiaash ), who posted it shortly before it was removed. Her posting it is shown in the history of the Tater Tot (cat) Wikipedia page, and she also mentioned on the cat's public social media group that she had added his picture to his page at the time she posted it.

It is possible that the photo used by Ash might have been licensed by her to some media outlets, as the cat had a lot of media coverage worldwide, and many of the outlets used, hopefully with Ash's permission, original photos of Tater Tot taken by Ash and posted to her/ the cat's social media before he went viral. It is also possible that perhaps Ash did not observe some "best practice" in uploading her original photo, as I am not sure how often she edits Wikipedia.

In any event, would it be possible for you to undelete the photo? If not possible, what steps can we take to put an original photo of Tater Tot taken by Ash and used with Ash's permission up on his page (or elsewhere if his article ends up getting merged as result of AFD process). Best regards, TheBlinkster (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @TheBlinkster, it's indeed possible what you outlined in your 2nd paragraph. It would likely be sufficient, if Inertiaash either sends an email to (OTRS) just confirming that she is the true photographer of the 2 images in this montage or, if possible, sends the montage in JPEG format with camera-data (metadata). In the latter case it is not necessary that she releases the JPEG-version under a free license, if she doesn't want that. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I will reach out to her and see if we can do all that. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Could you check to see if the two deleted screenshots contain any wallpaper on Category:AOSP wallpapers? Thanks. Larryasou (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, no, they don't. The 1st one is in shades of green and is probably a satellite-image showing an ocean-coast (under water); the 2nd one is in blue and shows likely a night-sky in the arctic with snow/ice on earth in the foreground. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. It's all right. Larryasou (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what about these old screenshots?

Do they contain the same wallpaper as File:Nexus 5 (2).jpg? Larryasou (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied inline. --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

I can't find the thank button next to deletion edits, so I'll just do it like this. Thanks for swifly responding to my deletion request, it's appreciated! ReneeWrites (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"File:Kesagake death.jpg", "File:Yamamoto Heikichi (1914).jpg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you help me check the source of the file? Thanks. Larryasou (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was . --Túrelio (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actions are ripping sources out from images[edit]

You are aware that by rolling all images of a specific blazon together you are ripping out source material? All the coats of arms I uploaded to commons had such information, that is which blazon (mostly Loutsch, Armorial du Pays de Luxembourg, I hope I don't have to explain what a blazon is) I based the image on and it's blazoning in multiple languages. That is, what you are currently doing is saving some storage space on commons but reducing the quality of information. A coat of arms is not just an image but always also its blazon which in many cases is the more important data (I'm working on the Chifflet-Prinet roll of arms off Wikipedia right now, all I have to go on is a blazon, not some image I might be copying). Not to mention that the text accompanying a file is separately licensed (usually GNU) from the image, not that the later matters much with heraldry as blazoning in and of itself is not copyrightable. I can't even verify your exact actions as the files are immediately deleted (without the usual process of alerting the author) and as a non admin I have no access to the original information. I find this activity odd, I would not even have noticed at this time if my phone had not sent me strange notifications. I am not active here anymore, only do occasional text edits when I notice a problem in an article, so go ahead and continue this way. But maybe you should think your actions over, I really don't think this is productive. --Caranorn (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Caranorn,
sorry for this mess. I admit that I relied on the requesting user (User:Kontributor 2K) to act reasonably. Every day there are several hundreths of duplicate-requests to process, in addition to other speedy-requests. First, I can list the blazon/blason-images which I have dupe-deleted recently. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would have been better if this had gone through the regular deletion process including notifying the users involved. It's still not certain I would have noticed as I don't look at my talk pages often, but at least I would have had the chance to explain the issue in the deletion request. While I was active here in Commons I always tried to list as detailed source information as I could, that is where I found the information including page numbers and the description in that source. I then would translate the blazon from French into English, in some cases I had an Italian speaking user knowledgeable in heraldry help and add that language as well (oddly enough, looking over my files, I don't seem to have added the German blazon). It's not much data, but I found it to be useful at the time. Looking at the files of mine you deleted, I realize that the blazons in at least two languages were at least copied. The detail on their owner/bearer on the other hand was shortened, the source information had page numbers cut off. But as you said, it seems that loss of information comes from User:Kontributor 2K, that is when he uploaded his new images to consolidate the others he did not include all that information. This is not a personal matter for me, even if I am inactive here I still see commons and the other projects are important. If it is in the interest to delete my files to maintain quality I have no problem with it. I just think as much information as possible should be included. --Caranorn (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Caranorn,
I have added information about Warsberg and Limpach on the pages,
Sorry for this omission,
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted from 24th to 13th of September. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, könntest du bitte erläutern, wieso die Kategorie gelöscht wurde? Dort waren bis dahin mindestens zwei lizenztechnisch saubere Bilder einsortiert, insofern verstehe ich die Begründung nicht. MfG --A.Savin 10:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, als ich sie gelöscht hatte, war sie jedenfalls leer. Markiert war sie von Adamant1. Die edit-summary wird automatisch aus dem Text im Baustein übernommen. Ich kann sie gerne wiederherstellen. --Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ja bitte, denn sie ist nicht mehr leer. Wer ist bitte Adamant1, um sich blind auf seine Aktionen zu verlassen? War in diesem Fall alles völliger Unfug. --A.Savin 10:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a message on A.Savin's talk page about it. Really, I should should have been the one to message. Regardless though, we don't usually create categories for stamps where the year of the stamps is copyrighted and a user was recently blocked for doing exactly that after multiple warnings not to. Otherwise it's just that much harder to find copyrighted stamps. Which is why up-merged the images in the category and nominated it for deletion. So I'd appreciate it if you both left them in the main category. At some point I'll move them "by decade" categories, but I just haven't got there yet. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio: Can you please restore my edits and re-delete the category if A.Savin isn't willing to since there was nothing "blind" about it and I made them based on prior consensus? I made the edits as part of a larger project to move images of stamps to "postage stamps" categories anyway and A.Savin undermining things by showing concern about something that isn't an issue really doesn't help. So I'd appreciate it if my edits where restored regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring to your revert of my duplicate file nomination, I'd like to ask why a 635×997 pixels file is better than the 1,830×2,880 pixels replacement file. Moreover, if you look at the calligraphy at the top right corner, you'll see some of the calligraphy was cut out during the scan process. Your explanation is appreciated, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am aware of the lower resolution of the now kept file. However, if you look at the image/drawing of the Bamboo-branch, you will see that the brown background in homogeneous in the lower-res image, whereas it shows really a lot of artifacts/damage in the higher-res image. That was why I want to keep both files. --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please review these[edit]

I would request you to kindly review some GODL-India images that I have uploaded or have worked on in past few days. Its presence in the given link needs to be confirmed. It will be of great help. Some of these are used widely by some of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia.

I know the list is quite long. But I don't know what else to do. Please help. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Túrelio I asked to do this to two more admins one turned down and one kindof ignored. Thatswhy I am here. It might be jumping the queue but there are so many unreviewed GODL-INDIA images. So I thought this might be a better choice. If not all are possible right now because of your workload, then do atleast some now and some later may be tomorrow or when you feel free. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Shaan Sengupta,
for now I have reviewed 3 images of the list; the others later. However, I can now fully understand the reluctance of my colleagues with reviewing files under that license. The review-script doesn't work. Clicking on the small script below the description-box ".. file version controlled .." doesn't work.
To get a proper result, you have to manually add a line of code from Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India to the image-page, then manually add the date and copy a portion from the existing line of license-code on the image-page into the new line of code and then remove the old line of code. Of course, plus checking the provided source. That's an absolute mess. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]