User talk:Túrelio

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Busy desk.svg
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 | русский | +/−

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).


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]

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]

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]

From DE Wiki to Commons[edit]

Hi is possible transfer this file on Commons?

sure. However, the fact that for the 2nd and 3rd image the claimed author-name and uploader-name are not identical might result in a request for a permission, which might not be possible to obtain as the uploader is inactive since 2009. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The names might not be identical, but there is strong online evidence that they are the same person. In fact File:Yamaha neos mittopcase.jpg had been transfered back in 2008 and identified as such Agathoclea (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, great. Then you should mention this as evidence, just in case. --Túrelio (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The impressum at uses the same nick as email address. At a minimum that email address of the author of the pictures can be used to confirm the copyright status. Agathoclea (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2022 (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]

Help for remove picture's old version[edit]

Good afternoon @Túrelio, I hope you'll well.

I'm writing you because some days ago I cross-wiki moved this picture (File:Papa centenario.jpg) from the Wikipedia in Italian. The original uploader (and holder) gave it a GNU Free Documentation License and a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, but there isn't permission for the picture of Pope John Paul II and there isn't also any evidence that the person who took it gave permission. After, I replaced that picture with another alvailable in Commons with a credit ok (File:Pope John Paul II smile.jpg — Attribution 3.0 Poland) because I searched for ask the uploader if could confirm that he have authorisation form the original picture's owner but the last edition was in 2010 ([8]) and I think that it will be better modify the document for replace the picture with a free-equivalent to avoid future crops of the document for use the image, especially if it's really a copyvio. Is any possibility to remove the original from the picture's history to avoid another users could recover it and crop it for use? Or what is the best procedure for cases like this? I hope you can help me with this situation. Best regards and thanks.


Greetings: We have a newish volunteer who seems to have a problem when I pull images out of "no source, no license & no permission", mark them something like "This seems to be old enough to keep" and nominate them for deletion. He doesn't seem to wish to understand that this is a method to save the files and he gets rude to me about what he calls my lack of understanding of copyright and Commons. Recently he's started modifying his user page to include lists of negative interactions with me and other users. On one DN, someone commented that this user has trouble with en:wiki [1] & [2] and perhaps others. I would like to go on record that this situation now is creepy and unwelcome. I have no idea why he's picking at me, nor why he doesn't seem to understand that admins & bureaucrats (like me and Eugene Zelenko whom he also disrespects) work really hard keeping the place tidy and that there is no reason for personal attacks as part of the process. The situation is not fun and I would appreciate some help with it. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ellin,
I'll write him tomorrow morning. --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I've been beating up on this person too much. She created an overly-promotional-sounding article en:Life House, saw her (English Wikipedia) contributions were mostly on that article, so I COI'ed her. She said correctly, that she has 100k contributions to the Italian Wiki, so I struck the COI. Now I see she's been adding images as her own work, though a cursory search doesn't show others.

I would copyvio them otherwise. Would you do me a favor and decide what to do about them? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, she has 100k contribs to WikiData, only 2.4k to :it. Anyway, reason enough to strongly assume AGF. However, the external hits for File:NEW SoFi Building Facade View.jpg are rather convincing; so, I've opened a DR. The situation with the other image is similar, but not identical, as the highest resolution found was 4000x2200, whereas she uploaded 5400x3000. --Túrelio (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The Little Havana does have metadata while SoFi does not. Google reports Momondo has a 5400x3000 for Little Havana, but the links don't display that resolution. Little Havana is three story, everything around it appears two story, the photo is from above the rooftop, so, likely a drone. google map Thanks for your time! Cheers Adakiko (talk)

Verlage von Postkarten[edit]

Hallo Túrelio, du hast zweimal die Verlagskategorie von Postkartenverlagen verschoben.

Das ist mir gerade aufgefallen beim COM:WPPC bei der Liste Logos of postcard publishers. Bitte vorher genau schauen, ob die Kategorie irgendwo verlinkt ist und dann auch den Linkfix mit machen. Gibt es eine Regel, dass der Ortsname nicht in der Kategorie mit benannt werden darf? Wäre mir neu. Warum hast du das genau umgenannt? Bei einer Kat findest du ja auch eine Unterkategorie mit dem Stadtnamen, die hätte dann auch mit umbenannt werden sollen.

Bei ersterer hab ich eine Cat-Weiterleitung eingebaut. Aber bevor ich weiter mache, wollte ich dich natürlich mal fragen, was deine Gründe waren. Beste Grüße --sk (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo sk,
normalerweise mache ich das nicht von mir aus, sondern führe lediglich einen von anderen Benutzern bestellten Auftrag (der Adminrechte erfordert) aus. Deshalb ist es für mich auch kein Problem, auf Wunsch die Ausgangssituation wieder herzustellen. Im Fall von cat:Ángel Toldrá Viazo, Barcelona hatte User:Adamant1 die Kat. als badname markiert. Vielleicht kannst du ihn mal ansprechen, dass ihr euch einigt bzw. er ggf. deine Gründe versteht.
Wenn ich als Benutzer vor einer Kat-Bennennung stehe, schaue ich mir (statt eine Regelseite zu suchen, wenn es sie denn gibt) erstmal an wie es de facto gehandhabt wird. Bzgl. Verlage zeigt Category:Postcards by publisher dass es offenbar munter durcheinander geht. Allerdings scheinen die cats ohne Ort zu überwiegen. Rein von der Logik her würde ich sagen, wenn es gleichnamige, aber nicht identische Verlage an verschiedenen Orten gibt, sollte die cat auch den Ort enthalten. Dasselbe würde gelten, wenn es einen Verlag an verschiedenen Standorten gibt und deren Unterscheidung für die auf Commons vorhandenen Dateien tatsächlich relevant ist. --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schau mal in Category:Postcard_publishers_by_name. Es geht dort wirklich wild durch einander. Unser Postkarten-Projekt läuft erst seit 2 Jahren, aber auf eine richtig Regel für die Namen der Kategorien wir uns noch nicht verständigt. IMHO ist der Name mit Ortsangabe besser, weil der vielfach auch auf den Karten mit drauf steht oder sich daraus seine Abkürzung ergibt. (Beispiel: MEB - Category:Max Blegel, Elberfeld). Zum anderen ist nicht immer klar wie die Unternehmen aussahen. Waren es Einmann-Betriebe oder Unternehmen mit mehreren Beschäftigten. Ok, ich klär das mit Adamant1. Danke für die Info. --sk (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images from my own oil paintings[edit]

ALL THE IMAGES contributed under my username Fenous are from my own original oil paintings , as published in my book. I am in fact the Artist Raouf Oderuth. Please do not delete my contributions as they are my own creations. Thank you with much appreciation Raouf Fenous (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

then why didn't you use the existing account User:Oderuth or isn't that yours? And what about User:123HSBC, is that also your account? Why three accounts? --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t think it mattered. I thought my passwords would be better protected Fenous (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can’t you have different accounts? I find the guidelines confusing and misleading. I know other individuals operate under other several usernames Fenous (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, obviously you don't care much about your own copyright as an artist. Reproductions of Raouf Oderuth's works were uploaded by some User:Fenous and User:123HSBC, who claimed them as own work! It just doesn't make any sense. Of course, as an artist you can choose an artist-name/alias. However, it should be the same for online as for the real world. With your current approach, reusers will credit Oderuth's works to Oderuth, Fenous or 123HSBC, depending on which account you used for upload. And yes, one can have more than one account, provided this is openly declared, which is currently not the case for the mentioned 3 accounts.
With regard to "protected passwords", if you want to better secure your user-account against hacking, you might consider to activate the so-called 2-factor-authentification, which is pretty easy, if you use a smartphone. For details see: en:Help:Two-factor authentication.
IMO, the best way to proceed properly here on Commons, would be 1) to verify (Category:Verified accounts) your main-account User:Oderuth by identifying yourself to Commons:VRT, and 2) to upload images of your own artworks only by this account. As images of your artworks are found all over the web, you will still need to confirm (template: Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Email message template for release of rights to a file) the choosen free license to COM:VRT. --Túrelio (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, except that with a verified account, I believe that you don't need to confirm any individual licences, as long as you add the template with your verified account and the authorship or copyright ownership is clearly tied to your confirmed identity. –LPfi (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi, I also thought so, but was told otherwise not long ago. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be a difference between licensing your own works, and somebody being verified to be authorised to act on behalf of somebody, perhaps for a specific project, for a specific set of images, or for as long as they have a certain position. Anyway, this should be explained somewhere; it cannot be the case that somebody with a verified account uploads images trusting that verification, leaves Commons (or their position) and the files are then deleted because of lack of VRT permission for the individual files. What's the point of the verified account if it isn't trusted to act on behalf of the verified identity? –LPfi (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



In september of last year I collected all TIFF, DjVU and PDF files that lacked a rendering and had dimensions 0x0 at User:Jonteemil/sandbox2 only to now find out that pretty much all have been deleted, by you. Did I or anyone else tag the files for deletion? Why were they deleted? There must have been a way with which they could've been repaired?Jonteemil (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

usually I perform speedies requested by other users; I hardly would search or tag them by myself. For example, File:CADAL06386408 意中人.djvu and File:NAJDA-185-0184 靖北録1.pdf had been tagged by User:Mitar as "File is corrupted" and then deleted by me. If you have a way to repair any of these files, I'll be glad the undelete them. --Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. @Mitar: were they not repairable? See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-03#Files uploaded by Ederporto were files that weren't rendered still were undeleted. Maybe this is a bigger question, should files that don't render on the wikipage be deleted when they might render on the page?Jonteemil (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tested all files before marking them for deletion and they were not processed correctly by Wikimedia software nor by any of DJVU viewers I tried (on Linux). Some files I was able to fix and for those I uploaded new versions. For some I found originals which worked. But sadly for some I was unable to fix them so I marked them for deletion. If you are able to fix them, that would be awesome of course. And please tell me later what you did to do so. Mitar (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example of one I managed to fix File:NAJDA-273-0121 周易古今文全書 今文巻7.pdf. Also see, (and its duplicates). Mitar (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I just wanted to ask, why did you delete the logo of czech football club FC Viktoria Plzeň. For some reason, I couldn't add the only already existing svg identical logo from french Wikipedia to our czech site. I created new file on Wikipedia commons for that purpose and it worked perfectly. Please, tell me, why don't you give us the logo back? And if it isn't possible, couldn't you help us with putting the logo on the site?

Thank you for your attention. Rytíř Brtník z Brtníku (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rytíř Brtník z Brtníku,
the same logo, File:FCVP official logo.svg, had been uploaded first by another user in 2020 and been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:FCVP official logo.svg. You probably didn't know that. But re-uploading a once deleted image is usually a straight way to re-deletion.
Now, this logo is sourced to, where it is offered for download. However, being offered for download does not automatically mean that it is under a free license, which allows all the uses that are required per our policy COM:L, i.e. re-use, including commercial, and creating derivatives of it. Also, the source-site states © FC VIKTORIA Plzeň.
As the Czech Republic has freedom-of-panorama exception, the easiest way to obtain a legal reproduction of this logo would be to find the logo somewhere permanently installed on public ground and take a photography of it; see File:LogoHerzstiftung s6777.jpg for example. The safest, but likely not easiest way would be to ask the FC Viktoria Plzeň whether they would be willing to release the logo under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for your answer. However, you can also download the logo on czech version of the site, which, for whatever reason, contains more information about the usage of logo. It's written there, that it's free to download and use the logo. My question is - Can I use the svg format when there's only pdf and png formats to download, or am I completely wrong and still can't use any version of the logo? Rytíř Brtník z Brtníku (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rytíř Brtník z Brtníku It is as mentioned by Túrelio. Victoria Plzeň provides logo to be downloaded, but does not specify whyt you can do with the logo. One think is download the logo and use it for personal purpose, the other think is to distribute it a provide it to others. So if you want to create svg out of their PNG, or just draw it by yourselv, still we need to know, undert which conditions they provide their logo and wether it is compatible with free licences which we use on Commons. The reason, why it is on French Wikipedia and not on Commons could be that French community allows certain licensing terms, the international Commons community doesnt allow. Juandev (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

file Ahmed Sayyad[edit]

Hi, you have deleted the file Ahmed Sayyad which I am the author and it is me who provided it as I am UNESCO staff. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOZELY (talk • contribs) 10:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please sign your comments and provide the precise filename of the affected image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you are likely talking about File:Ahmed Sayyad.jpg, uploaded as "own work" on June 12, 2022. The same image was found prepublished at UNESCO-Twitter on July 29, 2021 without a author-credit, which suggest it may be a UNESCO-image. As you state to be "UNESCO staff", the copyright is probably with UNESCO. So, we need a formal permission from UNESCO to be send to (ORTS). --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urheberrecht vs. Copyright[edit]

Hallo Túrelio, ich erlaube mir mal, Dich anzuschreiben (der Einfachheit halber auf Deutsch), weil ich vermute, dass Du Dich mit den feinen Unterschieden zwischen Urheberrecht und Copyright auskennst. Denn ich habe Dich in der Vergangenheit - wo nötig - als zügigen und umsichtigen Löschenden von URV erlebt. Mein Anliegen:

Ich habe vor einigen Tagen auf dem VRT-Noticeboard eine Anfrage gestellt wg. eines Bildes, für das zwar ein VRT-Ticket vorliegt, dessen Hochladender aber ausdrücklich und ganz klar sagt, dass er nicht der Fotograf ist und bislang auch keine Genehmigung des Fotografen vorliegen hat. Da frage ich mich doch: Was um Himmels willen kann dann überhaupt in diesem Ticket bzw. in dem VRT-Schriftverkehr drinstehen?

Aus der Antwort, die ich auf meine Anfrage erhalten habe, kann ich nur schließen, dass der Antwortende vermutlich im angelsächsischen Rechtskreis eher zuhause ist und den Unterschied zwischen Copyright und Urheberrecht nicht gut kennt. Wir haben es hier immerhin mit einem Fotografen zu tun, der die Metadaten des Bildes geradezu gepflastert hat mit seinem Namen und seinen Rechtsansprüchen.

Einen ähnlichen, wenn auch nicht ganz so krassen Fall vermute ich hier. Ich habe da erstmal den Hochladenden angesprochen (auf seiner deutschsprachigen WP-Seite) und warte mal ab, ob er sich meldet.

Danke & Gruß, -- 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

also bei File:Portrait Elke Backes.jpg könntest du Ganimedes, der die OTRS-Bestätigung hinzugefügt hat, mal fragen, ob tatsächlich der Hochlader der Fotograf (oder Rechteinhaber) ist, weil sein Name ja im Autorfeld steht. Hier könnte eventuell vergessen worden sein, den Eintrag zu aktualisieren. Natürlich könnte der tatsächliche Urheber auch bewußt auf seine Namensnennung verzichtet haben. Das müsste dann aber in der Bestätigungsmail stehen.
Das gilt analog für File:VELLO 01.jpg. Auch dort gehört in das Autorfeld der Name des Fotografen, es sei denn er hätte in der Korrespondenz ausdrücklich darauf verzichtet. --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, danke für Deine Antwort. Bei dem Bild von Elke Backes habe ich inzwischen die Fotografin herausgekriegt, es handelt sich um eine Fotografin namens Natascha Romboy. Danke für die Anregung, Ganimedes anzusprechen. Ich warte da erst nochmal ein paar Tage ab, ob der Hochladende auf seiner WP-Nutzerseite antwortet.
Bei dem Vello-Bild ist es ja allerdings alles noch viel schlimmer: Da gibt es bislang überhaupt keine Genehmigung des Fotografen. Das hat der Hochladende ja auf seiner deutschsprachigen WP-Seite selber ganz offen zugegeben. Insofern verstehe ich den VRT-Vorgang hier überhaupt nicht. -- 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Er hat aber angedeutet, dass der Geschäftsinhaber und der Fotograf sich kennen und dass das vielleicht auf dem "kleinen Dienstweg" gelaufen ist. Dennoch sollte bei OTRS natürlich darauf geachtet werden, dass die Genehmigung tatsächlich vom Fotografen kommt. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. Den Hochladenden selber verstehe ich so, dass da bislang gar nichts gelaufen ist und er beim Fotografen überhaupt erstmal anfragen muss.
Ganz persönlich und glaskugelig glaube ich nicht daran, dass er diese Genehmigung überhaupt kriegen wird. Freundschaft hin oder her, ein Fotograf, der so nachdrücklich seinen Namen in die Exifdaten setzt und der immerhin seine Brötchen mit Produktfotografie verdient, der wird doch seine Bilder nicht unter CC-Lizenz veröffentlichen.
Darf ich mal nachfragen, ob Du die VRT-Kommunikation einsehen kannst? Was ist denn da überhaupt gelaufen? Der Hochladende weiß ja offenbar von nichts. Aber wo kommt denn dann die Genehmigung her?
Ich will Dich auch jetzt nicht den gesamten Rest-Abend mit diesem einen Bild beschäftigen. Aber mir sind derartige Fälle in letzter Zeit immer wieder auf Commons begegnet - nicht so krass wie dieser hier, aber doch schon so, dass ich mich immer wieder gefragt habe: Wo bitte kommt denn diese VRT-Genehmigung her? Ich bin da schon häufiger irritiert gewesen, wie wenig die Rechte der Urheber von manchen Zuständigen ernstgenommen werden. Zum Teil erkläre ich es mir, wie gesagt, durch das Missverständnis Copyright vs. Urheberrecht, aber wenigstens nach Hinweis müsste das doch ernstgenommen werden. -- 19:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Da ich nicht zur ORTS/VRTS-Benutzergruppe gehöre, habe ich keinerlei Einblick in die Kommunikation. D.h., wenn ich etwas wissen bzw. überprüfen lassen will, muss ich auch den normalen Weg über das ORTS-Board gehen. Die von der Community vergebenen Administrator-Rechte mögen praktisch zwar "mächtiger" erscheinen, beschränken sich aber letztlich doch auf die eigene Plattform. Die Rechte bzw. Aktivität der ORTSler betrifft dagegen direkt das reale (Urheber)Recht. Zudem sind die ORTSler durch eine Vertraulichkeitsverpflichtung gegenüber der WMF gebunden, was bei Admins, zumindest bislang, nicht der Fall ist.
Hab bei der Bewertung tatsächlicher oder anscheinender Ungereimheiten um eine ORTS/VRTS-Genehmigung immer im Hinterkopf, dass die ORTSler ja auch (unbezahlte) Freiwillige sind und wohl eher selten einen Abschluss in Rechtswissenschaften haben. Dennoch ist es natürlich gut, dass du auffallenden Ungereimheiten nachgehst. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About File:사쿠라 5.jpg[edit]

Hello. I object to the deletion of that file. I sent a DM to the original author's Twitter account, but they said it was the same person as the uploader. So, Please recover this file. Thank you. --양념파닭 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the file was uploaded not by you, but by User:Kaming309. It was found prepublished on Twitter. Now, we don't know whether User:Kaming309 is Twitter-user Ka Ming. Anyway, in such a case a valid permission by the photographer or the rightsholder needs to be send to VRTS ( --Túrelio (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twitter DM revealed that they are the same person. In addition, the part about VRTS you mentioned should be notified to the user concerned. 양념파닭 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those images were uploaded by the original author. I've spoken to them about it as I was the one who asked they upload the images. Please restore them, so I can have them confirm they uploaded it. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've instructed the uploader, User_talk:Kaming309#File:사쿠라_5.jpg, to arrange for a permit to be submitted. Thereafter, the file(s) can be restored. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[round|triangular] roundabout signs[edit]

Saluton, du hast die Kategorien Category:Triangular roundabout signs und Category:Round roundabout signs schnellgelöscht, mit der Begründung C2 (unuseful empty category). Ich finde, dass hier eine kurze Begründung für das unuseful nicht schlecht wäre, denn die Kategorien waren nur deshalb leer, weil Akele201 alle Medien kommentarlos aus diesen Kategorien entfernt hat. Akele201 hat, nebenbei, Anfang Juni eine Vandalismuswarnung auf die Diskussionsseite bekommen.

Die beiden Kategorien sind sicherlich nicht lebenswichtig, aber es gibt nun mal zum Beispiel in Deutschland den Unterschied zwischen dem runden Vorschrifts- und dem dreieckigen Hinweisschild. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Renardo,
der zitierte Text ist automatisiert an die C2-Begründung leere Kat." geknüpft. D.h., wenn man im Auswahlmenü C2 wählt, setzt das Commons-Skript diesen Text. Ich bin über das "unuseful" auch nicht so glücklich.
Die vorsätzliche Leerung der Kat. ist mir nicht aufgefallen. Wenn du die beiden Kategorien wieder befüllen willst, stelle ich sie gerne wieder her. --Túrelio (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio, mir war die Sache aufgefallen, weil eines der betroffenen Bilder von mir ist. Wenn du die Löschung rückgängig machst, befülle ich die Kategorien wieder, soweit ich das anhand der Beitragsliste von Akele201 tun kann. Hoffentlich akzeptiert sie/er es; die Warnung zeigt ja, dass es da schon mal ein Problem gegeben hat. Danke –– Renardo la vulpo (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Renardo la vulpo: ich habe die beiden cats jetzt wieder hergestellt. Es wäre aber sicher nicht schlecht, wenn du Akele201 informierst, dass bzw. warum du das für sinnvoll hältst, und dass ich sie wieder entlöscht habe. --Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! Why are you reverting my editions for speed deletion if I am the author? I am erasing personal information. Thank you! FML hello 20:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry. I already understand what happened. I added my requests here: Commons:Deletion requests/Some private old photos sent by User:FML. --FML hello 20:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FML: , you should at first try to remove/replace the uses of these images on other projects, as this is an obstacle for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vending machines sg again[edit]

Hi Túrelio, last year I noted some copyrighted images related to one you had already deleted. I have found another sockpuppet here. Among the presumably stolen images they uploaded was another vending machine image, albeit with one letter different in the file name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting of Category:FCE RALn 64 - Interior[edit]


I am the user who created the category "FCE RALn 64 - Interior", and I was wondering why you deleted it.

I created this category to group photos of the interiors of raln 64 FCE trains (currently there is only one, this:, exactly as for the Category:FCE ADe 11–20 - Interior (Main Category is Category:FCE ADe 11–20).

I read that the category was deleted because the name was incorrect, as well as duplicated ((incorrectly named) duplicate). However, to create the category in question, I based myself on this: Category:FCE ADe 11–20 - Interior, also, before I created it, the category in question did not exist.

So I ask if I can recreate the category FCE RALn 64 - Interior, to put inside all the relevant photos (for now there is only this).

Thank you for your attention! VincentLR (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi VincentLR,
the cat had been tagged by User:Arbalete as {{Bad name|Category:FCE RALn 64}} and was empty. That was the reason for its deletion. The mother-category Category:FCE RALn 64 currently has only 10 images. The currently deleted cat would carry only File:L'interno di una delle RALn 64.jpg. Usually, categories shall contain more than 1 item. But, if you think there is a compelling reason to have this category now, you can recreate it. --Túrelio (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Túrelio!
Tanks for your answer!
The category in question was empty, because before the user Arbalete reported it for the deleting, hes removed the only file contained in it, tah is, the below photo:
This user (Arbalete), often interferes negatively with other members of wikipedia, in fact, he is currently blocked on it.Wikipedia.
I got to talk to other members of wikipedia, and they also spoke badly of Arbalete. VincentLR (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ist das das gleiche Bild?[edit]

Du hast das Bild hier letzten Monat wegen URV gelöscht. Ist das Bild hier, hochgeladen von einer augenscheinlichen Socke des anderen Hochladers, eventuell das gleiche Bild? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sänger,
nein, gleiche Person, aber ganz anderes Foto. Allerdings legen die Metadaten nahe, dass es von Instagram stammen könnte. Auf ihrem Konto habe ich aber nicht gefunden. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hier ist das Bild in der Collage TV / Event - Moderation: zu sehen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke. Hab nun einen LA gestellt. --Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What re u doing?[edit]

Heyy what is ur problem? Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of website took photo from Wikipedia u have shown reason for deleting, it is nonsence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlivanmeydani (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bitte um Rat[edit]

Hallo Túrelio,

Ich möchte dich mal um Rat fragen, ob du es für sinnvoll hältst, dass ich mich für eine Admin-Kandidatur entscheiden sollte.

Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Uli,
ich melde mich morgen dazu. --Túrelio (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uli Elch: sorry, dass es länger gedauert hat. Die Bearbeitung von LA und SLA sind zwar nicht die einzige, aber doch eine der vordringlichen Admin-Aktivitäten, weshalb Erfahrung und Praxis damit üblicherweise ein wichtiges Bewertungskriterium in der RfA ist. Natürlich auch COM:UNDEL und die Anfragen oder Konflikte, die auf den Admin-Boards (COM:AN, COM:ANU und COM:ANV) auftauchen. Nach Überfliegen der Bereiche deiner Edits der letzten 3 Jahre, würde ich dir empfehlen, über ein paar Wochen (oder Monate) reguläre LAs (findest du unter Category:Deletion requests) anzuschauen bzw. zu bearbeiten. Letzteres kann für den LA-schließenden Admin besonders hilfreich sein bei LAs, die entweder nicht ganz klar sind oder wo niemand ein Votum oder eine Meinung abgegeben hat, obwohl sie schon einige Tage alt sind. Analog könntest du es mit COM:UNDEL machen; einerseits kann man aus bereits abgeschlossenen Anträgen sehen, was eine Rolle spielt und wie argumentiert wird, andererseits kannst du durch "Zuarbeiten" (z.B. Vervollständigen der oft recht rudimentären "Anträge" oder Verlinken der relevanten LD-Seite) dem abschließenden Admin die Arbeit erleichtern und den Prozess beschleunigen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aber - wie soll man als Nicht-Admin einen SLA bearbeiten (und dadurch Erfahrung damit sammeln?) Bei "Empty cat, no longer needed" mag das übersichtlich und auch schnell zu bearbeiten sein, aber mangels Befugnis nicht von mir.
Auch das gründliche Lesen von Commons:Undeletion requests und aktueller Vorgänge vermitteln mir nicht per se brauchbare Erfahrungen, die ich in einer eventuellen Bewerbung zitieren könnte.
Beim Durcharbeiten unerledigter deletion requests fällt auf, dass es davon Tausende mit Kommentar(en) gibt, die jedoch nie von einem Admin entschieden wurden. Beispiele:
Mir fällt beim besten Willen nichts ein, was ich dazu (noch) sagen sollte, wenn sich innerhalb eines halben Jahres nicht mal ein einziger Admin dafür interessiert oder zu einer Entscheidung kommt.
Lediglich beim Studium von Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und - in Grenzen - Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism lassen sich gewisse Strukturen erkennen und erlernen, was aber bei Administrators' noticeboard/User problems schon wieder schwerlich der Fall ist.
Auch blieb mir verschlossen, wie ich selbst in solch lange liegen gelassenen Fällen durch "Vervollständigen der oft recht rudimentären "Anträge" zuarbeiten" könnte, wenn das Subjekt selbst zu wirr dafür ist. Daher habe ich schlicht nicht erfasst, wodurch genau, treffend und präzise ich dem "abschließenden Admin die Arbeit erleichtern und den Prozess beschleunigen" könnte. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi @Túrelio: I have been regularly watching the backlog at COM:DR and I passionately feel I should help there. What qualities do you think I should have before going for an RFA? I'm asking you because I have worked on a number of things with you in past. I'd appreciate any ideas. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll reply tomorrow. --Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. Take your time. I'm looking for the best guidance and I've that much patience. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @TheAafi: sorry that it took more time than originally planned. Now, you have identified already one important area of admin-work, the "regular" DRs. As I recommended some days ago to another questioner, to get some experience in this field, you could go to disputed DRs (such with "hot" pro/con discussion) and either watch or dive into the dispute and voice an opinion (any user is entitled to). You could also take some long-waiting DRs and try to evaluate whether the rationale is solid/valid or if an aspect is missing and then add your comment. In cases, where you think they are actually urgent (copyvio, violation of personality rights) despite being open for too long, you could either notify admins (COM:AN) or add a speedy-tag to the file itself. Admins working on the speedy-queue will still look into the DR (despite the speedy-tag). Participation in DRs is likely the most important area that is looked at in an RfA. Another area to learn about copyright-problems is COM:UDR, where also non-admins can comment or add missing information. The second field of admin-work are user-conflicts, such as those appearing on COM:AN/U, where you are also entitled to comment (or add a relevant point). --Túrelio (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Túrelio. This is fabulous and helpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Christopher Street Day Koeln 2022 020 part 1 of 2.webm[edit]

I explicitly asked in the speedy request to NOT CREATE A REDIRECT SO THAT I CAN UPLOAD THE CORRECT FILE. Never the less you created a redirect and I spent about 5 hours trying to upload the correct file only to get a "A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository" error. It is not possible to upload a new version, if there is no old version, because it is a redirect. C.Suthorn (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, tut mir leid. Das hab ich wohl übersehen. Nun gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File history[edit]

Hi Túrelio, Hope you're well my friend, I just wanted to ask are you able to find the history for File:Prince Andrew of Greece in 1913, 1882 Andreas.jpg as I've had a DR notice for this image however I dont know ever remember uploading any Royal images, Many thanks, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Davey,
on June 27th "Davey2010 moved page File:Prince Andrew of Greece in 1913, 1882 Andreas.jpg to File:Prince Andrew of Greece in 1913.jpg" (edit-summary). That was likely the reason for the notification, when the redirect was nominated for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Andrew of Greece in 1913, 1882 Andreas.jpg). --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hallo Túrelio,

Bitte lösche meine Fotos auf Commons, es stresst mich sehr, sie online zu haben. Ich habe einen Fehler gemacht, als ich jünger war, und jetzt habe ich keine Macht, ihn zu korrigieren.

Ich hoffe, du verstehst das, Mit freundlichen Grüßen! Dzrtb35355 (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (larva front).png gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super, merci! Könnt ihr noch:

File:Proserpinus proserpina côté gauche.jpg & File:Proserpinus proserpina dessus.jpg & File:Proserpinus proserpina dessous.jpg

Oder wie beim File:Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (larva right side).png die Metadaten löschen? Wie du willst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzrtb35355 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke viel Mal Dzrtb35355 (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello there!

There is still the picture File:Liborio Barney Bellomo.png, that it's a duplicate from the other one that you deleted. Thanks! Coltsfan (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of File:Logo Radio Royaal 1994.jpg[edit]

Dear Túrelio, to my great surprise I saw today that my uploaded image on Wikimedia Commons has been removed. I, Vincent Perquin, designed this logo together with Berry Bodde on 7 March 1994 for Radio Royaal, at Kempenpers BV in Hapert. The image was taken from a USB flash drive. The website you refer to as the source ( has been allowed to use our self-designed logo for their layout. I would like my uploaded image to be restored on Wikimedia Commons, so that it can be used of on the Dutch Wikipedia article about Radio Royaal. If you have any doubts about my statement, please send an email to or check the website Kind regards, Vinquin (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Vinquin: ,
it happens rather rarely that an original artist releases his work. Therefore we assume copyvio in such a scenario. I have now temporarily restored the image. But I would ask you to send a confirmation for the free license for the logo from your official/business email address to (ORTS). Your email to OTRS will not be published and can be accessed only by our OTRS-volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Túrelio, thank you for your response. I will send an email to! Vinquin (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stochdorphiahaus (AK 541R50 Gebr. Metz) R.jpg[edit]

Hallo Túrelio, würdest du bitte diese Datei auf die existierende Weiterleitung File:Stochdorphiahaus (AK 541R50 Gebr. Metz 1952) R.jpg verschieben und diesen Namen anschließend ganz löschen, damit das Durcheinander endlich behoben ist. Danke! Mewa767 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Drug Dog Field Day 2022.jpg[edit]

Hi Túrelio. Would you mind taking a look at File:Drug Dog Field Day 2022.jpg? You just deleted it as a copyvio, but it's been reuploaded. A REFUND request was made for the file, but the file wasn't refunded (at least not yet). Perhaps the uploader isn't aware of how REFUND works and thought it was OK "refund" the file themselves. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AMB dime.jpg[edit]

Hello. Could I ask you to consider undeleting File:AMB dime.jpg, please? The image is of far higher resolution than that found at, and could therefore only have been uploaded by the copyright holder/photographer. Thus I don't feel there is any copyright violation here on Commons. I'm trying to work with User:RDLittle2000 - a professor emeritus of geology in order to mobilise research information on these geological structures. It would help not to have to send them through OTRS unnecessarily. Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to note that Prof. Richard Little's email address at is RDLittle2000@... so in this case, together with the high-resolution upload, I think we can in fact assume that the Commons user is the same person. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, seems to be convincing. Restored. --15:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks folks - much appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical errors in deleting my own Userpage[edit]

Hi, @Túrelio: , How are you? I just mentioned the redirection of my user page @LeonaardoG: for deletion, but it gave an error I authorize you to delete this direction. Please, do it. -- Leonaardog (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Turelio: , Please explain to me if possible the error that happened to me when proposing for deletion. -- Leonaardog (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicated SVG files representing patterns and colors of geological formations of french departments[edit]

Hi Túrelio

I’am OK with your actions of creating redirections after removing duplicate files (for example this one: file:E6a4 - D60 (Bd Charm-50).svg redirected to file:E6a - D60 (Bd Charm-50).svg).

However, it would be usefull to keep the description of the original file inside the redirection page because that helps creation of map legends of geological maps for french cities in WP-fr.

I've made a test by adding the previous description in the redirection page: file:E6a4 - D60 (Bd Charm-50).svg, but I don't know that's correct.

You may be wondering why these duplicate files exist. There are two reasons:

  1. In a same department there are sometimes geological formations which are almost similar but they are represented by the same color and pattern.
  2. In two different departments, it is possible that the same color/pattern is used to represent two different geological formations.

To generate these SVG files, I use the Open Data of the French geology institution (the BRGM). With macros I developed I automatically extract the colors and shapes of the patterns from the legends of the maps and I generate SVG files. But I don't know when there are duplicate files. Poudou99 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pudou99,
with regard to your 1st point: I have some doubt, whether this does work. At least on fr:Creil, where File:E6a4 - D60 (Bd Charm-50).svg is used, now simply a red-link is shown instead of the target-image of this redirect.
In order not to loose the original description of the deleted duplicate-file, would it be possible to add this description to the remaining target-file? --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Túrelio
It seems the description I've added in the redirection page (file:E6a4 - D60 (Bd Charm-50).svg) does not interfere with the redirection mechanism itself.
Even if the orange square displayed in the legend of the geological map of fr:Creil is not the original one (associated to geological formation "E6a4"), the model {{BD-Charme50 SFGEOL/Box-D60| e6a4}} works without error. That's the main point.
In fact I don't know how many geological formations are represented by the same color/pattern. I retrieve the data from the BRGM Open Data, then I generate automaticaly individual SVG files for each formations. That is the process for one french departement. I've processed about 10 department (on 100) so the number duplicated will certainly increase. --Poudou99 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unaddressed copyvio[edit]

Hello, File:Camille Vasquez.jpg has been nominated for deletion for well over a month now and the nomination remains uncontested. The Wikipedia articles using the file are comparatively high traffic, so I feel this should be addressed sooner than later. Perhaps you can take a look at it. Thank you. Throast (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete this file?[edit]

Hello, I'm confused why you deleted File:No 11 Squadron RAAF pilot shaking hands with US Navy Capt John Voorheis during RIMPAC 2022.jpg with the reason of "permission not granted to use this photo"? From memory, it was this image from the US military's DVIDS website, with the image being credited to a US Navy photographer so there should have been no copyright issues. The image remains available on DVIDS. Could you please explain the grounds for deletion here? Did I stuff up the upload details? Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Nick-D,
you are right. It seems the speedy-request by third party on which I had acted, was in bad-faith. Sorry. Restored now. --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:19yx.svg 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!

Dot YU (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture deleted - copyright violation?[edit]

Hello, I tried to upload a picture of Elena Holzhausen already twice and both times, it was deleted - the second time by you File:Elena Holzhausen (2017).jpg. A photographer took the picture of her and I am fully allowed to use it. Did I do something wrong concerning providing needed information on this issue? How can I upload the picture permanently? Thank you a lot in advance for your help! Vincent de Beauvais (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 01.08.2022, Vincent de BeauvaisReply[reply]

Hi Vincent de Beauvais,
our copyright-policy COM:L requires that uploads to Commons have been released by the author/rightsholder under a so-called free license, which allows other to use the image, even commercially. The most recommended license is Creative Commons CC-BY-SA. If Stephan Doleschal is prepared to release said image under this license, he needs to send a confirmation to (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, some edit summaries on this file contain personal details such as email. Could you please rev-del it? It is not a best practice to reveal someone's personal details like this. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Túrelio, if you check the file again, the email is still visible on the file page. Could that be cleaned up? ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aircraft on postcards[edit]

Hi, today I have noticed that contents of this category have been mass copied to Category:Postcards of aircraft that was previously a Category redirect, by User:Adamant1. I was preparing to discuss that with the user, but you then deleted the original category. My rationale in 2013 was, and remains, that Aircraft on postcards is the most accurate title, since it covers postcards on which aircraft appear, but are not necessarily the main subject. For example, in this postcard file shown:

Carte postale - Sèvres - Boucle de la Seine. - Panorama sur Saint-Cloud. - Suresnes - Mont-Valérien.jpg

, a bridge /river /panorama are the primary subjects, and the aircraft are very minor inclusions. It is not therefore a postcard of aircraft, but aircraft on a postcard. At the very least, surely this should be the subject of a CFD, please advise. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three points

1. The general trend with how categories of postcards are named is "Postcards of X." There's many reasons for why that's better then an "X on postcards" structure that I don't really feel like getting into. Except to say that 99% of the categories for postcards are already named "Postcards of X" and it would just be weird to have random exceptions. It would be just as ridiculous to do a CfD for something that is already widely accepted and recommended by Commons:WikiProject Postcards. If anything you should be the one doing the CfD. Although I don't see one going anywhere.

2. The whole things about how "aircraft on postcards" is a better naming scheme for when the postcard isn't the main is a non-issue. As I've said 99% of the categories are already named "Postcards of x" and no one is confused by it. Even in cases where the x isn't the "main subject" of the postcard. To give one example a postcard of a boat going under a bridge can be put in both Category:Postcards of bridges and Category:Postcards of boats perfectly fine. No one is confused by it.

3. This is a general comment, but the whole "X on whatever" naming structure violates basic English sentence structure, which depends on a noun verb writing style. The images are of postcards, not aircraft, and that's we are ultimately categorizing. So the noun would be "postcards" since it is used to identify the class of objects that we are putting in categories. Whereas, "aircraft" is the verb due to being the state the postcard is in. So Category:Postcards of X is just the proper English way to do it. Like look at it this way, does a category like "Men on statues" make sense for images of male statues? No it doesn't. You can't have a category like "Men standing on statues in Oxfordshire" or whatever for statues of standing men in Oxfordshire. It has to follow a "object, class, location" naming scheme to be coherent. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review[edit]

Hi, can you review these licenses please? Thanks! MiguelAlanCS (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MiguelAlanCS, I'd gladly like to assist on this. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm having a problem while opening the website,, once it gets ok, I'll have a look around. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: The digital media is changing the license, but until today they publish all their content with CC.BY 3.0. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: You can see it by scrolling down at the bottom of their main website, but in the link. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, @MiguelAlanCS, I checked few files and passed them. I'll check the other files later in the day. I'm feelings sleepy at the moment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is "Aviso: esta licencia no afecta al uso de los recursos gráficos (fotografías, imágenes o video)." This is what you get now, when clicking on "Licencia de uso". --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Troll license claims[edit]

Hi, a few months ago I uploaded two screenshots for the Pale Moon page. A few hours ago, a user "Артём 13327" ( tagged both for speedy deletion, and you deleted one of them just minutes ago. I have reason to suspect this "Артём 13327" is one of the myriad of trolls who have come to attack the Pale Moon project in recent years. Please see my notes on the talk page of the other file, the one that I could save: These notes explain further.

I have seen blaring red warnings that copyright violations result in steep punishments here on the various wiki sites. I have seen zero warnings for trolls who abuse the copyright administration system. I have no desire to be struck with such a punishment for the actions of a troll.

Thank you.

FuzzleSnuz (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @FuzzleSnuz,
first, you don't get punished that easily here on Commons. In case the copyvio-tagging of the 2 files is found to be unjustified, the warnings can be removed from your talkpage. I admit that I wasn't aware of any prehistory wrt to these files. The tagging of the one which I've deleted, seemed plausible to me due to the "ARR" note in the screenshot plus the "basilisk icon" being likely above COM:TOO. I could temp-undelete this image and put it into a regular DR, which allows a (nearly unlimited time of) discussion. For now, I would recommend to discuss the copyright-state on the mentioned talkpage of the remaining image. --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shouldn't Editor1098765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) be given a strong warning and if s/he continues, be blocked? A warning hardwired in Ukrainian (uk) or Russian (ru) might help. I don't do much on Commons, so I'm unlikely to follow through the process. This user really does not seem to be willing to learn about image licensing. Boud (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MD Löschen[edit]

Hallo Túrelio,

Könntest du die Metadata löschen von :

File:Proserpinus proserpina côté gauche.jpg & File:Proserpinus proserpina dessus.jpg & File:Proserpinus proserpina dessous.jpg

Wie beim File:Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (larva right side).png Dzrtb35355 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your labor! MiguelAlanCS (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The deletion of File:Bruce Blakeman Profile Pic.jpg[edit]

I wanted to know why File:Bruce Blakeman Profile Pic.jpg was deleted. It is the official government portrait/photo of the politician and is therefore public domain. It should not have been deleted. How can I upload this so it will not be deleted again? -Bigyankeesfan Bigyankeesfan (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bigyankeesfan,
you have sourced this image to, which is not accessible to me, at least currently. In addition, being an "official government portrait" has no relevance for the copyright-status. Depending on legislation, it may simply mean, that media (press) can use such an image. But Wikipedia/Commons is not "media", our policy COM:L requires a relatively broad free license. Eventually you had in mind {{PD-USGov}}, which is valid only for works of the U.S. federal government. There are only very few U.S. states, which have a similar rule, see Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). In addition, if you want to claim such an exception, you need to add the appropriate license-label/tag to the file. --Túrelio (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Daisy Edgar-Jones by Patrick Lovell, July 2021 (cropped).jpg[edit]

I had put this image up for deletion as it no longer had the Creative Commons license. I was wondering can the separate image still be used even though the license is gone? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Btspurplegalaxy, regrettably on Flickr uploaders can change the license for their uploads, even without leaving a trace. Therefore, already years ago, the license of uploads from Flickr to Commons are checked - at the time of upload to Commons - by a bot, which eliminates any possibility of reviewer-mistake/error. So, we are sure that File:Daisy Edgar-Jones by Patrick Lovell, July 2021.jpg at the time of upload to Commons was under a compatible CC-license. Now, CC-licenses, if legitimatly given, are considered unrevocable. So, though Flickr allows change to a more restrictive license, the original license remains valid for all those who had downloaded the image before the change of license. There, the license is also valid for the said crop, as creating crops is permitted by the CC-license. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. Thanks for the explanation! Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]