User talk:Túrelio/Archive1

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


Archives of older messages from my talkpage[edit]

The first ever message[edit]

Hi Túrelio; may I ask your souce for poisonous plants? You added that category to Thuja plicata and I was not able to verify that information. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wsiegmund, my primary source was this website: [1] (search for: Lebensbaum). While this site may not be of the highest standard, I assumed toxicity for T. plicata because the other species T. orientalis and T. occidentalis are without doubt toxic, were even used for abortions in former times.[2], [3], [4]. Sorry, but all pages are in German; but with your name you might have German ancestry ;-) . Well, after your hint, I looked for T. plicata in the USDA database and found "toxicity none". So if you prefer to remove the cat, that's fully okay for me. Thanks for your attention. --Túrelio 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Túrelio; thank you for your kind reply. It is a common species in my area and Pojar and McKinnon said that its wood was used for drying fish by our indigenous peoples. I removed the cat. It is generous of you to think that I might know German, but while I can read a little French and Spanish, I never studied German. But it is true that my great grandparents' first language was German. Best wishes on adding the poisonous plant categories to the species pages. It sounds like a worthwhile project. --Wsiegmund 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

from 2007[edit]

see: User talk:Túrelio/Archive2

from 2008[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive3

from 2009[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive4

from 2010[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive5

from 2011[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive6

from 2012[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive7

from 2013[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive8

from 2014[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive9

from 2015[edit]

see User talk:Túrelio/Archive10

from 2016[edit]

Rotated files in Category:L'Architecture française (Marot) BnF RES-V-371 – Gallica 2013[edit]

I uploaded these images exactly as I obtained them from Gallica as an archive of the original and rotated them in the adjusted versions. Although the bot used to rotate them is supposedly "lossless", I have noticed changes in the file sizes and loss of pixels from some images. Perhaps it would have been better to leave them unaltered. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, thank you for doing this. The rotations you requested are probably the best available way to do it, and will forestall another editor rotating them incorrectly. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Anyway, if you feel the bot-performed rotation does indeed a bad job with this kind of images, feel free to rotate them manually from the native version. When I do this for my images, I usually use the lossless rotation-feature of the freeware IrfanView. Have good new year. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio,
ich möchte mich bei Dir für die stets hervorragende Zusammenarbeit und Hilfe im letzten Jahr bedanken.
Dir wünsche ich im neuen Jahr 2016 viel Erfolg und im persönlichen Bereich alles erdenklich Gute.
Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. Dir auch alles Gute im neuen Jahr. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Morgen, würdest Du bitte keine Weiterleitungen löschen von Dateien die schon älter sind. Die werden auch außerhalb der Wikipedia verwendet. Verschieben ist da kein Grund zur Löschung. Danke --2003:4D:2C75:D05D:8DE2:6E0D:5F86:1493 09:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ich habe stets vorher geprüft, ob es Nutzungen auf irgendeinem Wikimedia-Projekt gibt, und nur gelöscht wo dies nicht der Fall war. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Alles richtig. Die Filemover haben die erst gar nicht zur Löschung anzumelden. Da stehen die Regeln. Template:FilemoverWelcome --2003:4D:2C75:D05D:8DE2:6E0D:5F86:1493 09:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Issaquah Gunners.gif[edit]

Hi Túrelio. Can you check File:Issaquah Gunners.gif to see if it's the same as File:Ps-gunners-fc-1.jpg which you deleted as a copyvio on August 29, 2015? It was uploaded by the same user not too long after you deleted the other file. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was the same logo (just in a different file format). Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Eowyn vs the Nazgul by CarmenSinek.jpg[edit]

Hi, Túrelio.

We are waiting for the author's permission mail, I've indicated the Ticket number (#2016010610007905) on the page file. Thanks !

Best regards. Guise (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

O.k. {{OTRS pending}} would have been a better choice as it is more visible. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

File:OE3 DIF 20150626 0850.jpg[edit]

Welche Permission vermisst du bei diesem Bild - in Österreich? --K@rl (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Laut Exif-Daten stammt es von Johann Leitner ist ein Profifotograf[5], weshalb es etwas unwahrscheinlich ist, dass er seine Werke hier unter dem Namen "Rizeraze" veröffentlicht. Dasselbe hatte ich aber bereits auf der Disku von User:Rizeraze geschrieben. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, verstehe ich, ichhabe ihn über WP noch ein Mail geschrieben, denn ich bin nihct sicher, ob er da rein schaut und Mail ist wahrscheinlich gar nicht aktiviert. --gruß K@rl (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Gliese 667 Cc[edit]

Kannst du die Kategorie bitte wiederherstellen. Sie ist jetzt nicht mehr leer. --Ephraim33 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't suppress the category Wiki Loves Love just because it's not containing anything yet[edit]

It was created to gather photos taken in the context of a contest that will begin in a few days, as specified in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychoslave (talk • contribs) 10:07, 08 January 2016 (UTC)

Also I would appreciate that you unremove the page, as I don't have access anymore to the content that was stored on it and don't have much time to waste in rewriting it.

Kind regards --Psychoslave (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Being empty is a regular reason to delete pages/etc. on Commons. You could have easily avoided that by adding a clear statement to the page. Anyway, I have restored it now. However, the text in Wiki Loves Love 2016 says it's a category. That is not true, Wiki Loves Love 2016 is just a gallery page; categories are Category:something . --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed photo[edit]

I see you removed Patrik_Kunčar2.jpg which I added to I received a request from Patrik Kunčar to upload this latest photo of him to wikipedia, stating that he owns the copyright to this photo and that he agrees with wikipedia license. He also uploaded this photo to the website of a political party he is a member of ( And that's where you saw it. I'm not sure what to do now, I can't upload the photo again and I can't find any other way to put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2ghz (talk • contribs) 19:01, 08 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi J2ghz,
when you uploaded File:Patrik Kunčar2.jpg, you stated that it's your "own work" and that you are the author. Now, you write that you received it from Patrik Kunčara and that he claims to own the copyright, though he himself is probably not the photographer. If Patrik Kunčara is sure that he owns the full copyright in this photo, then you need to ask him to send a confirmation to which should also include the name of the true photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Opuscolo scandalistico del Partito Comunista Britannico sul "Cliveden set".JPG[edit]

I am sorry. I believed that the copyright terms had expired. Please delete it immediately.--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It might not be impossible. But this would need evidence. If you want to use it on :en Wikipedia, you may claim it as fair-use. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


An upset user, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jorge Recalde.jpg is really going off the handle with me, but I notice on his talk page, you nominated others of his images! I came over here to see what kine of notes he might have left you, only to find out - it's only me! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. But he had removed my deletion-templates from his files. By the way: do you have any exernal hits for File:Jorge Recalde.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture deleted[edit]

Hi Turelio

I posted a pic of Andrew Korda which was deleted by you, and I then asked for a possible explanation and what I should do to have it re-posted in the correct format - I'm not sure what the issue was

The photographer has also tried to post it and it has been deleted

You responded that would get onto it - and posted a response to me on 13 November 2015

Your help would be very appreciated


Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno lips (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan,
the issue was, if I remember correctly, that your claim "own work" wasn't found credible. Half a year later, the image, though in lower resolution, was uploaded by User:KPwestern, who stated "source=Western Sydney University" and "author=Sally Tsoutas". This was already an improvement. However, he/she didn't add a license and didn't provide a permission from the alleged photographer, which is required in such cases. So, if you are in contact with photographer Sally Tsoutas, ask her if she is willing to release this photo under a free license, which would anybody allow to use it. If she agrees, please prepare a permission form by copying the framed template-text from Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries, entering the image filename ( Korda.jpg) and the license of choice (recommended is CC-BY-SA 4.0) and mail Sally the completed permission form. Ask her to read it and, if she is willing, to sign and date it and mail it directly back to . --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio, could I ask a favour? I would like to rename this template to institution:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam for a long time now, but I'm getting an error message saying that this page is already in use. Could you delete this redirect to enable me to rename the template more successfully? Thank you, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vincent,
the problem is that the current template is used in >5000 files on Commons. The redir-template is currently used in <2000 files. How would you perform the name-change in those >5000 files? --Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
For the ime being, institution:Rijksmuseum will function as redirect after name change. Then, in time, all files where either template is used will be using institution:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

30,000,000 Bilder[edit]

Hallo Túrelio,

weiß du, welches Bild das war? Wäre schön, wenn du das bei COM:Milestones eintragen würdest.

Viele Grüße, Kopiersperre (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

nein, ich habe die Info auch nur von Commons:Village_pump#30M_milestone. --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dirceu Guimarães Photos[edit]

Hello Turelio, Those photographs taken in Italy (or in Italian territory) are now in the public domain because the copyright has expired. According Italian laws, photos tooks is Italy are copyright free and public knowledge since the beginning of the calendar year following the completion of the twentieth year of production. Italians Laws [6]] regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salernobr (talk • contribs)

I do not doubt that. But you need to add the appropriate license template, wich might be Template:PD-Italy. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


Der Herr bekommt eine nette Mail von WM-AT mit der Aufklärung, daß man die Lizenz nennen muß. Solchen Leuten, die sich Mühe geben, müssen wir helfen. --Ralf Roleček 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Das ist sicher angemessen. Das Fehlen der Lizenz war mir, wie ich zugeben muss, garnicht aufgefallen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Vielleicht für Katzenliebhaber[edit]

von Interesse: [7]. Gruß, -- 20:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Danke, wer immer du bist. Werds mir mal anschauen. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion log[edit]

Can you explain the deletion log comments for File:Sheep_BHL20149095.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), File:Sheep_BHL20149089.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), File:Sheep_BHL20149083.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? Thanks -- (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I assume that this happened when deleting a larger number of files and that this line from a previous deletion was still in my paste-bin and I didn't realize pasting the wrong rationale into the deletion summary. Anyway, all 3 files (I checked them today) were "empty" pages from book-scans. If I remember correctly I once asked you whether I could delete such files even without already being tagged for deletion by you. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(Too) fast deleted image?[edit]

Hi! Yesterday you fast-deleted the image File:Sandstrom Camilla 3075 121115 MPN Original.jpg for "obvious copyright violation" reported by User:Sismarinko (copyvio Understandable as Sismarinho found the same image at the Umeå University web page [8]

However, as web editor at Umeå University I can certify that the uploader Mattias Malfoy is identical to the photographer Mattias Pettersson, employed by Umeå University – where we regularly try to offer our images with CC BY-SA 3.0 license to Wikimedia. But if you don't take his word for it, how can I help to certify that this is really true? Is this sufficient? [9] /Mickeno (disk) 2 February 2016 kl. 10.05 (CET)

Hi Mickeno,
thanks for notifying. I've undeleted the image. However, you should speak to Mattias Pettersson whether he really wants this image credited to "Mattias Malfoy". In the visible EXIF data the image is credited to "Mattias Pettersson", which will be a ongoing source of "conflict". Another possibility might be if Mattias Pettersson writes his true name behing the "Mattias Malfoy" entry in the decription, provided he doesn't want to keep that a secret. Also, at source the image is under CC-BY-SA 3.0, whereas on Commons it was put under CC-BY-SA 4.0, which has quite some differences to version 3.0. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the tip! I've now changed the licence to CC-BY-SA 4.0 in our media bank, and written a short bio on "Malfoy's" page, to get him started (if he wants to keep Malfoy). I should probably also make a webpage explaining our university's decision to share images with CC-licenses, to make thing even clearer with a link. Thanks again! -- Mickeno (disk) 2 February 2016 kl. 11.35 (CET)

Deletion of Betty Harlafti photo[edit]

Hello. You just deleted the photo here: Betty Harlafti. I have asked Mrs Harlafti for let me use it and I have her written permission. I can sent you that permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonperce (talk • contribs) 17:52, 08 February 2016 (UTC)

you are likely refering to File:Crop top.jpg. Well, you claimed it to be "own work". If Mrs. Harlafti is indeed the rights holder of this image, you may forward her permission to . Don't forget to mention the filename in your mail. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Need help with pics[edit]

Dear Túrelio, I went to Flickr, and following your advice, I chose a filter for pics about "Joyuda" with a license containing "Commercial Use Allow" See here And I was happy to find at least few good pics. From them, I selected this one, thinking that all of the pics in this batch were eligible for Wikipedia (since I had chosen a filter for licenses allowing commercial use). I then proceeded to upload it to Commons and include all the information I for the file in Flickr. See here. But what do you think it happened? After a little while, I visited the uploaded file out of curiosity and found that the robot had tagged it with this:

{ { User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-fail-recent|Cryo Mariena| 06:30:47|cc-by-nd-2.0|}}{{cc-by-2.0 } }

A little upset, I went back and examined the licence more carefully, and lo and behold, it had "no derivatives" plastered on the cc page. What a bummer! But since I had placed the pic already on an article, I went back to Flickr, chose another Joyuda pic, making sure this time it was at least (CC BY 2.0), and upload it to replace the original file.

This same story happened with a second file, here. In other words, the original file was also tagged as non-complaint and I went and found another one in Flickr that was eligible, and replaced the old one with the new. Both pictures were already in use in two articles and I did not want to see them demoted.

But as I tried unsuccessfully to erase the original picture, I came to realize that perhaps I have made it worse by trying to replace it rather than uploading anew. In other words, there are now two files now in each one of these entries. One is ok and the other is not, and I can't delete any of them. What should I do? Thanks for your help. Cheers, --Caballero//Historiador 14:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction: the first file I mentioned was not actually in used; I had the first draft of the article written, and had been holding the send button since. The second was. Cheers. --Caballero//Historiador 14:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I just requested permission from the artist of the first pic. Will do the same with the second in the afternoon. --Caballero//Historiador 14:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright deletion bullshit[edit]

Re "Welcome to Kayenta" summary deletion. Pretty heavy-handed, in my opinion. Clearly a hand-painted sign in a public place. Take your bullshit copyright activism elsewhere, please. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please remain civil. This kind of behaviour isn't tolerated at Wikimedia Commons. Please refrain from asuming bad faith and baseless accusations. Natuur12 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tillman: For your information, freedom of panorama does not exist in the US except for works of architecture. So a hand-painted sign in Arizona, even if displayed in public, is clearly copyrighted and non-free by default. On the other hand, freedom of panorama violations should always be nominated for a deletion discussion and are not covered by our speedy deletion criteria. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

131107 Kim Soo-hyun.jpg[edit]

Hello! That blog where this picture was taken from is not the legit source of these photos. The blog owner uploads photos from elsewhere. This particular one is most probably uploaded from here [10], the blog posting date is 2016, the forum posting date is 2013. Teemeah (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

AJ Styles WWE[edit]

Hello im Photolover33 and i have this question for you: If this image has a problem can i reupload it as a not my own work but just to publicity please? Awnser when you can please. I'm waiting goodbye Photolover33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolover33 (talk • contribs)

Hi Photolover33,
you are likely talking about File:AJ Styles WWE.jpg, right? Well, no. It is a common misunderstanding that because an image is published on the internet, it is free and anybody can use it. That's wrong. By publishing, a creator does not renounce his copyright. If you are sure that WWE is the original creator and copyright-holder, you may ask them to release it under a free license (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). A "permission for Wikipedia" is not sufficient.
If no freely licensed image of the depicted person is available and if you want to use it only on :en Wikipedia, you may try to upload it locally and claim fair-use (see en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline). --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Hallo, wie oft muss ich Ihnen noch mitteilen dass Sie mein Foto löschen sollen?! Diese andauernde Verwendung ist inakzeptabel. Ich habe bereits mehrmals das ganze Prozedere zum löschen des Fotos durchgezogen und Sie laden ständig wieder hoch!

SIE HABEN KEIN RECHT MEIN FOTO ZU VERWENDEN!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieKlangschale (talk • contribs)

Hallo DieKlangschale, because you uploaded the image with this license. {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Einen guten Rat: Erst studieren, dann probieren. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hallo DieKlangschale,
ein paar Richtigstellungen zu Ihren vollmundigen Behauptungen:
1) Ihre einzige "Mitteilung" an mich war eine substanzlose Behauptung, unfreundliche Forderung und Drohung mit "Anwalt".[11] Letzteres zieht on-wiki normalerweise die Sperre des Nutzerkontos nach sich. Davon habe ich damals abgesehen und Ihnen stattdessen eine freundliche Frage gestellt[12], die bis heute (seit 16 Monaten) unbeantwortet geblieben ist.
2) Ich verwende Ihr Foto nicht.
3) Sie haben einen Löschantrag Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gefrostete Kristallklangschale by GilaBenz.jpg, der — ohne meine Beteiligung — abschlägig entschieden wurde. Ihr 2. Löschantrag läuft noch.
4) Ich habe das Foto nicht hochgeladen, sondern lediglich Ihren richtlinienwidrigen Überschreib-Vorgang[13] rückgängig gemacht.
5) Wenn Sie tatsächlich die Berufsfotografin D.B. sind, sollte Ihnen klar sein, dass eine von Ihnen für ein eigenes Werk erteilte Lizenz[14] nicht einfach so widerrufen werden kann.
6) Es steht Ihnen frei, sich entweder auf Commons:Administrators' noticeboard an andere zur Löschung berechtigte Freiwillige oder unter an die Rechtsabteilung des Trägers Wikimedia Foundation zu wenden. --Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

Wow. Wish our admins over at en-wiki were that quick to speedy delete (they're pretty busy, so don't blame them). :) Cheers! Chrisw80 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting suspected copyvios is one of the major tasks of Commons admins. How quickly this happens depends on contingencies, for example, who is online right now. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Alles klar, danke für Ihre Arbeit! Chrisw80 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

still needed?[edit]

Hallo, bin gerade beim Aufräumen, wird die von Dir 2014 erstellte Category:Ausstellungseröffnung "Westfalen hilft Köln", Stadtmuseum Münster noch gebraucht? Gruß, --Achim (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nett dass du fragst. War mir nicht mehr bewusst dass ich diese cat erstellt habe. Kann natürlich gelöscht werden. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

gelöschte Diskussion[edit]

Hallo Túrelio, bitte kannst du mir den letzten Diskussionstand von [15] dahin [16] kopieren? Jean11 hatte mich da was gefragt und wir haben diskutiert und jetzt kann ich weder meine eigenen Beiträge nachlesen oder antworten falls da noch was war, weils einfach weg ist. Versteh nicht, warum Löschung, aber ich hätte das jedenfalls gerne wieder. Gruß Holger1959 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio! Ich hätte mal 'ne Frage bzgl. Logo-Schöpfungshöhe: Hältst du dieses Logo für commonsfähig, oder sind das deiner Ansicht nach schon keine einfachen geometrischen Formen mehr? Nach Sichtung der Logos in Category:With trademark bin ich mit nicht sicher. -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bei Logos aus Großbritannien muss man doppelt vorsichtig sein, da die Schöpfungshöhe in UK extrem niedrig angelegt ist. Nach meiner Erfahrung ist eine solch simple Grafik dort schon schutzwürdig. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Das wichtigste hat De728631 schon gesagt. Du könntest höchstens versuchen herauszufinden, ob das Symbol in dem Quadrat[17] schon alt ist. --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Danke euch beiden für die Rückmeldungen. -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


--Captain Spark (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Spark: to answer your concern: your observation was correct. He has specialized on copying potentially useful images from Flickr to Commons. While some see this as controversial, IMO it makes sense, as content on Flickr may disappear at any time. One has also take into account that while Commons was initially created to serve other Wikimedia projects, today we are a general repository for freely-licensed educational media. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I can see that but for weeks he is uploading election related images only. How so many election related pictures of the same political party will be helpful, I don't know. I was not checking his edits. I was checking the edits of the flickrbot. Even one week ago I found flickrbot is reviewing his election pictures most of the time.

Even right now at this moment the process is same.

I hope I am able to explain. --Captain Spark (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Represa de Cachoeira Grande-Manaus-City.jpg)[edit]

Represa de Cachoeira Grande Manaus City.jpg
Esta imagem está sob domínio publico em países onde ocorre a liberação depois de 70 anos, por favor me consulte antes de qualquer equivoco.
Grato Reviewer of articles. (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This image it is under public domain in countries where the right authorial is after 70 years, please say me the real reason before any mistake.
Grateful Reviewer of articles. (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you man by "real reason". You did not provide an authour, you did not provide a source. You claim the image is from 2013 and you claim it is in the public domain. All this doesn't fit together. How can the author of an image from 2013 be dead for >70 years? --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The image was loaded with the information of your last restoration, done in september 2013 by a appropriate software, loading was done using the Wikimedia UploadWizard that uploaded automatically their information in the choose of the option that the image was not of my own authorship, The information are contained in the METADATA her.Reviewer of articles. (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I beg you won't delete my wikipedia project page[edit]

Hello, Túrelio, Today I edit two project pages called Lu Ning(宁露) and Interstellar group. I do it with a Neutral Point Of View and give source notation. I really dont know the reason you delete them. It cost me a whole day to complete them. Hope you can pass the two pages. Thanks a lot! If you have any suggestions please feel free to let me know. Have a good night! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 宁露全球粉丝后援团团长 (talk • contribs)

Hi 宁露全球粉丝后援团团长,
you are likely refering to a Wikipedia-page, which you edited. I did not interfer with that. However, the image File:Luning.jpg, which you had uploaded, was sourced to Material on that page is not free, but "© 2015 Interstellar Group Corporation, Interstellar Media, LLC. Interstellar Real Estate, LLC. All Rights Reserved." So, you cannot copy the portrait and upload it to Commons. If you want to use that image in your article, you need to obtain a permission from the photographer or the rightsholder, which is likely the company. However, a "permission for Wikipedia" is not enough, it need to be released under a free license (see COM:L). --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Zur Info: genau dieses Bild hatte ich vorhin schon als URV schnellgelöscht, aber unter einem anderen Namen. Ich habe es dementsprechend trotz deines {{npd}} jetzt auch wieder entfernt, weil es einfach wieder neu hochgeladen wurde. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No Problem. --Túrelio (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-free Flickr files[edit]

FYI, it is better to tag non-free Flickr files with Template:Unfree Flickr file than with Template:copyvio. Elisfkc (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. Though, File:G-Unit.jpg is actually a copyvio, as it's ARR on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I've just seen your post on my talk page. The file is a screenshot that I've personally taken from an official music video, so where's the copyright violation? Thank you and please excuse me for my English! Ermione99 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ermione99,
creating a screenshot or capture from an existing video is not really a creative act. Therefore, it would not earn you an own copyright. More importantly, for doing this, you need the permission of the creator of the original video or you need evidence that the video was released under a free licences (COM:L). --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so there's nothing I can do to make the use of the screenshot legal, right? Ermione99 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

At least no magic bullet. You might try to ask the original author of the video, if he/she is willing to release this shot/capture under a free license (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). --Túrelio (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you so much! Ermione99 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

stamp of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Hi, Sure, stamps of Bosnia and Herzegovina are copyrighted but what about Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Two separate entities. Please when deleting images be specific between the two. TY BiHVolim (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. However, it's the duty of the uploader to provide evidence for his/her copyright claims. Commons:Stamps/Public domain has no information about "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina". That means, for now we have to assume the default, which is stamps (which have copyrightable content) are copyrighted. If you have other information, put it on the talkpage of Commons:Stamps/Public domain. --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete requests - Thank you![edit]

Good Morning. Thank you very much for the rapid clearing of yesterday's Speedy delete requests! Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. --Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Bram Moszkowicz in commercial.jpg[edit]


I just wanted to let you know that I undeleted this file after you deleted it. As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bram Moszkowicz in commercial (cropped).jpg there was a license mentioned at the source. License at vimeo are well hidden I am afraid and this isn't the first and will certainly not be the last time that someone overlooks a license at vimeo ;). Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

About Photo[edit]

Hey, wish you are in good health and sorry for late in replay, today I saw your question here about what I mean, the meaning that I upload this photo from source mention that it is for a 3 Palestinian prisoner in Israel prison, and when you search about this photo in google you found that most websites mention it the same, but after time I found this the same photo but the source there mention that this is photo for 3 Syrian prisoner during Great Syrian Revolt, and after this I started my wide search about the photo, and I sent an email to some people -who have a experince in the photos - to help me, after all of this the told me that this photo absolutely for 3 Syrian prisoner. all respect for you Ala'a Najjar (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


I was wondering why you deleted the image I uploaded (Riverhounds_vs._Wigan_Ticket.jpg) I took the picture myself and released it as my own work. Is it because the actual ticket was copyrighted? Sorry for not understanding more fully. Thanks. --Gri3720 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You are already on the right track. The ticket (collection) contained the likely copyrighted Riverhounds logo and a background photo (upper left) which is also copyrightable. A ticket containing merely text would not be a problem. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


...ich hab mit Regina Commons geübt. Wir wollten ne Category anlegen

sorry wir haben geübt und Fehler gemacht die weg können.

Danke und liebe Grüße --1971markus ⇒ Laberkasten ... 22:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done und schönen Sonntag. --Túrelio (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Paula Sánchez León[edit]

{{destruir|Debido a que no se como utilizar y se me hace muy difícil al querer aportar algo}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula Sánchez León (talk • contribs)

You should not claim as "own work", which is not own work, but was simplied copied by you from somewhere. That would be a good start. --Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Encounter (18507582846).jpg[edit]

Hi, this seems to have been deleted as an un-notified speedy rather than via a DR or similar. It's a work as part of a homoerotic LGBT artwork series by well published artist/photographer Sasha Kargaltsev. Could you convert to a DR if you still believe it's out of scope? Thanks -- (talk)

✓ Done. I hadn't seen that the nominator didn't notify. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Please review this file. File taken on flickr. thanks. Siska_Yuniati_at_Taman_Eden_2_Villa,_2009-06-25.jpg 03:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at the DR. --Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I just add photo of new actual bottle. If you want you can sdd your photo of bottle. But good if it be to new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTR Moscow (talk • contribs)

Hi BTR Moscow,
I am not sure I understand you. Regarding the proposed deletion, feel free to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ballantine's Stay True.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thai Government House[edit]

Hello, I would like to discuss your deletion of multiple Government House of Thailand photos, should I file undeletion requests for each file or all at once? --Horus (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, well, in case of reasonable requests I will informally undelete by myself. However, are you aware of the deletion-rationale of your uploads? User:ZenithZealotry, to whom you had credited these image, had written in all these cases: "I don't have upload photo files in this set by myself to commons, but User:Horus uploaded them by claim falsely me". --Túrelio (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware. Let me explain to you: initially these files were uploaded to Thai Wikipedia, all released under public domain, and for his private reasons he wanted them deleted because he didn't want them to be used on Thai Wikipedia (specifically). When this didn't work for him, he started taking out all pictures by himself. And I bother uploaded them to Commons. All I'm trying to say is I did not falsely claim him, since he himself uploaded it on public domain, and his attempt to have them deleted can be considered revoking his own declaration. So I think if this principle is still true on Commons, there should be no reason for him to have them deleted. --Horus (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Horus, wow. I would then recommend to file an (1) undeletion-request including all affected files. --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I suppose the principle is true then, I will start filing a request next. --Horus (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Túrelio, sorry to raise the same issue again, but User ZenithZealotry accused me of theft and I found it very disturbing. Is there anyway to address the problem? --Horus (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think when situation coming to this moment, he's satisfied which can win over me, although you don't do any with me follow his request, but it's much enough for me to QUIT OUT of here and all projects of Wikimedia with CURSE, I HATE YOU ALL, Forever BYE!! -- ZenithZealotry (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright ownership issue[edit]

Dear Túrelio, thankvs for your messages and requests for a valid copyright documentation. I have just a question concerning the template I found, which states: "[..] I affirm that I am the creator and/or SOLE OWNER of the exclusive copyright of [...]". Here, we are talking about etchings, which are usually printed in several copies and sold. I do own a copy of the uploaded etchings, so I guess I am entitled to grant the permissions, but I am surely not the ONLY owner, as others may own a copy of the same print as well. What should I do? How should I reframe the request? Thank you and best regards, AleSpinelli (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi AleSpinelli,
well, mere ownership of a work of art, which has been originally created by someone else, does not include copyright. Also, creating a true reproduction of a work of art does not come with an own copyright. When I tagged your uploads with no-permission (instead of performing the requested speedy deletion), I assumed that you are the original artist. I understand from your comment that you are not the original artist. That means, if the original artist is not dead since 1946, you need his (or his heirs) permission. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio, thanks for the prompt answer. I assume you are correct, I didn't realize that ownership could imply not owning also the right to reproduce an object of art or that that may be dependent upon the many different legislations. Anyway, I am very well acquainted with the (still living) artist and I will have him sign the document or - giving that he is almost 80 - a representation letter. Thanks again AleSpinelli (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. As you may know (or not), we have prefabricated permission-templates in several languages, see Commons:Email templates. However, in such cases the wording might need to be amended, as it is NOT the original work, that needs to be released under a free license, but only a reproduction of it. --Túrelio (talk)

File:Karen McCrimmon offical portrait.jpg[edit]

This is the official portrait of a Canadian Member of Parliament, provided to me by the member herself. This portrait also appears on her official website. The EXIF metadata shows that the copyright is CdC-Hoc (House of Commons). I assume, but will endeavour to confirm, that this means that this photo is in the public domain. Kelsey.chris (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, no such assumption can be made as Canada is not the U.S. Please provide a link to the page, from where you took this image. --Túrelio (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that I will have to wait until Monday to solve this legal puzzle. The image was provided to me via email, however it also appears on her official parliamentary page. Kelsey.chris (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

O.k. This website claims full copyright: However, if she herself commissioned the image, she may release under any license, depending on her contract with her photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be the photographer: . --Túrelio (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Found on the Parliament of Canada web site here:

The photographic images belonging to the Library of Parliament are subject to copyright. They may be downloaded and reused without permission in any format for personal or non-commercial use, subject to the following conditions:
The copyright of the photographs must be acknowledged in the following form: © Library of Parliament.
Users must not adapt, alter or manipulate any of the images.
Users must not use the images so as to bring Parliament into disrepute or use them in a deliberately misleading or defamatory context.
This permission is not transferable. Users cannot authorize others to re-use the images.
Photographs must not be used for commercial gain or in connection with advertising or marketing or to imply any association or endorsement by Parliament.
Photographs must not be used for partisan or political purposes.

It is not made clear whether or not this extends to images claiming House of Commons copyright. I will contact the photographer through internal e-mail on Monday to clarify and confirm. In the meantime I will amend the copyright statement on the image to reflect the policy above. Please advise if you would prefer that I remove the image in the interim. Kelsey.chris (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

After further reading, it appears that the copyright statements above cannot be reconciled with any of the CC licenses. Please delete the offending image.
Thank you very much for alerting me to this issue. You have saved me some potential embarrassment. Kelsey.chris (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:CSA shunter №23074[edit]

Please next time you delete an empty category, see its historial first, as this category was emptied and nominated for deletion by "vandalism" by an IP. So readded the missing categories, as i`ve already recreated the category. Tm (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

from your first posting, I wasn't sure what you expected from me (and neither why [18] needs to be vandalism). Now, if I understand your 2nd posting correctly, you want to have the content for the formerly deleted CSA cat to be added to the recreated cat, right? --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, i woul like to have content of the deleted CSA category added to the recreated category. Also, sorry for my first post as the language is not very clear in what i pretended. Thanks in advance. Tm (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done already. --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Message from Op4ev[edit]

Hello, you just selected the file I have uploaded from Flickr for speedy deletion, but the original uploader stated clearly that he gave permission to use the image. That one is the only usable Ian Bostridge picture I could find, and since the author of the picture stated that I think it's possible to use it. If not I apologise, I am new to this and there are many things I may not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Op4ev (talk • contribs)

Hi Op4ev,
where did the uploader "give permission"? The image was found by our Flickr-Review-Bot to be under a cc-by-nc-nd license. Both NC (no commercial use) and ND (no derivatives) are not allowed on Commons (see COM:L). --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC icon at CC-BY-SA licensed images[edit]

The images I publish at Wikimedia Commons are free for educational and informational purposes. Everyone may copy, share, modify them and print them for personal use. Everyone may use them in informational and educational publications that are not sold for money. However they must not be used in commercial media like books, calendars, postcards, magazines, videos without a contract between the author and the publisher. Because I could not find the template for CC-BY-SA-NC, I added the -NC icon below the main licence template. (User talk:Abrimaal)

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Túrelio[edit]

The authorization for File talk:Portrait of Spanish artist Blas Gallego.jpg was sent by the copyright owner and automatically answered by Wikipedia. So if you guys could please restore the pic. Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


I just sent you an e-mail.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Forwarded to Legal and notified some 'crats. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of files transferred from Flickr[edit]

Could you explain why you speedied this and this broken files rather than attemping to transfer again from Flickr? Who tagged them for Speedy and why? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into that tomorrow, too late now. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I requested its restoration at the UDEL. Please answer there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Files now re-uploaded. Had been speedy-tagged by User:Elisfkc. --Túrelio (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I already noticied that the same user added them to other files.
Thanks for restoring, reuploading and left warning to the user. Please be more careful. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

restoration of Aphrodite_Ping_Pong.jpg[edit]

Dear Túrelio,

You have deleted the File Aphrodite_Ping_Pong.jpg, which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and released under CC-BY-SA yesterday by the copyright owner herself, Silvie Defraoui. Having the picture deleted 12 hours later on copyright reasons is sending a bad message to this 78-years old first time Wikipedia contributor. Can you please restore the pic? Thanks! --1904.CC (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

PS, perhaps you can help me out: this article is using an existing Wikimedia Commons image in the artist Infobox, but the image isn't showing. Any idea why it's not working? --1904.CC (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have replied at the undeletion-discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


All are copyvio. Two of them where deleted and uploaded again. Thanks.--Fixertool (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Joha1908 (talk · contribs)[edit]


these pictures are from the producer of this machines. I have the permission to use them for the wikipedia article.

Regards Joha1908

Hi Joha1908,
well, then why did you put your name in the author-entry for File:Dixi SLK.png?
Anyway, you need to provide this permission to and the permission needs to be really a free license (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), not "for Wikipedia". --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Turelio,

sorry, I am a beginner in Wikipedia. These pictures also can be downloaded here: . I get the pictures from the company, I am working there. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joha1908 (talk • contribs)

O.k., dann können wir ja deutsch sprechen.
Ich sehe auf nirgends einen Hinweis auf eine freie Lizenz. Es ist ein häufiges Mißverständnis anzunehmen, dass etwas frei lizenziert sei, nur weil es auf einer Website gezeigt oder sogar runterladbar ist. Wenn du bei dem Laden arbeitest, sollte es ja ein leichtes sein, von eurer Rechtsabteilung (oder wer immer das bearbeitet), eine ordentliche Genehmigung zu erhalten. Eine geeignete Vorlage findet du hier: Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen#Einverständniserklärung (Rechte-Inhaber). In der Genehmigung sollten alle betroffenen Dateien aufgelistet sein. --Túrelio (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Eine weitere Bilddatei mit vermutlicher Copyright-Verletzung: File:60S Volumenreduzierung.jpg auch von User:Joha1908 hochgeladen. --Archie02 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, danke für die Info. Ich bin für die Veröffentlichung der Bilder verantwortlich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joha1908 (talk • contribs)

Please don't delete the Raleigh Chopper Images[edit]

They are my own scans from hard copies I have bought, they are 40 years old bits of memorabilia Thehotone1970 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thehotone1970,
I am sorry, but physical ownership in (a copy of) a work of art does not mean, you have also the copyright of it. The advertisements were from the 1960s, if I remember correctly. So, they can hardly be out of copyright. If you want to "fight" for it, I recommend to request undeletion at COM:UR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Album covers[edit]


please delete two following pictures:

JB Different Shades of Blue album.jpg JB_Blues_Of_Desperation.jpg

I was not aware that I cannot use them in this way. I will check how to upload covers of the albums, to not make such mistakes. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotr Samek (talk • contribs)

✓ Done. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your warning[edit]

Hi Túrelio: Xiang0325 seems to be right back to uploading non-stop copyvios despite your best efforts and warnings. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Statues of Moqi Xie and Zhang Jun (Hangzhou)[edit]

Hi Túrelio, thank you for your works everyday. I am sorry for inform to you, but you removed the Category:Statues of Moqi Xie and Zhang Jun (Hangzhou) with reason "(incorrectly named) duplicate, content moved to Category:Statues_of_Qin_Hui_and_Lady_Wang_(Hangzhou)". I don't know who requested this deletion, but, the reason may be incorrect. The temple has 4 kneeling statues (Qin_Hui and Lady Wang {these 2 statues are very famous}, and Moqi Xie and Zhang Jun {less famous}). It can be confirmed with plates (inscribed in Chinese characters) in background of the statues. Then, I think the couples of statues should be separated and did so. Currently, 4 statues are mixed in a category. Therefore, I would like to ask you to revert the deletion of the category. The deletion request should have been discussed because there was a option to rename the category if the category name is incorrect (the names may have been incorrect), and a "speedy deletion" should not have been done without a discussion. Thank you for your understanding.--Morio (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Morio,
I've undeleted the cat. Feel free to check the edit-history and change it back to the correct version. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your very speedy response!--Morio (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)