User talk:Túrelio/Archive5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talkpage archive from 2010




Was there a proper reason to categorise this imagen in cat Kortezubi [1] ? Thanks --Javier ME (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As it was half a year ago, I don't remember, of course. But likely I wanted to add cat:Sculpture and somewhat this term Kortezubi, which is totally unknown to me, popped in. Thanks for your attention. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:WIKINEWS 2009 12 01 004.jpg

I am readed the Commons:Language policy, I can use any language to descriptions at galleries and file description pages. Chinese is my mother language and first using language. In all I add new photo, I will add English name Category, I think that English users can know about the photo. If I have enough time and information, I will add the English or other language photo information in the file description pages.

About the category name, I will ask the organizer "Hong Kong Eiltie Athletes Association"(HKEAA).before the HKEAA reply, I would delete the activity name.

If you have any question, please tell me.—Railhk0512 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Railhk0512, I didn't object against using a primary description in chinese. But to make the image usable for people who don't read chinese, there should be a description in an additional language (english, french, german or whatever). Was this a sort of handicapped sport event? --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted photos with proper consent by mistake Turelio

The photos you deleted today Turelio were not supposed to be deleted. They had 100% proper consent, I should know, I took ALL of them, I own ALL of them, I am the copyright owner of ALL of them and ALL of John Quinlan (wrestler) photos that you deleted today I allowed into Public Domain. I was shocked that somebody would go in and delete material like this. There was a small issue a couple months or so ago when I gave this password to others to use and one individual uploaded a batch of photos that were for private scrapbook use only. Those were the photos to be removed and they were removed properly a couple of months ago and the case was closed. All the photos in the Wikimedia Commons gallery for John Quinlan (wrestler) this morning....before you deleted them SHOULD NOT have been deleted. Those were the good ones that I, his wife, took with my camera and gave Commons 100% consent to have these photos placed in Public Domain. I was outraged when I saw somebody went in and removed them but now I understand that you assumed you were doing the right thing and appreciate your effort in doing what you thought was right, no worries. Just would like these photos restored back in the Wikimedia Commons gallery where they were before you deleted them asap. An honest mistake, also the new one I uploaded today I hope was not deleted as well, if it was I'm sure I can add it again. I look forward to getting this issue quickly corrected.

Thanks So Much For Understanding,

Jaderocker (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also notified ~~×α£đ~~es that the image files you deleted today was a mistake just in case you were not going to be available to correct this issue right away.

Jaderocker (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Turelio, I just left a quick message on ~~×α£đ~~es talk page, take a quick look. I completely understand would like to reupload the photos with the correct license tags on them so they are never questioned again. Thank you for letting me know about this so it can be properly corrected.

Thank You,

Jaderocker (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jaderocker, today I will not be able to work on that. Try to work it out with XaID. I will then look over it and either un-delete or recommend re-upload. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Turelio, you are very professional to respond in such a pmomp manner. I very much appreciate that. Yes, that would be excellent! It would be so much easier to just have the photos un-deleted and have an editor go in and tag each photo with the correct license tag (the same license tag that is on the others.....uploaded by Mrs. Quinlan, the copyright holder). I will do as you say and pass it along to ~~×α£đ~~es and look forward to this little mishap corrected once and for all. Again, thank you so much for letting me know, I am glad I was made aware of it now than some other time down the road. Message me back at your earliest convenience and thanks again!

Jaderocker (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Túrelio, here is a copy of the email I just sent to

Image Files for OTRS permission per order of --Túrelio (talk)Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:55 AMFrom: "John Quinlan" <censured>Add sender to ContactsTo: hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of  


I agree to place that work into the public domain as stated in
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
1/5/2010, Mrs. Quinlan
User name: Jaderocker

I was instructed to do this by --Túrelio (talk)

This request is backed by him.

Thank You Very Much,

Mrs. Quinlan

That is the copy which I just sent. Images should be all set, just need to wait for you to give me the green light to tag them with the proper license. I look forward to hearing from you. I appreciate everything you have done for me. I'll copy this to my talk page as well.

Jaderocker (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just sent an updated corrected email to OTRS noting this change. Thanks for the advice Túrelio, you are a true professional. Here is a copy of that email noting the change:

UPDATED CORRECTION EMAIL: Image Files for OTRS permission per order of --Túrelio (talk)Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:30 To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.orgThis is a follow-up email to the one I just sent you last night. I have corrected an error that was in the previous email and I wanted to make OTRS aware of the change immediately. The previous email stated "I agree to place that work into the public domain " which has been corrected and now states "I agree to release the images under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL". Please make a note of this very important change.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of



I agree to release the images under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
1/5/2010, Mrs. Quinlan

upload problems


Could you help me??

--Quahadi Añtó 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Quahadi Añtó 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quahadi, sorry, but I never used Commonist by myself and therefore have no experience with it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Aut. Airplane Photographs

Th author give me the autorization to put the photographs, but no at this resolution. He tell me to put the photograph at a maximum resolution of 600px; and when I can modificate the resolution, I decide to remove the photographs. ;). Best regards. -- 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not logged-in, so I don't know who you are and can't see to which files you are referring. --Túrelio (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In case you are Galandil (talk · contribs): it is rather easy to reduce the images to 600px. But due to the current problem and due to the fact that you are not the rights holder, we do need a written permission by the photographer. If you are willing to get that, then I can reduce the resolution of the images. --Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dolomedes aquaticus.jpg

Hi Turelio,

I change the licensing of this image on Flickr and re-uploaded it.



--Kyudos (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I hope the Flickr-review-bot is working. Otherwise we have to do it manually. --Túrelio (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done by FR-bot. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello Turelio, tou asked me what I did here: [2]. I didn't know I did this, but it was technical mistake. I made a remark about keeping the picture, but on the same moment my google translate toolbar was set on "translate english automatically". So it translated the text into dutch. I didn't notice. I'm very sorry for this unfortunate mistake. Greeting from Rododendron (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:King Diamond live 2006.jpg

Kind of admin fail, you should check history first. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I didn't expect that somebody removed a Flickr-review box as Алый Король did. Anyway, without my notification anybody might have deleted your image even without your knowledge. --Túrelio (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio; Ist OK mit dem Drehen, die Formen an sich sind schief geschnitten. Ich denke dass sie älter als 150 Jahre sind und waren bis vor zehn Jahren immer wieder in Gebrauch, daher noch einige Mehltippel. Sorry für verspätete Antwort, bin relativ selten hier. Dank und Gruß -- Frinck51 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio, deine Nachfrage ist ein wenig kryptisch, merkwürdig ist das ganze schon, siehe Google-Bildsuche dazu. Gab es da nicht vor einigen Monaten einen Bug mit dem Bilderupload? Definitiv ging es wohl um dieses Bild, der Copyright-Status scheint okay zu sein, sodaß man das ganze wiederherstellen könnte. Wenn ich jetzt nur noch wüßte, warum ich das damals nach Commons geschaufelt habe – der Zustand des englischen Artikels läßt kaum vermuten, daß ich den übersetzen wollte. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aber irgendwas ist da komisch: Bei EN im Logbuch heißt es was von SD wg. en:Wikipedia:CSD#I8 und auf Commons wird behauptet, es sei schnellgelöscht worden, weil es angeblich nicht vom Uploader stamme. Naja, hochgeladen habe ich es wohl mit dem Commons-Uploader, also kommt die Angabe des Original-Hochladers auf EN wohl nicht von ungefähr. Müßte man wohl die Historie in EN einsehen. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Ein gutes neues Jahr wünsche ich dir. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nur auf die schnelle, da von anderem PC aus: laut lösch-log hatte Smooth O (talk · contribs) das Bild, das ja eigentlich seines sein sollte, mit "{{Speedy|This is not my image}}" getagt, woraufhin es dann gelöscht wurde. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Thanks for the help in housework. Please to say User talk:Cwbm (commons) so that he do not sabotage housework. I use legal methods. Quick methods which do not leave garbages. Greetings from Poland. --Starscream (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File:2008-05-25 Bad Wiessee-Bauer in der Au2.JPG

Hallo Túrelio, leider ist mit dieser Datei nun schon mehrfach alles schief gelaufen. Meine Absicht ist, File:2008-05-25 Bad Wiessee-Bauer in der Au2.JPG durch die identische Datei File:2008-05-25 Bad-Wiessee4.JPG zu ersetzen. Grund: das Motiv ist nicht der "Bauer in der Au" sondern ein anderes Motiv aus Bad Wiessee. Dummerweise hatte ich zunächst eine Datei mit geringerer Auflösung als File:2008-05-25 Bad-Wiessee4.JPG hochgeladen. Du hast mich daraufhin gebeten, die Änderung auf "rename" umzustellen. Das habe ich auch gemacht. Leider hat ein anderer Administrator (Killiondude) das nicht beachtet und File:2008-05-25 Bad-Wiessee4.JPG, also das falsche, gelöscht. Ich habe daraufhin heute File:2008-05-25 Bad-Wiessee4.JPG nochmals hochgeladen und um Löschung von File:2008-05-25 Bad Wiessee-Bauer in der Au2.JPG gebeten (speedydelete). Diesmal hat "Shizhao" ausgerechnet wieder das File:2008-05-25 Bad-Wiessee4.JPG gelöscht mit der Begründung: "Dupe of Image:2008-05-25 Bad Wiessee-Bauer in der Au2.JPG", sodass immer noch die falsche Datei existiert und die richtige gelöscht wurde. Kannst Du das irgendwie in Ordnung bringen? Gruß, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ist es jetzt so wie du es wolltest? --Túrelio (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Alles ok! Danke! --R. Engelhardt (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

image:Stad Amsterdam achtern, Valencia 2007.jpg

Hey Túrelio, Sorry, I hadn't seen your message before now. You may be right about the image (I may have overlooked something about the copyright), but I'd like to double-check myself. Could you make the description available to me, so that I can look it up on flickr? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It carried the following problem tags:
Hope that helps. --Túrelio (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted Toydesign???????

You have removed my picture because copyrighted toydesign?

To start with, toys like Sindy are Trademarks. I have not violated the design of the doll Sindy.

I know everything about Copyrights and Trademarks and I did not break any of these laws, soo please explain your action to me!

It's hard to find answers when your explanation you left at Sindys article is rubbish, see above!

Everybody have the right to take pictures of dolls and other products like cars, trains etc, or shall we remove all pictures at Wikimedia too?

Explain why you only removed my pictures (Copyright © Susy´s world of fashion, All Rights Reserved by Lennart Nygren, of Sindy (doll) but not picture of Barbie dolls, or other pictures displaying copyrighted design and protected by trademarks?

Link to Barbie (pictures of copyrighted toydesign by Mattel)

I am the owner of these pictures.

Please ask a lawyer before you do such a stupid thing again or ask me next time. I will upload those pictures once more!

Lennart Copyright owner of the picture you removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 16. Januar 2010, 03:21 Uhr (UTC)

As you haven't linked the images in question and as you haven't provided your account/user name, I have no idea what you are ranting about (I've deleted >200 files/cats/pages yesterday evening). --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

John Mullholland

I give you permission to change the Mullholland Picture. --Riotrocket8676 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've deleted the original version. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio, sieh bitte mal File:1999-06-02-Regenbogen.JPG. Ich warte schon einige Zeit auf die Umbenennung. Danke, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

dupe-speedies Daisy

Hallo Huhu Uet,
es wäre eigentlich mehr im Interesse von Commons und der Weiterverwender, die Originalfassung von File:Uetersen Daisy 06.01.2010 03.JPG und den anderen beiden Fotos einfach umzubenenennen statt sie zugunsten einer EXIF-losen Version zu löschen. Oder gibt es außer dem Namen einen anderen Grund für die Löschung?

Nein, die Kamera war falsch eingestellt, mein Sohn hatte daran rumgespielt und unter anderen auch das Datum verstellt. Später hatte ich das bemerkt und die Einstellungen korrigiert. Gruß --Huhu Uet 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Ich habe die 3 "blauen" Bilder deshalb direkt umbenannt und die EXIF-losen Ersatzfassungen gelöscht. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Turelio. Danke für den Hinweis auf meiner Talkpage. Ich hatte bereits Admins um Löschung des Bildes Kreuzigung gebeten, worüber du auf meiner talk page geschrieben hast. Ich hatte das e-mail mit dem Ticket#2010011410040507 geschrieben und alles in Gang gesetzt. Danke. Ketchupheinz (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dann ist ja gut. Ich war davon ausgegangen, dass du noch nichts davon wusstest. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This image

Is this photo derived from here? If it is then it is a derivative and the flickr owner does not own the rights. It should then face a formal DR or a speedy delete perhaps by you. What do you think? I think that most of this flickrowner's images come from Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Was already gone. Thanks for notifying. --09:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. There is this other DR I mentioned here that the uploader uploaded 2-3 other images and one was even passed by a human reviewer even though it is most likely a flickrwash. I hope you will inspect it if you have some time. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the tiny one simply as dupe of the large one. However, a Google search didn't yield this image, which is understandable as he did in 1986[3]. Let's wait what the uploader replies.--Túrelio (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK then. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories emptied during Cfd

Hi. I think, categories like Category:Wels Austro-Hungarian barracks or Category:Vienna Austria-Hungarian barracks which was emptied and replaced despite of ongoing Cfd shouldn't be deleted speadily before the discussion is finalized properly. --ŠJů (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was no hint that they were still on Cfd. However, I've restored them. --Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Stamp of Azerbaijan

Hello Túrelio!

This work of “Azermarka” company is an object of copyright according to the law of Azerbaijan Republic. Please, pay attention that using this image in articles violate the copyright law of Azerbaijan Republic.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Melikov,
though I don't see any relation between me and this stamp, I will add a problem tag. Could you add the reason for the copyright problem on File talk:Stamp of Azerbaijan 725.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course there is no relation between you and this stamp, I barely addressed you for help. Thanks--Melikov Memmed (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying. Now, I've escalated to a formal DR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

there is a message on the talk page of professor Uwe Kils

please remove immediately the third line of user:uwe kils. His email is normally secret. Dr. Chandra Patell 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was already removed by Martin H., after it had been there since 4 years without any complaint from you. --Túrelio (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Was it really Abigor who passed this image here ? An anon IP typed in Abigor's pass but I don't know if it is really him. Abigor has been unwell recently. Maybe you know if this IP belongs to him. If not, the picture is a copy vio...and must be deleted. I think it is very suspicious. If this is "own work", why would Abigor flickrpass it when there is no flickr link anywhere? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your attention. Seems rather sure that this wasn't Abigor, who wasn't online since long. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Dear Admin Turelio, Its quite shocking to see how someone can type in a fake flickr pass for an image file and place copyright violations on Commons. There must be several hundred or thousand copy vios of this type here. If the Anon Ip did not type in a flickrpass and just uploaded it with an 'own photo' license, I would not have even noticed it. That's even scarier! With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Images from Ardross

Hi, you've deleted the images from "Ardross (Highland)" citing that they are copyrighted. I sought and received permission to use them from the owner, please undo these deleted: Email below....

Re: Northern Sights‏ From: scotviews@xxxxxxx on behalf of xxxxxxx (northernsights@xxxxxxx) You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk Sent: 17 February 2008 19:11:08 To: Oberon Houston (oberonhouston@xxxxxxxx) Hi Oberon

Of course you have permission to use a few of my photos for places you are covering in Ross-shire on Wikipedia on the basis you have stated.

I started taking photos to fill a void on the web; you're continuing the work.

Best wishes in your endeavours

xxxx xxxx


From_Email: oberonhouston@xxxxxxxxxx

From_Name: Oberon Houston

Subject: Northern Sights

Message: Hello, I am an editor working on "Wikipedia" encyclopedia entries for places in Ross-Shire. I have started "Strathrusdale" and "Ardross" (search these places to view the existing pages) but want better images of the areas featured. I cannot place images on Wikipedia without copyright clearance from the owner. Will you allow me to use one or two images for places I put up on Wikipedia? Each image used will include a reference to the source and a clickable link to your website. I plan to cover more places over the next few months too where there isn't currently an entry or a poor existing page (e.g Alness").

Let me know if this is ok.

Thanks, Oberon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 23. Januar 2010, 13:55 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Unknown,
if you would log-in or tell me your username or, even better, tell me what filenames you are referring to, then I could look into that. --Túrelio (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User name is "Oberon Houston" the file names are "Ardross ##.jpg" and "Strathrusdale ##.jpg" , think there are three of each name.

Ok, I've undeleted File:Strathrusdale 03.jpg, File:Ardross 04.jpg, File:Ardross 03.jpg and File:Strathrusdale 02.jpg and tagged them with OTRS-pending. That means you have to forward either the original permission (in case it does not suggest "use for wikipedia only", which is not sufficient) to or provide a new permission (for a template see Commons:Email templates). Please sign your comments always with --~~~~. --Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)



I have removed the violation notice you placed on this image. I took the original photo, it is on my Flickr page, and I own the copyright.

Thank you,Peteinterpol (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but why do you enter a Flickr-URL as source when the image is not under this URL? You should enter {{own}} instead. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean; the image is on my Flickr page. Will look at this the next time I upload one of my photos.
Regards, Peteinterpol (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the Flickr-page you provided as source here on Commons and the above mentioned image is not shown on this page, I double-checked this again now. And just this missing on the claimed source caused all this "mess". Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It is on that page, but not visible to you, as you are not one of my designated "Family or Friends" in Flickr.
Regards, Peteinterpol (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but that equals to not visible, as likely neither our Flickr-review-bot nor any other Commons-admin belongs to that closed group. Therefore, please remove that misleading Flickr-link from the source entry and replace it by {{Own}}. --Túrelio (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi. See my comment on noticeboard. Bye. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I informed you I was being harassed and threatened by Roberto

May I ask why you informed him of it rather report him? is there a reason why I can't even complain without getting blocked but admin can harassed and threaten me and always get away with it? Please show me where wikipedia states this acceptable behavior.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my answer to you, you are at the wrong place here on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This speedy

Should not this speedy here be closed as a delete? What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • OK. Let see what he says. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course :)

Another person I would be happy with is you :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sunset at Cape Sounion.jpg

Hi Turélio, I understand that the license is not valid and should be deleted. Thank you very much for informing me. Excuse my bad English :( Dorieo (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Image permission

My image taken with a:

  • Nokia N70-1 (my mobile)
  • Canon EOS 450D (my camera)
  • Fujifilm MV-1 (my camera)

The image © All Rights Reserved by Ciacci on, I have the permission on usage on Wikimedia Commons (I asked him for permission to use), and I hope that I also have permission to send e-mail (in Italian) in the coming days. At least you did not delete photos...

Andre86 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, but what about the 4 other cameras? --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope that I also have permission for other images via e-mail.... Andre86 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The permission in my foto © All Rights Reserved by Ciacci on you read below image information:
Italiano: (missing text)

Foto concessa da Ciacci per l'utilizzo in Wikipedia e progetti collegati.

Photos granted by Ciacci for use in Wikipedia and related projects.

Andre86 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But, the problem is that such a permission is too restricted for Commons. It may still be valid for a local project. Images, uploaded to Commons, have to be free for any purpose, including commercial use, and anywhere, at least in regard to copyright. If you think that Ciacci would agree to that, then you could send him a pre-fabricated permission text, taken from here (there is also a version in italiano). --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You may remove this notice from my pictures that I took myself and I decided to leave in the public domain taken with my Nokia N70-1 (my mobile), Canon EOS 450D (my camera) & Fujifilm MV-1 (my camera):

{{no permission since}} Thanks...Andre86 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

False OTRS ticket

If this DR is not a candidate for a speedy delete close, I don't know what is. Admin MBisanz who has OTRS access told me the permission at OTRS #: 690781 is just fake. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've no OTRS-access, I've recommended that an additional OTRS-volunteer should look into the ticket, before measures against the uploader are considered, at least to guess whether this happened in error or intentionally. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when putting the FlickrR-passed tag on File:Sheryl Crow at Revlon Run Walk 2007.jpg, did you read my comments here, here and here? --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Sorry I did not see your talkpage comments. I have reverted my pass and given the old source for this image. Thank You. I hope also that the image of Saddam can be deleted with an Admin with OTRS access. MBisanz says the permission is false on wikipedia and I got another image he uploaded with a false OTRS ticket just deleted. It was the same uploader on wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm not necessarily sorry to see that image go, but for the record, I doubt that Sisonori999 intended to request deletion of his own image... AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was: {{delete|this is a true map}} [[User:Sisonori999|Sisonori999]] 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC). --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
However, I doubt whether he has any clear understanding of the detailed ins and outs of processes here, and "this is a true map" is a keep-type argument, not a reason for deletion. Possibly he intended to replace the speedy delete notice with an ordinary deletion discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've restored it and opened a full rfd. --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Shakira wax figure.jpg

Is this a derivative or public art in the US? If it is, it should be placed in a DR and the uploader notified. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, I found Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures and cv-tagged it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for acting here. I was not sure how to deal with wax statues. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

grand canyon video deletion

Regarding File:Grand canyon low quality.ogv, it is perfectly acceptable to have a lower quality video of an existing video, according to Commons:Video. This is so that people on low-bandwidth connections can stream them. The low quality video was much smaller in size than the 45mb video. Additionally, the video is being displayed at small resolutions of only 200px in articles. We don't need to be streaming 45mb for such a small resolution. That is why the low quality version was created. Will you please restore the file or would you like me to put in a request at Undeletion? Regards, mahanga (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it for now. But you should explain your rationale to the creator of that video, R. Engelhardt, who actually requested it for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Routemaster RML2347.jpg

There is no good reason to keep this single failed flickr review photo in my opinion since there are over 400 replacement images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acting here. There was no logical reason to keep such an image with hundreds of replacements. As an aside, I launched a regular DR on this image....but I think it is really a speedy candidate when you read my comments. Goodnight from Vancouver. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Major sock

Hello Turelio. Just wanted to talk to you regarding one user that have few socks in wikipedia.

Regarding wikipedia edits, all those three are one editor. Can we do something about it. User upload copyrighted pictures of mountains under disputed names, and add them in articles, not listening on any advices. As he changes accounts, it is logical. Also, i think that you already talked to him? Waiting for your respond. All best! --Tadija (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tadija,
I would ask you to put this notice on the administrators noticeboard, so that others can also look into and eventually perform of checkuser test. Thanks for notifying.
In addition, if you have the knowledge and the time, could you eventually check the uploads of Stanovc (talk · contribs) whether their names/description are correct? --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, File:Sharr8.jpg is Category:Šar Mountain, File:Vushtrri5.jpg is Category:Vučitrn. He is uploading all names in Albanian, no matter where those things are. And he cannot be author of all of that! Those are from airplane, all over mountains peaks... I dont know to write here on commons to the AN... Can you advice, or maybe you can do that? --Tadija (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I you agree, I copy your original post to COM:AN. Done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Túrelio/requests & notifications

...solltest du in den User talk Namensraum verschieben. Grund: Der Abuse Filter 53 verbietet das Bearbeiten fremder Benutzerseiten im User Namensraum. Siehe die Logs für deine Seite, klick auf "details" um die jeweils unterdrückte Änderung zu sehen. --Martin H. (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. "Fallstricke" wo man sie nicht erwartet ;-). Habs geändert. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No source

I find no source for this image It should merit a speedy delete due to this other copy vio message on uploader's talkpage. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ gone. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This uploader is really persistent. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal rights - Help me, please

Please, help me! 3 photos of mine are in the project without the permission of the people portraited. Could you please delate them?

Here are the pics: File:A woman's portrait.JPG

File:Portrait d'une femme.jpg

File:A girl looking at herself in the mirror.jpg

I really appreciate your help. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro Zangrilli (talk • contribs) 1. Februar 2010, 12:52 Uhr (UTC)

The problem with File:A girl looking at herself in the mirror.jpg is that it is heavily used. Did the person in the image request you to take it down? If yes, I would ask you to put a {{speedy}}-tag on it with stating the depicted person's request. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your interessment. Vielen Danke. For the File:A girl looking at herself in the mirror.jpg unfortunately I have no permission. Thanks. --Alessandro Zangrilli
But did she ask you to remove the image? If not, can't you ask her for permission? The image is on Commons for 3 years already, why now? --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. That young lady doesn't want to appear here. Why now? Why after 3 years? Because few days ago I just read the policy (my fault) and I was afraid of it. Now I am aware. Later I told her about it, and she refused her approval. Bad thing. Sure, I was wrong. I admit it, no problem about it. I'm sorry.
Why not tell her that she became famous thanks to your photo; it is used on 57 page in 32 projects[4]? ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe at the time of that picture she was interested in becoming famous, but now she seems interested only in growing children. However I want to assure you that for what concerns my other pics with people, there should be no probleme, because the child depicted in 2 of them is my son; the man sitting under a tree is my best friend and gave me his consenment. Thanks for all, now I feel in debt with you. Ciao
As you may have seen, now I've filed a RFD of the third one. But this image is already quite used outside of Wikimedia; for some links see: File talk:A girl looking at herself in the mirror.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


@Liftarn, could you provide a little bit more background information about that car. DId the fire result from a malfunction or from an attack? What is the location (city)? --Túrelio (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some info. It is my (ex) car so I can provide more info if you want. // Liftarn (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
OMG, that was your car. Hope it was somewhat insured. Thanks for adding the information. However, if you feel a bit uncomfortable about writing that's your car, I would remove that. With this impressive image you could really had used it for a big (fake) story about a ... attack ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually not. I only had road insurance on it and since it wan't a road accident I don't get anything. I'm still lucky I only lost the car and a case of beer glasses. I was moving and managed to save three boxes of stuff and a guitar. I got away with some minor burns and a bit of burnt hair. Considering I was rather stressed out and snapped the photo with my phone it did turn out well so at least something good came out of it. // Liftarn (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


It is unfortunate that people on flickr still 'borrow' other people's photos and then license them freely as in this DR I filed. They disobey flickr's own rules on image licenses and cause much confusion among Commons own uploader's sometimes. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help. I hope this problem won't occur again but have low expectations sadly. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks too, that reduces my bookmark-backlog -1, bookmarked this too look for evidence and COM:QFI the flickr user. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Insults against basque people

The only insult that I can read is that against basque people:

"Seriously, we don't care about the "Basque language" being oppressed or not. We don't care about the basque culture, history and supposed dominance in names of this given area. We don't care about your ideology and POV pushing here. This is an image depositery. Category names are meant to be in one language which is 'english'. English people uses 'Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port' for instance and not the basque counterpart. The same goes for other french cities like 'Rennes', 'Paris' or 'Toulon'. The same goes for 'Panoramics in France' and not 'Panorama en France' for instance... What you ask will not be done. There is nothing to argue. When title internationalization will be ready, title will be able to be into several languages, including basque. Esby (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)"

And in this message call us "pro independence people" only fore defend our language, he don´t know us or our ideology:

"Point taken that you just proven that pro-independence people will use the Basque name. Now that does not mean that english people will use this one. Esby (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)"

Vigneron is not a impartial administrator, he didn´t stop to Esby, and Havang delete my messages. Before sending any messages to listen to both sides.

Anyway I have decided to participate in commons and to collaborate with the project, thanks to partial and bad administrator Vigneron, his friends (Havang and Esby), Esby´s insults against basque people and his bad education: They have made me and my basque friends go away from Commons.

Greetings. --Euskalduna 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit that the wording choosen by Esby wasn't too friendly. What he likely wanted to express is that as of our policy on Commons, category-names shall be in english (with some exceptions, as usual) and that this is (or should be) independent of current or past politics/history and political correctness. However, likening or associating another user with Hitler or similar figures is always very bad, at least for people from Europe. Next time you find yourself in such a situation, I would recommend you to 1. ask the "aggressor" on his talkpage to refrain from any ad-hominem arguments/attacks (but not to insult or attack by yourself) and 2., if he doesn't give in, to come to COM:AN/U and post your complaint there, so that an un-involved admin can intervene.
I've added an interwiki from your Commons to your eu-userpage, hoping you don't mind. Otherwise, just remove it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don´t want problems, Esby isn´t very friendly, OK. We were speaking on basque names of basque village in peace and civilizy, and suddenly Esby says that "he don´t care basque language, culture of if we are oppressed or no", we are a lot of basque people in that discussion and is an insult to basque people to say "I don´t care if the basque people is opressed or no", because some basque people we are suffering by political situation (physically or mentally), so then why he entered into our conversation if he don´t care the basque people?. Example: It´s like to say to the irish people "I don´t care the irish language, the irish culture or if the irish are opressed or no", if you were irish, it would be an insult, in the same way to the basque people. Nobody has called to him "Hitler", I reply him that "I don´t care if you are the tolerant and multicultural Jean Marie Le Pen?", and then he is telling that I call him... "Hitler????". That´s false. Then user Havang delete my two messages but no the messages of Esby (that goes against Wikipedia rules). Then Vigneron told me he was administrator, he didn´t say anything to Esby, and told me that Havang made well deleting my messages and any other administrator will block me, and now when I have tell to Vigneron that I will notice his partial administration to Commons' administrators he has told me that he is not an administrator, he was lying. I think the three persons are friends. End of the story. I don´t want more problems, I have no time to waste arguing in discussions that lead to nothing. Better let it go. Greetings Túrelio. --Euskalduna 21:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Vigneron: I think you may have misunderstood his answer. He wrote he is "not an active admin", meaning he has admin status, but doesn't many admin-actions currently. He also said, he "did not a single sysop act relating to you", meaning not doing any act, he can only do as an administrator (=sysop). So, not everything an admin writes or does, he/she is doing as of his/her admin status.
Sometimes, in such a situation as this one, it may be better for oneself to go on "wiki-holiday", meaning to stay away from Commons for some days or even weeks to cool down ones own feelings. As nothing is permanent on Commons/Wikipedia (including deletions), nothing can happen that can't be corrected/changed afterwards. --Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To sum my position here: I am not friendly at all here. I don't believe commons should be the place for political (or similar) actions to be taken. Commons is a free image repositery. Category name have to be in english. We don't need to have several language to name a category, it's an idiocy when it comes to database thinking and logic. It's the same when you see several tag on flickr to designate the same concept ('cat' / 'chat'/ 'gatto' keywords etc.) The category name is to be meant in one language, we have technical issues with category redirects, so the images might not be categorized using the redirects. i18n is coming, so we have no need to make 'exceptions' for supposed cultural reasons. I say 'we don't care', understand me correctly here: this is not our job to change the name of basque / corsican / provencal / breizt category so the cultural identity will be appearing. Keep us away of our holy war, indepancy movement or god know what, thanks for the understanding. This is not meant to convince anyone, but just to remember we don't have to take part of the political action here. It's not the french vs basque, it's the 'use english' because english is the language choosen for centralizing commons. Esby (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Turilio, I´m Euskalduna. I just want to delete the message I had deleted yesterday, simply because it seems dangerous and I fear only to read it and to see my IP, and finally because all the problem finished yesterday and I don´t want problems. I don´t ask nothing more. Greetings. Euskaldunaa 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've closed the Admin's noticeboard discussion (it should archive now) but simply removing the discussion doesn't hide your IP as there is a history page with most if not all pages on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

@Euskalduna: Seriously, you should learn the difference between not caring about something and hating something. Not caring means that as long you play by the rules, I just won't care. The actual debate was not about the basque identity, culture or people. It was about the question raised initially in Category_talk:Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port: can a category have several languages in its name? The answer is no. One must prevail for making it simple. English should be used when possible. Official names shall be used too. Someone invoqued that "basque names were shorter", well if we must do that case per case, this will lack consistency. On the should the name of a given category be changed, the answer is simple: the official name is to be used. the Basque Nation being split between two country, France & Spain, chances are non-existent that a baque name can rationnaly be considered as official. The same is true for the Corsica and for the Bretagne, for example. It's not related against a culture, it's just we must choose one name over another one. So, what discussing about the basque culture, people and such will bring here? honestly, nothing. We know the problem, we sadly know the answer, we can't make all people happy. An emotionnal argumentation will not change anything, the problem is not cultural, it is technical. Accepting a compromise will only lead to more problems in the long term. Esby (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, you have said that you´d closed the noticeborard, and I said that all it´s finished. What happens here? Euskaldunaa 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This thread on COM:AN has been closed already, equivalent to be forgotten. So, no need to bother about. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
O.K. Turelio. Greetings. Esby: Basque geographical and village names are official in Spain, the Basque Language is official in South Basque Country (no in North Basque Country: France linguistically is a very very Centralist or Jacobin State, to say something "light" or "sweet", where all the languages of France, except French Language, are no oficial and haven´t the most basic linguistic rights). The rest of the discussion, I have said I do not want to enter into discussions that lead nowhere. Let it be. Euskaldunaa 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks :) I was looking for photos for Jvari article and found that. It's totally not Jvari, (look here) but another church - the Svetitskhoveli cathedral. So I'll use the rename template :) Thanks again.--Gaeser (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) ✓ Done--Gaeser (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Turelio, du hast einige meiner Bilder verlinkt "Re-used" zur einer Seite in der meine Bilder ohne Angabe der Lizenz veröffentlicht wurde. So zB.:File:LandhausBregenz2.JPG. Für was ist das gut? --Böhringer (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nun ja, zunächst sollte es doch für dich von Interesse sein, zu erfahren, wo deine Bilder verwendet werden. Außerdem hast du auf diese Weise die Möglichkeit, deine Rechte als Urheber einzufordern. Commons-seitig kommt hinzu, dass wir (leider recht lückenhaft) versuchen, die Benutzung der Bilder auf Commons durch Dritte, inbesondere in Medien, zu erfassen; siehe Category:Commons as a media source. Dass ich zunächst nur das Link gepostet habe, lag an Zeitmangel. Korrekt sieht es dann so aus wie hier. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
verstehe; ich habe diesen Herrn bereits angeschrieben und die Seite hier Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mängel/Einzelnutzungen gemeldet. Darauf hin hat er einige Korrekturen vorgenommen. Und die Bilder, die du jetzt verlinkt hast hat er so stehen lassen. Ich weiss jetzt auch nicht, wie ich mit ihm weitermachen soll.?! --Böhringer (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Du könntest ihn hierauf Commons:Weiterverwendung verweisen; dort gibt es ganz praktische Anleitungen. Weitergehende Maßnahmen eher nicht öffentlich. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
jo, vielen Dank das werde ich bei Gelegenheit auch machen. --Böhringer (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


OK, the links to my other stuff I got... but the "advertising..." Look, I wasn't really trying to advertise my performance troupe. I was advertising myself. Yes, I was dishing all about myself. I just wanted to tell my life story. I want to be able to talk aout myself on my own personal user page. That's fair, isn't it? And I wanted to put my e-mail address so that other wiki could pen pal each other and all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANE YOUSSEF (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9. Feb. 2010 (UTC)

I did only perform the deletion, the page had been tagged as spam by Nard the Bard. Anyway, first read Commons:Project scope and then try again to write your userpage somewhat less promotional. As you haven't uploaded any media so far, remember that the space of a userpage is provided for people who contribute to this project, not as free webspace for everybody. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Natalie Paley and Lucien Lelong.jpg

Because the picture is a screenshot from a documentary that I took myself, but I don't know how is the procedure to classify it that way, so I took the chance and uploaded it normally, hoping someone would do something about it! :D Tuga9890 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The image might eventually be public domain. But for an evaluationm we need to know when it was first published and who took it. Could you do some research on that? --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the image was ever published. I believe it's from Prince Mikhail Romanov's archive, since most pictures concerning Natalie Paley come from there and it was probably broadcast with no cost by the network in 1998, which is the year of the documentary. The author is most probably another Romanov family member. I'd say Prince Feodor Alexandrovich or one of his brothers. But now that you mention it, it's certainly free of copyright since the date goes no further than 1933, maximum. I'll change the tag. Tuga9890 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No source or license

This uploader never gives a clear flickr source for his images. Occasionally he says 'SAFA'...whatever that means but I think all his images could be deleted or placed in a mass DR by you. He never says own work so it is probably a copy vio, I think. I only tagged a few photos for speedy deletion. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth May 2.jpg

Thanks for tagging the previous' uploader's images with npd. As an aside, this image is a puzzle. I don't know if it should be passed or not since the photographer is apparently not the flickr owner. This is a hard case. The uploader seems OK from his other uploads. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When checking the Flickr-user's other images, most were NC. So, he seems to know what he is doing and, for now, we can assume that he has the rights. Anyway, I found no way to contact him, stupid Flickr system. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for telling me what should be done here. Obviously the uploader contacted the flickrownerr but I wasn't sure who held the rights. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: This modern art fails US FOP and failed flickr review too. It cannot remain on Commons: File:Jeff Air Walk of fame.jpg --Leoboudv (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ gone. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for acting here in this clear case. With best Regards from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr. Karl-Heinz Hochhaus

Hallo Túrelio, dieser User wird nicht müde, in deutscher Sprache zu kategorisieren. Ich habe ihm hier erklärt, dass nur englische Kategorienamen erlaubt sind und ihm Hilfe angeboten. Doch statt einer Reaktion darauf kategorisiert er weiterhin in deutscher Sprache. Nehme Du doch bitte mal Kontakt mit ihm auf! Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe ihm mal einen fetten Hinweis auf die Userseite gesetzt, damit er deine Erläuterung mal liest bzw. beachtet. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio, I copied this from another page and added my comment. Miho (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

copyvio Miho (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image not found under that URL. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Photo is now in a slide show; photo nr 31 (of 70) in Miho (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've deleted it now. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Miho (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Diana Eng, Fairytale Fashion, Eyebeam Open Studios- Fall 2009, 20091023.10D.55465.P1.L1.SQ.BW, SML.jpg

In response to your disputed tag, I do see the watermark in the bottom left hand corner. However, this does at least confirm the author's identity. The image is marked as CC-by on the author's Flickr account. --Simonxag (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But the NC-ND is also in the EXIF. This contradiction will produce endless conflicts. Please try to contact the photographer for a written permission to OTRS or to provide you an image version without the NC-ND problem in EXIF and watermark. --Túrelio (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried emailing him. --Simonxag (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There's now OTRS permission, so I've removed the disputed tag. Mr. Lee has also provided an alternate version on Flickr with CC-BY-SA on the picture in place of NC-ND. I could upload that as well but now there doesn't seem to be much point. --Simonxag (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! IMHO the photo was well worth your effort. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Dijon Tram.jpg

Bonjour, vous avez supprimez une image alors que j'étais en discussion avec l'administrateur chargé du litige. Vous avez fait preuve d'une impatience à la limite de l'abus de pouvoir. Rigil (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
English version : Hello, you deleted an image while I was in discussion with the administrator in charge of the process. You have made a hastefull and illegitimate decision. 16:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Rigil (talk)

It was neither a illegitimate nor a hasty action. It had been tagged for copyvio-speedy on February 11 and I deleted it on February 14. For your information the original speedy tag:
  • {{speedy delete|copyvio : this map is ''derivative work'' of a copyrighted picture : as stated in the lower-right corner, the original picture belongs to "Mairie de Dijon" (City of Dijon, and their pictures are neither released under a free licence, nor in the public domain), the author has just added the tramway lines on it. Thx in advance, [[User:Alchemica|Alchemica]] ([[User talk:Alchemica|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)}}
If there is consent that it is not a copyvio/derivative, I will gladly un-delete it. But you have to provide a proof of that consent. Just for your information, that an image is available for download on a website (était librement téléchargeable), doesn't mean it is free (of copyright). --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


didn't you just delete this? Anyway, all the best, glad to see you're still around (even if I'm not) Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Has already been deleted, anyway. With such pages where the uploader seems to have a sort of honest intent and has put some effort into it, though fully out of scope, I prefer to tag the page as oos-speedy for some hours to allow him/her to recognize that we honor his/her effort, but that it was the wrong place. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Wat Chom Si stupa (2009a).jpg

Dear Admin Turelio,

If you can, please pass this picture. I had originally uploaded the photo but forgot to add a license. So, even though it passed flickr review, I uploaded the image incorrectly. I have now added the right license and request another review of this great picture by a third party like you. I hope you can this image is worth your time. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind help. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


My apologies for not replying. I agreed with your points and made the changes, probably would have got there eventually myself, but not until I properly took account of both the duplication and the error. Many thanks.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio, mein Englisch ist nicht gut genug, um diese Lizenzbedingungen zu verstehen. Dürfen moderne Briefmarken-Scans (1982) aus Ungarn veröffentlicht werden? Gruß, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hallo R. Engelhardt,
ich habe mal das 44-seitige (!) pdf-Dokument durchgeschaut, aber keinerlei Erwähnung von stamp oder postal gefunden. Ich würde dir deshalb raten, mal einen hu-Muttersprachler danach zu fragen, z.B. User:Grin, User:O, beides admins, oder einen aus dieser Category:User hu-N. M.E. können viele Ungarn auch etwas deutsch. --Túrelio (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reggae en español

ey, I don't speak english very much, just a little. the following images:

File:TheThreatmen Album.jpg
are taken from my photocamera in front of my TV, there's no copyrighted and in the image in any side appears the logo or property logo.
File:Sub7-2.15.png take from, I just re-uploaded it.
the others images, I can't probe that copyright 'cause I don't have info, so you can delete others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinman (talk • contribs) 18. Februar 2010, 00:30 Uhr (UTC)

Hola Muffinman,
gracias para tu feedback. El problema es que los images del TV usualmente son copyrighted. No puedes tener un photo del contenido de la television. Aqui hay informacion y exemplos que es licito para upload a Commons. File:Sub7-2.15.png es una otra cosa. Esa imagen es licito solo en :en-Wikipedia porque hay un ley sobre "fair use" en los Estados Unidos. "Fair use" no es licito en Commons y en otras Wikipedias. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thanks, man, I understood, thanks for all, well I will meet some artists here in Panamá for interviews and to take then some photos from my own camera ;) have nice days, and God Bless you ;) --Muffinman (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Well actually File:Dianavickers2.jpg is the doubled version of File:Dianavickers.jpg and not the other way around.... --grin 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vilnius all saints escriva.jpg

Good evening. I'm afraid that I won't be able to receive the necessary permission, at least not in the nearest future. When I took this picture, I was convinced that there's freedom of panorama in Lithuania so that it would be possible to load it to Commons. If it's not the case, I understand you have to delete the photo and I accept it. Regards, Loraine (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of my photo - granting permissions

To I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of MehganWithFins.jpg in all sizes, view thumb version here: thumb. I agree to publish that work under the free license

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:
GNU head Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.
w:en:Creative Commons
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

You may select the license of your choice.


I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Thank you, 2/20/2010, Mehgan Heaney-Grier, copyright owner of photo and

Replied on your talkpage and per email. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


This is a speedy I believe. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fotos Panograf

ich habe soeben auf Ihre Nachricht geantwortet. Die Fotos stammen komplett von mir.

Schöne Grüße — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maw87 (talk • contribs) 22. Februar 2010, 12:09 Uhr (UTC)

I left you a Message

Hi, I left you a message here MaenK.A.Talk 17:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

categorization and credits

object :

File:Engbrox Tina FDR 2009.jpg

File:Engbrox secondary road 2009.jpg

Thank you for your help Túrelio. Your categorization and crediting is perfect. I uploaded the 2 reproductions with the permission of the artist, he is alright with the GNU licence. I can sent a written permission but I do not know to wich email adress?

--Thomas1453 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas1453,
for a permission text template and the email address see Commons:Email templates. In regard to the license, I would recommend choosing a Creative-Commons license[5], either CC-BY (mandatory attribution of the artist) or CC-BY-SA (mandatory attribution of the artist and in case of a derivative, it has to be released under the same license as the original). The problem with the GNU (or GFDL) license is, that they were never designed for media and they make re-use nearly impossible (you have to put the full license text besides the image). --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio The artist sent the permission for a CC-BY-SA licence to "permissions-commons@..." this morning. ThankS. Thomas.--Thomas1453 (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I've added a OTRS-pending tag to both images as it may take some time until the approval tickets are issued. --Túrelio (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello! You have asked about a new photo. It's here, so you can delete the old one. TR (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. By the way, what was the "problem with licence" with the old one? And are you Wanda Gosławska? If not, you likely need her/his permission. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Alfred Boucher - Camille Claudel lisant.jpg

I don't know the phtographer's name. So delete it.

Je ne connais pas le photographe. C'était il y a trois ans, j'ai dû prendre l'image sur une plaquette sans copyright sans chercher plus loin.PRA (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, regretably. Thanks for the feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to create. . .

Hello, I don't know how to create a section or area that shows the bishops of the Sacramento Diocese. This would include Jaime Soto, William Weigand, Francis Quinn and former auxiliary bishops John Richard Garcia along with Alphonse Gallegos. Sorry but I am a little under the weather and can't think of the media section title this is called. Ideally, I would like all those pictures that I took to be categorized together.--Morenooso (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I assume you are talking about Sacramento, California, yes? Well, the "problem" is that the category tree for Category:Bishops from the United States is still in an early stage of development on Commons. Compare it with Category:Roman Catholic bishops from Germany to see the difference. The advantage is, that you are free to start with Category:Bishops of Sacramento, California, Category:Bishops of California or whatever seems to be appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Category:Bishops of Sacramento, California or [[:Category:Bishops of the Diocese of Sacramento (California}]] seem the way to go. I've never created a category and don't know how to do that. Part of the intent would the ability to place on the en:Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento one of those tags that states Wikicommons has a photo album or such type of the bishops. Sorry but I am fighting a cold and my computing power today is nil.
Of the two categories, I believe the best description is [[:Category:Bishops of the Diocese of Sacramento (California}]] as the diocese encompasses more than just the city for which both are named.--Morenooso (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There we are: Category:Bishops of the Diocese of Sacramento, California. I've already added an interwiki to :en. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
What's an interwiki? I just looked at the Wikipedia article on Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento article where that tag might be most appropriate. It has a link to all the diocesan bishops. Thanks for all your help.--Morenooso (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Interwiki (links) are links from one (Wikimedia) project to another, as in this case from Commons to :en and to :it, and vice-versa from :en to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You're good! I turn my back to work on a sockpuppet case and bam! You're done! Mucho gracias.--Morenooso (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Missouri Botanical Garden

Dear Túrelio,

It seems that you have instantly deleted something. Is there any process that is followed? any comment period? Or is something instantly deleted because you say so? Yours, Daderot (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daderot,
as I had notified you before, I've deleted the photo File:Missouri Botanical Garden - Climatron with artworks by Dale Chihuly.JPG with the glass-art works by Dale Chihuly, who are still copyrighted with the artist. Regrettably there is no freedom of panorama for non-buildings in the US. Therefore, this photo was copyvio/derivative, as I had also clearly stated in the edit summary: "Derivative of non-free content: Glass sculpture exists in the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis, Missouri. There is no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art in the United States". Get the US laws changed and I would be glad to have this photo on Commons. And, yes, copyvios are prone to speedy/immediate deletion. And to answer your other question (though it will not help with this image), one can ask for un-deletion on COM:UR. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologies - I was angry and quite wrong. On reflection, my main objection was that there appeared to be no way to discuss or appeal your unilateral decision. I would suggest that the "deleted" message should contain information about both options, since they do seem to exist. (It mentioned the image's discussion page, but that page had been deleted with the image.) With apologies again, Daderot (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about flags (File:Flag of Hungary (state).svg)

Hi. I've found this message at the flag_of_Hungary_(state) file: "This file has been universally replaced by File:Flag_of_Hungary.svg by CommonsDelinker. The replacement was issued by Túrelio with the following comment: exact or scaled-down duplicate"

  • First of all I would like to know why a duplicate is such a problem.
  • Have you made question about the Hungarian law about the national flags and symbols? Please let me know your source because that or he might be desinformed about the correct rules.
  • The state flag and the wiki designated flag image is exactly the same NOW. The Hungarian law declares two official flags for everybody around the world. I have written this in the file descriptions precisely, by the way. Wikipedia has designated one of them for Hungarian flag. I have to store both official flags in Commons to follow the laws, and a third flag image by order of a Commons editor. The flag_of_Hungary may be altered sometime, following the decision of the editor community of the Hungarian Wikipedia. If you change all of the links to the state flag to the wiki version of the flag then all of the links will be wrong when the wiki version changes. So, why is such a problem to keep two copies, with different descriptions, what you was not with regard to, to follow exactly the situation?
  • I have already asked another user about the flag problems. I asked to give me the editor, the forum or anything where I need to petition to make the proper editions on the flags. He said there is nothing like this, and there are only one rule about using Pantone colors. Yesterday he, Zscout370, an administrator made a fine devastation amongst the files of the flags of my nation. Without discussion, proposition, request or proclamation. You are the fourth editor now who feels the stimulus to arrange the thing about national flags without discussion anybody from that counrty, and without reading the file description. Well, I'm obsecrating now to you, where can I read the rules, who are the judges, the emperors or gods of the Commons or the flag department? I would like to make the things clear, I would like to finally have a talk with somebody and not to be kicked away only. Maybe the Hungarian flags could be arranged for some months, at least. Until a new hero arrives.

So, will you help me with your answers? - Orion 8 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orion 8, I will try;
1) as of our policy we prefer to have only one copy of identical images (that includes smaller versions of a larger original).
2) as I haven't started the replacement/duplicate-speedy procedure of File:Flag of Hungary (state).svg, but only continued what was started by User:Zscout370, I haven't checked any legalities, but only compared both versions by viewing and found them to be identical and, thereby, the duplicate-procedure correct in general.
3) if my guess (about identity of the images) was wrong, I'm truly sorry about the error and the eventual mess I've contributed to. Anyway, there is no conspiration by me (also an administrator, the people who are doing the cleaning-work here), User:Zscout370 or somebody else (likely) against Hungary or whatever.
4) What solution? As there is already a talkpage File talk:Flag of Hungary.svg, it might help if you could list there all (similarly looking) hungarian flags and add some words to the entry of each flag about its purpose (similar to what you have done already in the description of File:Flag of Hungary (state).svg). Thereafter we can think about how to "protect" similarly looking flags of Hungary from erroneous replacing or dupe-speedies. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. You are talking to me, and offering helping hand, this is what I can imagine as the manner of an administrator. (And of every rational editor, too.) You are the first one I have found being cooperative to find the best way. I am grateful to you. I didn't think that anybody conspirate against my country, I just see careless and disrespectful handling of important symbols. (Maybe of other nations, too, I can't notice that.) Without any discussions, which I cannot understand. I really would like to see an order among our flags, that is all I hope. Unfortunately Zscout370 is still in motion, I have to wait him to finish and then I can survey the files remained. Then I will construct the list of the flags we, Hungarians need, the purposes and the official rules. I will ask you again to help me to find the order what satisfies both the Commons editors and the Hungarian editors.

that's we

One more thing now. Zscout370 has written as "we stated", "we are standardize", I have already asked a few time about "them" in vane. Do you know who that "we" are? If I would have known who "they" are I would have already tried to negotiate with them to avoid conflicts. - Orion 8 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on Zscouts370's talkpage about this discussion. IMHO, Users, administrators or other experienced users, often use the term "we" when they are convinced that their statement/claim is backed by project policy or is simply the way how it is usually done on that project. Of course, it's not forbidden to challenge that. --Túrelio (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As I was now told by Zscout370 that "Everything is already done", I withdraw myself from this discussion. In case of further problems, you may find help at COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Thank you very much again. (I liked the cartoon, it's perfect.) But when I'm ready with my review about the Hungarian flags may I ask you to criticise my point of view and to give hints to be fulfilled the local rules? If it takes time, I will be patiently waiting, of course. - Orion 8 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Silva TRV6.jpg

Hola que tal. Veo que has borrado una foto que subí de un coche de carreras. Es cierto que la tomé de un sitio de INternet. PERO DEBIAS HABER LEÍDO QUE CLARAMENTE EXPRESABA QUE SU AUTOR ME PERMITIÓ EL USO DE ESA FOTOGRAFÍA Y QUE YO LO ACLARABA EXPRESAMENTE EN LA PÁGINA DE DESCRIPCIÓN. Deberías haber leído antes de borrar esa imagen.

Por favor, contestame en Español. No comprendo el inglés.

Hasta luego--Diego HC (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hola Diego,
perdon, pero yo no sabe mucho espanol. Tu has escrito en la descripcion: "Fotografía del Mercedes Benz TRV6 de Juan Manuel Silva. La misma fue tomada por el fotógrafo argentino Cholo Cano y solicitada para su publicación tal cual lo establecen las leyes de Copyright" y nada mas. Ademas, no es sufficiente escribir "ME PERMITIÓ EL USO DE ESA FOTOGRAFÍA". Necessitamos una declaración de permiso por escrito del autor mismo. Para un modelo de declaración de permiso, ver la "Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones" en Commons:Modelos de mensajes. Tome esa, entra el nombre (File:Silva TRV6.jpg) o la URL del imagen ( y el typo de licencia, envía todo al photographo y preguntarle a remitir la declaración a Quando has su consentimiento, diga me, y yo puede des-borrar el imagen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Gracias por el dato. A partír de ahora, a tenerlo en cuenta. Saludos!!!

OK, Thanks for the data. From now on, to have it in account. Greetings!!!

P.D: Excuse me. My english is very bad. I had to translate my writings with the translator, That of English to Spanish he is very very bad. --Diego HC (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)



Hi Túrelio!

ich hab eine kurze Frage und vielleicht kannst du mir helfen. Ich hab vor Ewigkeiten mal das Bild rechts zu einem svg konvertiert und hochgeladen. Da hatte es noch einen schwarzen Rahmen. Jetzt hatt User:F l a n k e r irgend etwas mit dem Bild gemacht sodass nur noch er als Uploader erscheint. Im svg File kann man erkennen, dass er/sie die Wellen von meinem File übernommen hat da ich sie (in Inkscape) "wave" benannt hatte und die heissen im jetztigen svg file immer noch so. Könntest du als admin mal schauen ob das file vorher gelöscht wurde und dann erneut hochgeladen? Danke! Amada44 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ja, deine Vermutung war richtig. "Deine" Version wurde am 08:47, 18. Nov. 2009 von User:Zscout370 wegen "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission" gelöscht und die neue Version 2,5 Stunden später von Flanker hochgeladen. Ich denke dass es ein Zufall war. Vielleicht hatte Flanker das ursprüngliche Bild auf seiner Watchlist. Nimm am besten mal mit dem löschenden Admin, Zscout370, Kontakt auf und bitte um Wiederherstellung der Versionsgeschichte und der Beschreibung. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Danke für die schnelle Info. Ich fag mal bei Zscout370 nach. Hätte das Löschen aber nicht über einen Löschantrag laufen müssen? Ich hab nämlich nichts davon mitbekommen,... Amada44 (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Jetzt wo du es sagst ;-). Es ist in der Tat doch etwas merkwürdig. Der letzte Edit vor der Löschung (18.11.2009) war am 9. Mai 2009. Da war der Inhalt der Beschreibungsseite wie folgt:
  • {{Created with Inkscape}} {{Information| |Description= Coat of arm of Regione Basilicata |Source= [[:it:Immagine:Basilicata-Stemma.png]] |Date= 2006-12-20 |Author= [[User:Amada44]] |Permission= {{PD-Flag}} |other_versions= }} Original "Regione-Basilicata-Stemma.png" file from [[User:Sinigagl]]. Used Nr. 2 of this file Coat_of_arms.svg: {{border|[[Image:Coat_of_arms.svg|100px]]}} and created the waves in Inkscape. [[User:Amada44|Amada44]] 09:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) [[Category:Coats of arms of regions of Italy|Basilicata]] [[Category:Basilicata| ]] .

Das Problem könnte aber von dem {{PD-Flag}}-template herrühren, weil das vielleicht nicht mehr gültig o.ä. war. Dennoch, eine Benachrichtigung hätte auf jeden Fall erfolgen müssen; vergleiche File:Pennsylvania state flag.png. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! Ich hab Zscout370 darauf hin angesprochen aber die Disskusion mit ihm ist nicht weder aufschlussreich noch beteiligt er sich ernsthaft daran. Ich finde es nicht okay, dass eine Datei welche von mir erstellt wurde gelöscht wird, und dann meine Datei von jemand anderen hochgeladen wird als PD-AndererUser. PD-Flag war ja eine korrekte Lizenz zu dem Zeitpunkt als ich es hochgeladen habe. Ausserdem, wenn es berechtigt war die Datei zu löschen, dann müsste die jetzige Datei auch gelöscht werden da die Datei von mir ja ohne gültige Lizenz hochgeladen wurde und damit nicht gültigerweise im PD war und Flanker damit keine Berechtigung hat sie hochzuladen. Ich finde, dass Zscout370 zwinged mir eine Nachricht hätte schicken müssen! Und er soll es richten! Amada44 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Amada44,
war 1 Tag offline. Werde mich am Wochenende drum kümmern, es läuft ja nichts weg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ja, kein Problem. Ich meine, es ist ja nicht ultimativ wichtig. Zscout370 hätte mich informieren müssen. Wenn nicht Flanker die Datei wieder hochgeladen hätte, wäre die weg. Und ich hätte mein Schweiss mit dem erstellen der svg Version für nix gemacht und das ärgert mich! Ziemlich! LG, Amada44 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/USA images with FOP issues

Ok, I get it - but why is it that Category:Dale Chihuly is happily populated with other images? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is one of the contradictions of communities as Commons, ;-). Of course no; likely it's because they weren't yet discovered as problems or nobody had the guts to tag them as copyvios, which not so rarely results in fierce opposition from the photographers. I would have to check all single images to answer that completely. One of the images in the first line was shot in Kew Gardens, London. As the FIO law in the UK is rather broad, it may covered. --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some help please

Hi Túrelio, may I please ask you to rename this image File:Mission Blue Butterfly 1.JPG to: "common checkered skipper" Sorry, for the personal request, but I got email from a reader, who asked to do it ASAP. Thank you for your time. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove it from the articles. Looks like it is ID in the right way there.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It was fast :) Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Hallo! Bitte überdenke das nochmal. Die andere Seite mag das Bild klauen, bei dem Uploader sind allerdings alle Bilder ohne Kamera-EXIF-Daten früher oder später als copyvio identifiziert worden. [User talk:Tantarantana|DAS] muss man erstmal hinkriegen ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Schau mal, ob das File talk:Tomba d'Elisenda de Montcada (detall).jpg eine Entscheidung erleichtert. Ich habe ca. 15 Seiten Google-Bilder durchgeblättert und sonst nichts nennenswertes gefunden. Der Uploader war auf :ca noch im Januar aktiv. Hab mal ein Interwiki zwischen den Userseiten gesetzt und ihn konkret nach dem Bild gefragt[6]. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Danke! Der letzte Link auf der Seite - ist das ein Grund? --Polarlys (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Normalerweise wäre es das. Aber, wenn man beide Bilder direkt vergleicht, [7] und [8], erscheint mir die ImageShack-Version von deutlich schlechterer Qualität; sie wirkt "aufgeblasen", so als sei sie aus einer kleineren Version hochgerechnet worden. Hinzu kommt, dass ImageShack in Bezug auf Urheberrechte absolut wertlos ist, da es dort weder eine Prüfung des Status, noch eine Angabe des Copyrights gibt. Tatsächlich habe ich schon eine ganze Reihe meiner Bilder illegal auf ImageShack wiedergefunden, wobei die Beschwerdeprozedur dank DCMA so umständlich konstruiert wurde, dass ich meistens nur einen unfreundlichen Kommenatar unter das jeweilige Bild gesetzt habe. Der Uploader war auch auf :ca seit Ende Januar nicht mehr aktiv, hat also nicht geantwortet. Anyway, wenn du fest davon überzeugt bist, dass es sich um eine copyvio, werde ich mich der Löschung nicht widersetzen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


You've lost me here. The PNG is entirely redundant and inferior to the SVG. What's the problem with removing it? ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not my choice. See the last sentence in {{SupersededPNG}}. (In former times, I did delete such cases, but then was admonished by my admin colleagues.) However, you can file it for regular deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're implying that because it's a PNG it somehow magically isn't allowed to be deleted, you should rethink the situation a bit: the PNG is derived from the SVG, it was merely uploaded first. They are the exact same image, one file merely presents it in a raster (inferior) form.
If you're just saying that other admins will think this way and yell at you if you delete the PNG, then please let me know and I'll mark it as {{duplicate}} again and you can just leave it alone so some admin who isn't scared to do their job will delete it.
Otherwise, I'm not going to jump through all those bureaucratic hoops just to get an obvious duplicate deleted, it can just sit there taking up space. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:CoA_of_Transilvania.png is a precedent for satisfying an author's deletion request. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:US90A.png is another relevant precedent. However, while Commons:Superseded images policy doesn't prohibit deletion, "[c]omplaints about PNG images being replaced by inferior quality SVG images, or even by factually incorrect ones can not be checked by the public or the members of a WikiProject" appears to apply here and would preclude deletion. Consequently, I think Túrelio acted correctly. Either do as Túrelio suggests and nominate it for regular deletion, or move on. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh, deleted. When PNGs come from SVGs, they are essentially scaled-down duplicates, not superseded files in my book. Rocket000 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Foto eines Faltbootes

Hallo, ich wollte ein Foto aus der russischen Wikipedia mit russischer Beschreibung in Wikimeda übernehmen und mit deutscher Beschreibung zugänglich machen. Was ist daran falsch? Und wenn Du das Foto einfach löschst, sage mir bitte, wie ich es besser hinbekommen kann. Das Verfahren scheint ja nicht unüblich zu sein, es ist jedenfalls auf den Hilfeseiten beschrieben Danke. Enigma51 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Enigma51, sorry dass du nicht informiert wurdest. Martin H. hatte das Bild als Duplikat des älteren File:Нептун.jpg speedy-getagt und ich habe die Löschung ausgeführt, nachdem ich geprüft hatte, ob es tatsächlich ein Duplikat ist und nirgends mehr verwendet wird. Vielleicht kannst du die deutsche Beschreibung einfach bei Нептун.jpg hinzufügen. --Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Das habe ich versucht, es gelingt mir aber nicht, in der russischen Wikipedia die Bearbeitungsseite zu öffnen. Ich würde das Foto gerne in den Artikel über [Hannes Lindemann] einfügen, denn es handelt sich dabei um dessen berühmtes Faltboot, mit dem er den Atlantik überquert hat. Ich kann natürlich auch das Foto mit kyrillischem Text einbinden. Ich fände es aber besser, in der deutschen Wikipedia ein commons-Foto mit deutscher oder englischer Beschreibung zu haben. Ich will jetzt aber auch nicht darauf bestehen, wenn irgendwelche formalen Gründe dagegen sprechen Enigma51 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ähem, File:Нептун.jpg kannst du in :ru natürlich nicht ändern, weil es auf Commons liegt ;-). Aber eh nicht mehr nötig, weil ich deine Beschreibung und cat jetzt selbst eingefügt habe. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Allerverbindlichsten Dank !!! Enigma51 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


This 3 week old DR above can be closed as delete now, I think. Even Captain tucker has said here on my talkpage he wishes a decision were made to keep or delete them but this photo's uses have been replaced on wiki by another photo. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roland Bierge

Hello Túrelio,

About your question concerning Roland Bierge : "No, I belong to Roland BIERGE 'Friends Society, and we work with his widow (Marie-Madeleine BIERGE)

MAURICEMONGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) (UTC) (User:MONGEMAURICE)

Thanks for your feedback. However, as his widow is likely the heir of his (copy)rights, then you need to provide a written permission from her. So here for a permission template Commons:Messages type (Déclaration de consentement). --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Filmmaking of 'Black Thursday' on crossway of ulica Świętojańska and Aleja Józefa Piłsudskiego in Gdynia.


I added "rename" to some files in this category. Please fast rename, because I must upload more files correct succesion. Greetings from Poland. --Starscream (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. But next time write precisely which files you want to have renamed, so that I don't need to scroll through the whole category to search for them. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank You and greetings. --Starscream (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Jared Leto - Wembley Arena.jpg

See the permission.--Unwish (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no permission. See my comment on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Filmmaking of 'Black Thursday' on crossway of ulica Świętojańska and Aleja Józefa Piłsudskiego in Gdynia.


My absence of mind! Please rename this files: Change numbers on end to one less. Because chronological succesion of category. Thanks and sorry for absence of mind. --Starscream (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank You --Starscream (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


This image at Tiananmen Square is surely a non-free fair use one. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope not to anger you, but I changed it to rfd, because it's more complicted than it seems and a discussion might be of value for similar cases in the future. I will likely be deleted anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your decision. The consensus in the DR seems to be delete. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ojciec Pio odprawiajacy Msze.jpg

Hi! You have deleted my file - File:Ojciec Pio odprawiajacy Msze.jpg. Let me tell you the history of this file so that you understand its not an illegal file. I have translated the article “Pio of Pietrelcina”: from English Wikipedia into polish and placed it in Polish Wikipedia as: “Pio z Pietrelciny”: I also placed there a picture: File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg from this article in English Wikipedia but it did not display. I do not know why it happened. I also placed it as Plik:File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg (file in polish is plik in Wikipedia) but it also did not display. I had to download this file from the article Pio of Pietrelcina, from the file window and place it once again on Wikimedia Commons. I wrote all purposes why this file is placed on Wikipedia Commons and allowed to be used, which are:

“Fair Use because (rationale) this photograph is from a 'private scanned-in photo collection , not from copyrighted public materials such as magazines, movies or press photos. The photograph is essential to illustrate the ministry and activity of Fr. Pio OFMCap. Photo taken in the 1940s. Please note that no copyright demands were ever made by the photographer (layman).”

Unfortunately image which I placed was deleted from Wikimedia Commons in short time. I am asking you to help me, because this file is very important in this article. Can you tell me why this file (original one) did not display in my article? What did I do wrong? Do I need a permission to do this from the user who placed it? Please help me to place this file in my article or place it once again on Wikimedia Commons. Princess Angel (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Princess Angel,
no, I did not delete that image, I only notified you of the impending deletion. It was deleted by User:Justass.
Now about the image This image is copyrighted and is used on :en under the so-called fair use-rationale. As fair-use is allowed only on :en (and eventually on very few other wikipedias), the file itself is actually located on :en Wikipedia and not on Commons. Therefore you cannot link this image into any other Wikipedia. As the fair-use rationale is based on a law of the United States, it is not valid in other countries and does not cover any images on Commons. As of that, images under fair use are not allowed on Commons. So, if you want to use the image on :pl, you have to get written permission by the rights holder. That will not be easy, but if you get it, we could then host the image also on Commons and all Wikipedias could use it. Good luck. --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Image:AUTH - Faculty of Education.jpg

Hi Turelio, sorry to bother you but I just noticed that you have deleted the file Image:AUTH - Faculty of Education.jpg. I took this picture myself with the permission of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki authorities, in whose ground the building is situated. I have the explicit permission of the owner of the building and therefore the general Freedom of Panorama Greek law does not apply in this case. Furthermore, I believe that I should have been notified before the image got deleted, so that I would have the chance to provide you with all this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chggr (talk • contribs) 13. März 2010, 21:16 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Chggr, sorry that you weren't notified by the copyvio-tagger (which I wasn't); but that may have happened because you weren't the uploader to Commons (actually it was a bot: File Upload Bot). I can undelete the image, but you will likely have to "defend" it in front of the community. Just be "warned" ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Neverland valley ranch.jpg

Is this image copyrighted Turelio? It appears to be a scan of an original map and thus a derivative work. But only you can decide here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  • This seems to be a scan of a map but you have not said anything. So, I don't know what to do. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
But only you can decide here. - He he, you really have enough own expertise already.
In regard to the Neverland map: it's rather surely a scan of a print, eventually distributed to visitors. As it is not a typical map, but rather a drawing with some artistic creativity, it is likely copyrighted. And even if it had been a publicly displayed plan, it wouldn't be covered by FOP as that is only valid for buildings in the US. Therefore, it has to go, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of England

I was going to open a Cfd over it but was a bit tardy and it has already been deleted, basically I think the speedy nomination of it was mistaken, since it confuses country with sovereign state, and although England is not a sovereign state it is a country. There is also the issue of that there was no United Kingdom before the Acts of Union, so ships such as the Golden Hinde, Mary Rose and Sovereign of the Seas are rightly English ships.KTo288 (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What are we going to do now, un-deleting or recreating? --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
We could talk about it for a while, gauge what the consensus is on it, better to get whatever we decide right then to recreate it, to see it deleted again later as being superfluous.KTo288 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Maestro Kristian Koev

Hello, dear, Túrelio! Thank you for the information sent to me conserning my images uploaded: File:Koev.JPG File:Goldenflute2.JPG File:Vivaldi - cover.jpg File:Kristian Koev with Flute1.jpg File:3-1-.jpg File:Kristiyan Koev Brazil concert.jpg

All these files have been uploaded by me after the explicit approval by Maestro Kristian Koev himself through his publishing company "Atelie" Ltd as well as the article itself. Some of the photos in his personal website are created by me (the album cover-Vivaldi) under a contract for designing. I can upload the contract and prove the permission to upload the same photos.

The same images are present in my personal collection of photos and are approved by the same company to be circulated and spread when and where needed. May you please, restore them, as there were? Or if not, I am ready to send the contract signed in order to prove copyright protection of the same images.

Best regards, Symphonytheater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphonytheater (talk • contribs) 09:51, 14. Mär. 2010 (UTC)

Hi Symphonytheater,
I'll look into that later this day. You don't need to upload the permission, but you will have to email it to OTRS. That is our procedure for copyrighted image that are uploaded by somebody else than the rights holder. --Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete same image

Hi! I¡m looking for mistakes at Bogotá City page, and i found one. This file is the same, that this one, the original. Thank you. --Daviddavid00 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ gone. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Alphonse Gallegos and and a new question

Hello, after a rough start on this one, OTRS approved the file upload. When I got their email on Friday, I almost shot through the roof.

I have a question about something else I have concerning another Sacramento bishop. Several weeks ago, while at a luncheon I brought a copy of Bishop Francis Quinn's article on Wikipedia along with the picture here on Wikicommons. I had him sign the photo which I want to upload for posterity. At the same time, I mentioned his Wikipedia article and asked him about the prayer on it. He confirmed he wrote it (and, actually said a poem that day). I gave him a copy of the article and had him sign his autograph next to the paragraph with his retirement poem.

The question I have is that all the images/pages would be scanned. In addition, I would like to have someone crop his sig and have that posed on his Wikipedia article like ones for Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, etal.

What would be the best permissions to use and should can I claim the works as mine or use some other type? The article shows the date along with http information at the bottom of each page. --Morenooso (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Will try to reply later. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

asking for permitions to upload the File:amor_de_estrellas.jpg

Hello, Just today i was uploading the image: amor_de_estrellas.jpg, but it was delete beacuse it need permition due to the fact it is a cd cover. Im agree that this image is a Cd cover, altough, this cd was made without a record company, was an independent album and Im Fernando Alarcon's daughter and I have his permition to use the images of his albums. Hope it is enought to have the permition to placed the image. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natualarcon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15. Mär. 2010 (UTC)

Hi Natualarcon,
mi mas sincero pésame por la muerte de su padre.
If your mother is the legal heir of your father, could you ask her to send us a permission? If you are his heir, you can sent the permission by yourself, from your personal email account (will NOT be published). Please go to Commons:Modelos de mensajes, take the "Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones", enter the filename, the license of choice, add the date, sign it (your mother or you) and forward it to If that is possible, drop me a note, so that I can un-delete the image, until the permission has arrived. Gracias. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


This image above of the Gulf of Kotor should be deleted. It has a 1 month npd tag on it. It is only used on 1 wiki page and there are many other photos on Commons of Kotor gulf too. So, its replacable. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, sadly. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooklah the Moc!!

You deleted the images of the album covers, could you please tell us why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonycpc (talk • contribs) 16. März 2010, 18:21 Uhr (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. Actually, I didn't delete any of your uploads. I only notified you of the impending deletion. Album covers are copyrighted by the artists and /or record company. Even if you legally own a CD, you are not allowed to scan the cover and upload it under a free license to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Croazia and Benin

Yes I did - I agree, there is violation of privacy policy; if you can, please remove the files you mentioned below; thank you!--Decio Mure (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Decio Mure, would you comment on the speedy requests for File:Croazia episodio 1996.jpg and File:Impegno umanitario in Benin.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little bit sad about File:Croazia episodio 1996.jpg which was rather sweet. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Filmmaking of 'Black Thursday' on crossway of ulica Świętojańska and Aleja Józefa Piłsudskiego in Gdynia.


Please rename this files: Change numbers on end to one less. Because I added "badname" to file which You deleted. Very good. To chronological succesion of category. Thanks and sorry for absence of mind. Thanks. --Starscream (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Starscream (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why erase my pictures?

it's my picture and I own the copyright.

18 mars 2010 kl. 13.30 Túrelio (Diskussion | bidrag) raderade "File:Websizedposter210x300.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: copyright protected film poster) 18 mars 2010 kl. 13.30 Túrelio (Diskussion | bidrag) raderade "File:Websizedposter.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: copyright protected film poster) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salkcin (talk • contribs) 18. März 2010, 15:08 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Salkcin,
film posters are usually copyrighted either by the film company or their marketing agency. Though you may make a photography of a film poster, hanging somewhere around, you are not allowed to publish it, because the rights of your photo still belong to the original rights holder. If you are a representative of either the film company or the agency, then please send a written permission to, as explained on OTRS. Also, see: COM:CB#Posters: --Túrelio (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Files uploaded by Mirzali

Vielen Dank für die wertvolle Anweisungen. Mit freundlichen Grüssen! -Mirzali (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry for my poor English (thats why i wrote in Swedish in the first). I was missled in a way, and I later got knowledge of that the person I got the permission from wasn't the real copyright owner. I'm very sorry for the problems I've caused by this and hope the file can be removed as soon as possible. At this time it's not used at any of the Wp-projects. BiblioteKarin (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi BiblioteKarin,
funny, in my language your username is a profession: Bibliothekar. Could you post all what wrote here again into a deletion request ( {{delete}} ) on the image page? --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for helping, I hope I did it right this time..
Yes "Bibliotekarie" in Swedish is the same as Bibliothekar i belive (en:librarian), and my username is a kind of mixing of that and the name Karin. BiblioteKarin (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope I ... - not really, but I've corrected the syntax. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I need the Image put back (File:Gh 2008.jpg)


Yesterday I replaced the image of my artist on his Wiki page and now I find it has been deleted. The previous image was an unauthorized image, and so I uploaded a new image to replace it. Please re-instate my recent uploaded image or give me permissions to do this from this point forward, for all Wiki pages that he is on.

I need control of how my artist is portrayed and having the deletions happen, is just not acceptable. Please make the changes for me or give me permissions to be able to do this now and in the future.

Thank you.

Gh 2008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennhughesonline (talk • contribs) 21. März 2010, 19:56 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Glennhughesonline,
this image was deleted once by me and once by colleague Justass because you didn't provide evidence that you had permission to upload it under a free license. You uploaded it with the information "Photography: Gene Kirkland". As we don't know who you are (and you can remain anonymous, of course), we can only assume that "Gene Kirkland" is another person. Therefore you need to present written permission that this photographer allows you to upload this image under a free license. Upload under a "fair use"-rationale, the way it is possible on :en wikipedia, is not possible and not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"JNGEC Logo.jpg" this logo was deleted. Could you please help me with, how to upload a logo under this file name and what type of licensing to use. and also "JNGEC_Campus.jpg" is a picture shot by me, but the model was made my someone else. Picture of the model can be taken and distrubuted as it also appeared in few News papers. Unknowingly i put the author name as unknown, so how do the resolve this and make the picture GNU. Thank you. Priybrat (talk)

Hi Priybrat,
  • File:JNGEC Logo.jpg: you uploaded it with {{OTRS pending}}, but no permission came. Then you entered {{Non-free logo}}, which is not allowed, of course. The website from where you took this logo, has "All contents © Copyright 2009 Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Engineering College, Sundernagar." Therefore you need written permission from the rights holder, to be sent to OTRS. For a permission template, see Commons:Email templates.
  • File:JNGEC_Campus.jpg: IMHO, the model shows enough creativity to be under copyright of its creator (until 70 years after his/her death). Therefore, any photo shot from this model is under the copyright of the creator of the model, not under your copyright. (The fact that photos of this model might have appeared in newspapers, doesn't matter, because neither Commons nor Wikipedia falls under "press".) The only exception might be, if it is covered by the freedom of panorama laws of your country. Though it is unlikely, because to model seems to be located inside a building. But you have to check that by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank a lot for the information. I am new here, don't know much about commons.

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright—(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

   (s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;'
   (t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;
   (u) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of-

       (i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;  

So, that means its allowed.Therefore could you please tell me how to validate my Image.

Is that model indeed situated permanently (not just an exhibition for some time) and in a public place?
Logo: as you will need permission for the logo anyway, why not ask the institute for a high-quality reproduction/photo of the logo together with the permission? Please sign your comments with --~~~~. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
yep, it is in the main hall of the college.does that mean i can change it to GNU. Could you please tell me how to do this permission thing. sorry about the sign. 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"i can change it to GNU" - why do you want to do that? This license is rather unfitting for images. I would choose CC-BY-SA. And you have to find out the name of the artist who made the model, because he is the real author of it.
"permission thing": but I told you already in the first section of my first reply. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aylaross vs Cirt

Thank you very much for advising me. I've already given my reponse. You can read it in your free time. See: [9].--Aylaross (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Padre Pio during Mass.jpg

Hi Smith2006 wrote that I can use this file on polish Wilipedia. Help me to put it in my articule becouse this file is essential there. Princess Angel (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I answered already on the image talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But how to upload it locally to :pl ?Princess Angel (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Here. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File talk:St. Cäcilien Köln - Blick Richtung Chor.jpg

Hallo Túrelio, vielen Dank für deine Fleißarbeit beim Vermerken, wann und wo ein Bild publiziert wurde. Du hast auch 3 Verwendungen bei File talk:St. Cäcilien Köln - Blick Richtung Chor.jpg vermerkt, ich bin nur überrascht, wie du die gefunden ist. Ist ja doch ein ziemlicher Deeplink ;-) Heute habe ich vom Verlag auch ein Belegexemplar erhalten, aber nur für die Ausgabe Düren. Raymond 18:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nun, dass ich in Aachen lebe ist ja kein Geheimnis und die Aachener Ausgabe kommt ins Haus, in dem ich wohne. Der Zeitungsteil mit den aktuellen Pfarrterminen steht für alle lokalen Ausgaben des gesamten Bistums als pdf auf der Website des Verlags. Alle paar Wochen screene ich diesen Teil auf Fotos mit "Wikipedia" als Quellenangabe. Da kommt mit der Zeit dann einiges zusammen. Obwohl noch kein Bild von mir dabei war;-). --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Danke für die Aufklärung :) Raymond 19:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello Túrelio,I saw you editing the flag file, could you please check this one: [10]. I sent it to speedy delete for copyvio, but I fear that the copyvio was uploaded over a valid version. Thanks, --Darwinius (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late. It was already deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought you could restore it... Well, I'll try to contact the original uploader, I guess he was Manuel de Sousa, if I well recall. Thanks,--Darwinius (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that wasn't clear to me. Anyway, ✓ Done now. --Túrelio (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! The copyvios are the red CoAs. --Darwinius (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
But which of the remaining 3 version is the correct one? --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
All the white ones are OK, though they are repeated, I don't know if it matters.--Darwinius (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean in regard to copyright. But which image (all 3 are slightly different) represents the correct COA? --Túrelio (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
According to written law, the correct is the red one which was the copyvio. However, there seems to exist an old flag in the Dili museum using the white version, so it's possible that it was used before 1962 (date of the law defining the Dili CoA (under Portuguese administration). The differences in the white versions seem to be mainly the border, in that case the correct ones are the ones with the border, of course. Thanks, --Darwinius (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Avignon Histoire Guillaume Puy.jpg

Uploader Bserin has just uploaded many images of plaques onto Commons like this one above but I doubt Commons can keep it as there is no COM:FOP in France. It looks like modern art and cannot be 70 years old, I think sadly. I doubt he knows about FOP. Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Videos of Aaron Saxton

User:Pieter Kuiper has made a deletion request about the videos of Aaron Saxton. It would be very nice if you could give your opinion. Thank you. --Aylaross (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to read this discussion [11]. As an administrator on Commons, what do you think?--Aylaross (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Tell me more...--BadMuroZ (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, everybody should know that newspaper pages/articles/images are copyrighted - the more if an image has a caption "(C): AP". AP is a professional image agency that does not give away their images for free.
The same applies for works of art as the sculpture by Jeff Koons, who isn't even dead. His works are copyrighted until 70 years after his death. --Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mobula mobular.jpg

Hi mate, regarding deleted article, I took it from page I have permission, Ticket#2009101910060963. permission was obtained long time ago, new one was obtained and confirmed by OTRS about 24.10.2009. Maybe it was not marked with OTRS No., because my old uploads were not marked like that. If there is any more problem, I would be glad to help. Regards --Lasta (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it and added OTRS-pending. You should ask at OTRS about the ticket and if your original permission was issued by the rights holder mentioned in the copyvio-tag, you might remove that (but mention it in the edit summary). --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Haiden and heiden

Hi, I noticed you deleted the category Heiden (Shinto) as a duplicate of Haiden. Please note that heiden and haiden in Shinto are two different things, have separate Wikipedia article and that the deletion was a mistake. I know it was user to to to to move the articles from the category, but he had no reason to do so. I created the category and would like to have it back ASAP because the article Heiden (Shinto) has a link to it. Sorry for the trouble and thanks.Urashimataro (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's back already. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Andres Rojas

Hi Túrelio. I've seen in the past you has deleted several photos to this user. The following photos are copyvio:

I also want to tell you that this user works well with .svg files but I'm sure all photos uploaded (mostly about buses) are copyvio. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos with low resolution: File:RB-107-286-xxxxxx.jpg, File:SEMTUR-RDC-27-EXG076.JPG, File:SEMTUR-K-4.JPG, File:RB-103-24-xxxxxx.jpg. Just in a fast view of his contributions. Alakasam (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him for a voluntary "confession" about the bus image sources. Let's see if he is honest. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are this svg: File:ETR.svg a copyvio from the logo of an argentine transport company?: Alakasam (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's surely build after the original on Whether that's already a copyvio, as it consists only out of letters and lines, is somewhat hard to say. But surely it would be better to ask the company for permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In this section (User talk:Andres Rojas#File source is not properly indicated: File:RB-143-293-FVO285.jpg) he claims that most images comes from ("Yo aclaré que esas imágenes fueron extraídas de la página" translated: "I made it clear that those images were taken from the page") In the foot of that page says "La utilización total o parcial de los contenidos de este sitio podrá hacerse sin fines comerciales y citando la fuente y los autores de artículos e ilustraciones" translated: "The total or partial use of the contents of this site may be noncommercial and citing the source and authors of articles and illustrations" which isn't allowed in commons. Alakasam (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Information necessary to publish photos with copyright

Hallo Turelio !

I saw that a photo that I posted for the page "Recanto Maestro" was rejected because in the SOURCE WEBSITE there was the "all rights reserved" footer.

In this particular case, I can without problems arrange a FORMAL AUTHORIZATION to publish the photograph, because I know well the people who own the rights of it.

What exactly you consider to be necessary formally? For instance: a written authorization of the owners of the website should be ok? If yes, to whom do I send it and in what format? Regular mail, e-mail from them, etc ?

kind regards, 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Unknown,
you will find permission templates on Commons:Email templates (even in different language versions). Take such a template, enter the filename of the image(s) to be covered, add the type of license and mail it to the rights holder. He should then add the date and his name and mail all back to the email address given on OTRS. This permission will not be published and can only be accessed by the few OTRS-volunteers. They check the permission and then issue a so-called OTRS-ticket that will be put on the image page and everything will be fine. --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

delete my comment

Hallo Turelio,

Mein Kommentar auf diese Dragonfly Lampe war sachlich korrekt und nicht nur subjektive Meinung. Dessen Löschung, und nicht meine Kritik stellt also den eigentlichen Vandalismus dar.

Die abgebildete Leuchte hat mit ihrem Vorbild wenig zu tun. Sie ist rein handwerklich mangelhaft, es gab sie nie als Hängeleuchte, die Kapppe is also falsch, die Kette ebenso, der untere Verstärkungsring fehlt, und das Glas ist von minderer Qualität. Nach künstlerischen Gesichtspunkten ist sie wirklich mißlungen, das Bild ist es und dessen Bearbeitung ebenfalls.

Alles in allem also geradezu ein schlechter Witz, mehr nicht !

Trotzdem , recht freundliche Grüße ( ich grüße auch Blinde im Geiste )

Elie Nasser, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 30. März 2010, 16:29 Uhr (UTC)

Da es für deine IP ( keinerlei gelöschte Beiträge gibt, habe ich keine Ahnung worauf du dich beziehst. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio,

Just a small notification, I've blocked the edu-range instead/also (see User_talk:; –Krinkletalk 13:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material in Brashs article

I would like to ask why the image at: was removed? In the talk page, you've noted magazine ad. Upon looking through the Wikipedia Commons, and under magazine ad violations, I could not find anything. This is in relation to the fact that the store has gone bankrupt 15 years ago, and no longer exists.

Hi Clearwater000, in general, advertisements are copyrighted and even in a rather complicated way as they are often the work of more than one person. However, if you are convinced that this image falls under the provisions for being without valid copyright as explained in COM:CB#Advertisements, you might request undeletion at COM:UR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello Túrelio, not sure what You are asking me to do? If someone is an epileptic he knows the problems and I doubt he will look at it. Slowing the image would be stupid because it might not help and the image is then not a kolibri anymore.

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 06:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I just tried to forward to you this Medical Request. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Please see my talkpage. Thanks. Rehman(+) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


私のファイルに即時削除対象でないファイルに貼ってましたね。貼らないでください。荒らし行為です。--おれ (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand Japanese. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for finding the mistake I made on the above file. Will try to make sure that I don't do that again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Túrelio offline

I will be offline likely until Thursday and not available for short-time requests. --Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We should find a way to prevent you from doing that. Otherwise we will just end up with piles of files that aren't worth categorizing ;) -- User:Docu at 16:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

About File:Tenporinji (Gose, Nara) Goo.jpg

Hello.I think your delete operation too early.I can't say my opinion.I want to take enough time.Sorry,my English is very poor.--KENPEI (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at: [12]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Villa Il Chiuso

The building is on a private street, basically i should not photograph it. Please cancel thanks --Sailko (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Prefa logo claim zweizeilig schwarz.jpg


Die Mitteilung ist offenbar bei dir gelandet (mittlerweile beim "Verursacher"). Ich denke, dass dieses Logo zu komplex ist, um ohne Erlaubnis unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht zu werden. Wie ist deine Meinung dazu? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich hatte es selbst zum Uploader verschoben. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass die Uploaderin, die sich in einer Anfrage auf dem Helpdesk als Caroline bezeichnet hat, von der Firma kommt, da alle Uploads Firmen-bezogen sind. Insofern dürfen wir von guter Absicht ausgehen. Trotzdem ist eine OTRS-Freigabe anzustreben, was ja auch nicht so schwer sein sollte. --Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfekt. Ich stimme voll und ganz zu. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Katyn monument

Hallo Turelio, das Denkmal steht auf offener Strasse, unterliegt also dem Panorama-Gesetz! Ich habe Dutzende von Denkmaelern fotografiert und noch nie Probleme gehabt. Wenn es dir Spass macht, dann kannst du es ruhig loeschen, aber wozu? Gruss Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Es macht mir überhaupt keinen Spass das zu löschen. Aber wie du dem LA entnehmen kannst, ist es durch die restriktiveren FOP-Regeln in den USA gerade nicht abgedeckt. Die gelten nur für Gebäude. Ich hab die Gesetze nicht gemacht. Wenn du eine Idee hast, wie das Bild zu retten ist, schreib sie in die Löschdiskussion. Die zuverlässigste Lösung wäre, dir von dem ja noch aktiven Bildhauer eine Erlaubnis zu holen, aufwendig, aber nicht unmöglich. --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
PS: Was flickr-tauglich ist, muss ja auch wiki-tauglich sein! Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Dann hast aber offenbar wenig Erfahrung mit der Flickr-Realität. Ich habe schon eine ganze Reihe meiner Bilder zwangsweise von Flickr löschen lassen, wo andere sie illegal unter ihrem Namen hochgeladen hatten. Flickr kümmert sich einen Dreck darum, solange sich keiner beschwert. --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I just converted the stale disputed tag on that file to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:African American Civil War Memorial2.jpg. --Bluemask (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Ja Túrelio, damit magst du recht haben! Wenn dem Markenrechte mit dem eingestellten Beitrag "Dieses Werk enthält Material, welches möglicherweise unter Markenrechte (Trademark) in einem oder mehreren Ländern fällt. Bitte versichere..." Ausdruck verliehen wird nehme ich meinen Löschantrag zurück! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friwo Gerätebau (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8. Apr. 2010 (UTC)

Das wäre schön. Du kannst dich ja gerne bei deiner Rechtsabteilung (da du wohl zu Friwo "gehörst") nochmal rückversichern; schließlich bin ich kein RA. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iya enigma2000 and Ian Rhel Datu, etc.

The deletion log says User:Túrelio and User:Captain-tucker have each deleted the subject page twice. It's back, along with the related images posted by the subject user and now User: has hung {{editprotected}} and {{DELheader}} on it. Rather than add {{speedydelete}} a third time, perhaps one of you (I've left a note for Captain-tucker) would take a look at the whole situation.

Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems, he tried the same on :en, [13]. --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Miss Loren.jpg

This appears to be a flickwash. If you agree, please feel free to delete it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More likely it's a derivative. On Flickr it's in the user-album "Colorized celebrities". So, likely he took an existing image and colorized it. Nice idea, but ... --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This file recived the speedydelete tag with "unknown file format" reason. The file is in xcf format, a well know format admited by Commons: "Tipos de archivo permitidos: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, tif, tiff, oga". Please revise it. Thanks. Javiersanp (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. It looked somewhat strange to me, sorry. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, after seeing this just wanted to tell you that if you ever need help with spanish, feel free to contact me ;-) Best regards --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 09:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Gracias. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you so much Túrelio

Thanks for deleting my big mess with File:File-Portuguese discoveries and explorationsV2en.png, hope to not fail again--Uxbona (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about File:Alkanna sieberi A.jpg

See User_talk:Wouterhagens#Alkanna_sieberi. By my question to user RLJ I checked to what extent I can trust his comment. From his answer I think that he is right. I also verified it by looking in the book "Wild Flowers of Crete" ISBN 9608227771). Wouter (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Already done by Martin H. --Túrelio (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilder: Abschied, Nordmarkplakat, Liebespaar im Garten

Hallo Túrelio,

ganz herzlichen Dank für Deine Kommentare. Da ich bei den o. g. Werken die legale Erbin der Originale bin und sie schlicht fotografiert habe, war keine der vorgegebenen Copyrightmöglichkeiten passend für mich. Ich habe inzwischen 2 Einverständniserklärungen abgeschickt (eine kommt noch). Bei den oben nicht genannten Karikaturen (File name: Aschermittwoch, Frauensport), die 1931 in der "Jugend" publiziert und später an ein Museum verkauft wurden, muss ich mich dort erst noch rückversichern. Möchte gern eines davon noch in meinen Wikipedia-Artikel einbringen. Das Bild "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" >< sollte gelöscht werden. Kannst Du das für mich machen? Tut mir leid, bin neu bei Wikipedia und richtig stolz, dass ich es überhaupt geschafft habe. Ich wusste nicht, dass hier quasi eine Parallelwelt existiert, deren Regeln mich leicht überfordern. Viele Grüße, Julia P. S. Extrem süße Katze! Das nenn' ich entspanntes Arbeiten... 11. 04. User: Julia Marxen

Hallo Julia, die Katze ist leider nur auf dieser Seite mein. Der erwähnte Verkauf eines Bildes ist für das Urheberrecht belanglos, das verbleibt grundsätzlich beim Künstler (jedenfalls in Deutschland) bzw. seinen Erben. Darf ich fragen, warum du das "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg"-Bild gelöscht haben möchtest? Das ist unter dem educational-Aspekt doch gerade von Interesse. Gibt es von deinem Vater selbst eigentlich ein freies Bild/Foto? --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, wenn das Copyright als Erbin des Künstlers sowieso bei mir liegt, hätte ich gar nicht beim Museum in Flensburg nachfragen müssen. Nun bin ich schlauer, ganz herzlichen Dank für Deine Unterstützung! Wenn Du meinst, das Bild "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" sollte drin bleiben, gern. Allerdings sollte man ja nicht mehr als 4 Abbildungen in eine Galerie tun, oder? Fotos von meinem Vater existieren selbstverständlich, wenngleich natürlich sehr alt und von minderer Qualität. Werde mal sehen, ob ich mit Fotoshop da noch etwas machen kann. Viele Grüße, Julia 14. 04. 10 Julia Marxen

Für Gallerien in Artikeln auf :de (Wikipedia) mag diese Beschränkung gelten, hier gilt sie nicht (siehe z.B. hier: Human suffering). Bei dem eventuellen Foto von deinem Vater ist das Urheberrecht ein weiterer beachtenswerter Faktor; also möglichst eines, bei dem klar ist wer es gemacht hat und der dann auch die Erlaubnis erteilt. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, jetzt bin ich verwirrt. Habe ich das richtig verstanden - für Bilder, die verkauft wurden, habe ich als Erbin des Künstlers trotzdem das Copyright für Wikimedia, aber für das Einstellen auf Wikipedia muss ich dann doch den Käufer fragen?`Grüße, Julia 14:00, 18. 04. 10 Julia Marxen

Ne ne, die Verwirrung war unnötig ;-). In Deutschland (und m.W. anderen Ländern, deren Gesetze auf dem römischen Recht basieren) kann das Urheberrecht nicht transferiert werden, wohl das Nutzungsrecht am Original. Deshalb hat der Käufer eines Originalgemäldes nur das Recht an dem materiellen Exemplar; er hat nicht das Recht, das Bild zu reproduzieren (egal wie) und die Reproduktionen zu verbreiten, auch nicht kostenlos. Dieses Recht steht bis 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod dem Urheber zu bzw. dessen Rechtsnachfolger. Das gilt völlig unabhängig von Wikimedia; lex Wikimedia wäre ja auch noch schöner. Der 1. Satz meines Kommentars, der dich leider verwirrt hat, bezog sich auf deine Frage zur erlaubten Anzahl von Bilder in einer Gallerie. --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your help — I didn't know that Mediawiki had trouble with progressive JPEGs. :) -- Schnee (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's explained here. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Túrelio offline

I will be offline for most of this week and not available for short-time requests; with special apology to Docu ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


What about File:BennelongCampaign.jpg?, a picture of the exact same thing in a different location. See Division of Bennelong in Wikipedia. Gonein60seconds (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Likely you have mistyped BennelongCampaign.jpg as the link remains red. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So, it is en:File:BennelongCampaign.jpg. Yes, the same problem. I've put a note on the talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And en:Epping voting 07-1.jpg, en:LiberalboothAd.jpg, en:Ac.liberalad.jpg, en:Ac.pollingday.jpg? 08:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Turelio! As you're very active admin, can you please give me the advice: now I'm trying to bring order to the Category:Portraits and there are many junk photos from strange people. I've nominated for deletion, for example, some not educative photos not in use Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portraitp3lo.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leigh.jpg. How you think, should I waste my time with the requests like this in the future, or the policy of Commons is to keep everything? --Shakko (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shakko, how strange that may sound, I've never "visited" the portraits-cat. But I can easily imagine what a task that may be. In regard to the type of images you have mentioned: it's an old, never finally solved discussion on Commons whether such (out-of-COM:SCOPE-) images can be requested for speedy-deletion or have to go through the painful regular deletion process. The latter is our official policy. If you think you have a good enough judgement and experience (or enough imagination) which images are and which are not really usable (either by content or by quality), then you may request such images for speedy deletion. If you then see, that half of your requests are reverted by the deletion-working admins, then you may have to refine your judgement ;-). If you are in doubt with an image, then use regular DR. Thanks for helping. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
So, you think I even can just mark them to speedy deletion? Ooh, it's cool, I've never thought of such possibility, I used it only for copyrighted images. Thanks. Ok, I'll try the both ways. The number of garbage is colossal (( --Shakko (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but use it with judgement and some caution. Also, when it was a more recent upload or the user was still active on Commons in 2009, you should put the out-of-scope notification-tag on his/her talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

delete my account

how do i do this???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonevoodoo (talk • contribs) 15. April 2010, 09:21 Uhr (UTC)

Request on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

edit removed

Blocked as requested by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Turelio! It seems to me that you were too quick to delete File:Vannasader.jpg, which I had uploaded. Template:PD-EE-exempt says that works of folklore are not protected by copyright. Traditional agricultural practices are included in the concept of folklore. --Jonund (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. See my comment on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a misinterpretation of works of folklore, which is indeed kind of intellectual creation named in linked article – poems, proverbs and such. Even if very indirectly considering agricultural practise as work of folklore, copyright of the photograph belongs to photographer. PD-EE-exempt doesn't apply to any kind of photographs as primary licence tag. Pikne 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, seems the image can be re-uploaded on January 1, 2017. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the insight. --Jonund (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You might want to copy the 3-language description of the file etc., before it gets deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Krone Kastilien 1492.svg

Hi, du hast heute die oben angeführte Datei gelöscht. Darf ich dich um Wiederherstellung bitten, da die Zusammenführung dieser Datei mit File:Corona de Castilla 1400 de.svg als neue Version auf einem Irrtum beruht? Die beiden Karten sind nicht identisch, die eine zeigt den Zustand von 1400, die andere den von 1492 (das Königreich Granada wurde erst 1492 Bestandteil von Kastilien), weshalb ich File:Corona de Castilla 1400 de.svg mittlerweile auf die vorherige Version zurückgesetzt habe. Danke --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank! --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your help on File_talk:BR_795_Uerdinger_Schienenbus_Steuerpult.jpg. By the way, cute Kitty - and a lovely keyboard as well. ;-) -- 12:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Though it's not mine. --Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Restore images by User:Kekleinh

Can you please restore the following images? The user claims he has permission so I will retag them {{subst:npd}}.

--Svgalbertian (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Helix pomatia phanynx picture by Trappmann

I've taken that image from Bidiversity Heritage Library where it was (and is) considered as CC-licensed. Do you mean that BHL violated Walter Trappmann's intellectual property rights too? Anyway I found now that the BHL CCL doesn't fit the Wikicommons requirement: it's for non-commercial use. It seems to me that was different the previous time I worked with it but I understand that doesn't really matter. Mithril (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Biodiversity Heritage Library is in the USA, their behavior is fine, because in the USA is everything before 1923 public domain. / The image published by Walther Trappmann (1889-1956) in 1916 in Germany is copyrighted in the European Union and in many other places (probably everywhere except of the USA). The image can be added with template to English wikipedia, but it can not be added neither to Commons not to other wikipedias. / If Biodiversity Heritage Library really add non-commercial note to some works that are normally public domain then you can ignore it or use the same document from the Internet Archive, for example --Snek01 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


There are several images youve marked as possible copyright violation. Ones are from the artists Vera Csik and Eduardo Schlageter. There is NO website on internet where the images exist. Precisely I have updated them after they (or their relatives) requested to me. In the other hand you have erased very important visual material about the venezuelan-hungarian colony wich the people that appears on pictures specially requested it. So I would thank you to restore everythign as it was, because this can be considered as vandalism.

thanks --Farkasven (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite astonished about your attitude. Regularly I would have instantly deleted most of your images because of your bogus claims in regard to authorship, permission and sources. To be a copyright violation, it is not necessary that an image is found elsewhere on the internet. For example, Vera Csik is a living person and her works, including all reproductions (photos) thereof, are under her copyright until 70 years after her death. You are the one who has to provide proof that you have her permission. Feel free to go to Commons:Undeletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I have added the link to the pictures on wikipé that I have transferred. In the other hand, there are other pictures I have uploaded myself that I have taken or scanned, and those have no link to wikipé Due to the license, Im sorry but could you assit me correcting the proper permission that corresponds to the files that one created? I put FAL, because that seemed to be the most logical, but honestly, there is not only lack of information about the origin of many pictures (wich are not mine but Ive asked permission to their authors and drawers and Im correcting that right now) but certain ignorance due the proper licence. thanks for your assitance --Farkasven (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have enough time today. So I'll show you for one image what you still have to do.
  • File:Béla IV of hungary.jpg: You changed the author entry from "unknown" to "Graphyc artist personel of the company" and the source from "" to "". The new source entry is better, but is still unsatisfying as it is the root address of the website, instead of the deep-link to the actual image. Anyway, the new information suggests that this image is a new creation by a living artist, who owns the copyright himself or his company. Therefore, you need to provide us a written permission. As of your new permission-entry "Obtained after requesting it to be shared in honor to the king", you should have such a permission. If yes, then forward the full text to If you don't yet have a written permission, then go to Commons:Email templates (non-english language versions are available), take the boxed permission template, enter the filename and the license (prefered by the rights holder), mail it to the rights holder and ask him/them to put the date and his/their name under it and to mail it back directly to The permission is then checked by our OTRS-volunteers and eventually a ticket issued. As soon as you know that the rights holder has sent his permission, put this template {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry if I insulted you. In my country no one would call this "personal attack". --Starscream (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. But "fundamentalism" is a rather bad word nowadays and the only target of your statement could be the nominator, me, and KTo288, who both were the only ones in this discussion who had made constructive proposals. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello! File:Enciclopedia of Schwarzenegger.jpg and File:Schwarczenegger.JPG from my home library. That must not?--Gruszecki (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what do you mean by "my home library"? If I remember right, the first image was a cover. Covers are usually copyrighted and even if you own a book or a CD, you are not allowed to scan the cover and upload the image under afree license. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bild Fritz Richter

Richter ist ein deutscher Graphiker. Ich habe über ihn einen Artikel in Arbeit. Es ist mein erster und so werden sicher auch ein paar Fehler auftreten. Ich hoffe jedoch, dass der Artikel endgültig am 19.04. gespeichert wird. Z.Z. bin ich auf der Spielwiese. In diesen Artikel binde ich 3 Bilder ein, so auch Richter2.jpg. Ich habe das Orginalbild und habe es gescannt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebe43 (talk • contribs) 16. April 2010, 20:31 Uhr (UTC)

Alles klar. Danke für die Rückmeldung. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Turelio, die Nachricht von Elektron vom 8. April war an mich gerichtet und betrifft pl-wiki. Es besteht keine Pflicht, auf Englisch zu korrespondieren. Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Letzteres hat auch niemand behauptet. Wenn eine Dritter einen Kommentar unter ein Nachricht setzt ist es wohl naheliegend, dass diese sich an den Sender der Nachricht richten könnte. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Request update protected}}

Hi. I'd like to know why you deleted this template. It is still used on Commons:Requested updates to protected images. Since this template has different usage for update request, I think it should be restored. If you disagree, may I ask you why this template should be deleted? Thanks. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it was in the cat for speedy-deletions, plain and simple, the same as Commons:Requested updates to protected images. You did answer my related question. However, this template was deleted 6 days ago. Obviously it wasn't used so much when undeletion is requested that late. Anyway, I've restored it. But now it is again in Category:Other speedy deletions. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
converted to regular deletion request, and it will not visible in Category:Other speedy deletions. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo's flicker

Okay, next time I will do that. C mon (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For fixing my mistake - SatuSuro (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bild Schorndorf

Danke für den Hinweis, der Dateiname war falsch, ich habe gerade den bad name Befehl eingetragen. Das Kunstwerk ist dauerhaft und öffentlich zugänglich. Ebenso die anderen in Schorndorf, die ich noch hochlade. JuergenG (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, dann sei doch so gut und füge gleich beim Upload {{FOP}} oder die fop-cat. ein, da diese Bilder nur unter COM:FOP legal sind. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Kimberly image permission

I've got permission for this image at OTRS ticket# 2010040810050191. Can you restore File:Patricia kimberly.jpg or File:Patricia kimberly photo.jpg if either match? Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chaser, I've restored the first one and added OTRS-pending as I'm not in OTRS. You'll have to add the ticket. The second one is a different image. --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Jeanneke Pis.JPG

You removed my photo, why? How can this picture be more acceptable? – CHG (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first question: because it was created around 1985 by Denis-Adrien Debouvrie (who thereby has full copyright over it) and there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium. As you suggested with your second question: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeanneke pis.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My latest image

I have made a screenshot of TV B92 (news), and I need to tell you that via e-mail. Can you tell me your e-mail address? --Urgentos (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow this link. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Rudolf Friedrich Schüle I.jpg

Hallo Túrelio,

ich wusste nicht, ob hier oder bei mir antworten:

Zu meiner Löschanfrage: -->> Hallo Andreas, dein LA auf File:Rudolf Friedrich Schüle I.jpg ist etwas verwirrend. Welche der beiden unterschiedlichen Bildversionen ist denn falsch, oder sind es beide? --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich bin hier voll durcheinander gekommen. Eigentlich habe ich eine andere Zeichnung, die ich unter diesem Namen einstellen möchte. Aber mit Commons komme ich noch nicht immer klar. Am einfachsten wäre es das Bild zu löschen und ich generiere einen Neuen uploud unter diesem Namen.


Kann man den nicht verhindern, dass Commons immer wieder auf Englisch springt?

Andreas Friederich (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ähemm, was meinst du mit "dass Commons immer wieder auf Englisch springt?" Die Löschung geht o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ICh logge mich in Commoms in der deutschen Sprachversion ein, irgenwann springt die Sprachversion dann auf Englisch.

Andreas Friederich (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In deinen individuellen Einstellungen hast du aber auf Deutsch eingestellt, oder? --Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio,

Das war das Problem. Danke Andreas Friederich (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:11_Septemper_attack_WTC_burning.jpg copyright tag

Turelio, thanks for questioning the current license tag for the image. Admittedly, I am clueless as to which license properly covers its being in PD, and have already asked around a number of editors. Do you have a suggestion? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked myself on the village pump and likely it is not PD, because PD-USGov is valid only for federal works, which is not the case with NYPD. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fritz Richter

Hallo Turelio! Ich bin der Erbe von Fritz Richter. Wer die Aufnahme von Richter2.jpg gemacht hat, kann ich mit Bestimmtheit nicht sagen. Es war evtl. meine Mutter mit dem Fotoapparat von Fritz Richter. Das Bild ist mein Eigentum und war mit in dem Nachlass der Familie Richter. Gleiches gilt für die Holzschnitte. Ich hoffe, dass somit die Probleme ausgeräumt sind. Ich habe nun den Artikel von Fritz Richter gespeichert und er kann unter diesem Namen aufgerufen werden. Nun habe ich das Problem, mit der PDN und der Suchfunktion, die Fritz Richter (noch) nicht anzeigt. Kannst Du mir helfen? Bin für jeden Hinweis auch zum Artikel dankbar!! Mit dem Katalogisieren der Bilder habe ich ebenfalls praktische Probleme, auch hier bin ich dankbar für einen Hinweis. 19.04.10 18:35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebe43 (talk • contribs) 19. April 2010, 18:44 Uhr (UTC)

So ich habe die Bilder mal in einige mir passend erscheinende Kategorien eingeordnet. Was du aber noch tun solltest, ist die Angabe des Entstehungsjahr der Holzschnitte. Bzgl. File:Richter2.jpg musst du entsprechend dem oben geschriebenen die Angabe im Author-Feld korrigieren, denn du bist ja nicht der Photograph. Angemessen wäre vermutlich: likely <Name deiner Mutter>. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Estacao Ferroviaria Espinho

Thank you for deleting the file "Estacao Ferroviaria de Espinho.jpg". I must really learn to dominate the tools to pass images from Flickr to Wikimedia. ;)Ajpvalente (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted images WHiskers, Robin Eldrige et al

Turelio/Martin so you know how confusing using/contributing to Wiki and Commons can be! I will be studying your comments let 17 Nov 2009 and hopefully will be able to re-upload the images this time... if I can find all the 'permissions' emailed last time because since then my computer has been stripped and reinstalled.... fingers crossed. thanks. and again, this computer does not have the symbols to sign off with soi am tying signature gilberta aka georgie sydney aka g evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgie sydney (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21. Apr. 2010 (UTC)

@Georgie sydney, I've no idea what you are writing about as your account has no deleted uploads and as I don't remember the names in the header. As you have also contacted Martin H., I will only get active when you tell me that Martin can't take care about the problem. --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


The Badname-boxes, set by me, are a result of very old deletion requests (all about december / january) , where no one has given any answer.

The file replaces are all made by User:axpde, who is working with this BS-icons since months. Therefore I'm sure, that the deletions are ok. Antonsusi (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if not, you will be hanged ;-). Anyway, it will again take some time, as quite some uses have to be replaced and CommonsDelinker is down for unknown time. --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Waitimg is no problem. Antonsusi (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pity the Fool

Dear reader

You have marked a number of my photo's as a copyright violation, all these photos were taken by Eckardt Kasselman and therefore he is a party of Pity the Fool and also the 'press contact' for the band. Please see into this, as the wikipedia page cannot stay image-less for a number of days. These images include 'Main source pic.jpg', 'Oppi.jpg' and various others. You can see on pages like this:!/pitythefoolband?ref=ts that Eckardt Kasselman is part of the crew and reserves full rights and also gives full permission for Pity the Fool to use these images.

Kind regards Daniel Raubenheimer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielptf (talk • contribs) 21. April 2010, 12:59 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Daniel,
all these image were marked as copyvios by User:Nyttend. I found the deletion-rationale credible and therefore deleted the images. That doesn't mean our decision could not have been wrong, of course. However, before undeleting the images, I prefer that you talk to User:Nyttend and present a valid undeletion-rationale. You already mentioned the main problem, permission. We need to see a valid permission on behalf of the - at least two - involved photographers (one image was credited to Brendon Groenewald). --Túrelio (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, will speak to both photographers and to nyttend. How should i show you their permission to use the photos?

If you don't have anything material yet, then jump to Commons:Email templates, copy the boxed template text, enter the filenames (of the now deleted files (File:Main source pic.jpg, File:Pity The Fool-Shoot 4.jpg, File:Pity The Fool-Shoot 3.jpg, File:Pity The Fool-Shoot 2.jpg, File:Pity The Fool-Shoot.jpg, File:Aragon69pitty.jpg, File:Oppi.jpg, File:Pitty1.jpg), if you prefer those; or choose new), add the name of the license, mail all to the photographers and ask them to put their name and the date under it and to mail it back to, ideally using an email address that has some visible association with either the photographers name (or with the band). --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, will get Eckardt to send it through tonight. Your help is really appreciated. Daniel

You're welcome. Drop me a note as soon as the emails are sent. I can then temporarily undelete the images. --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a time?

Hi Túrelio, may I please ask you, if you have a time to significantly improve an article I wrote on English Wikipedia using German sources I will provide? It is time consuming task, so that's OK, if you have no time to help me out. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mila, I could eventually look into it at the weekend. Is it this one? --Túrelio (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much, but are you sure you did not have other plans for the weekend? Here are the German sources: [14][15] and the article from German Wikipedia. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Túrelio, somebody saw the article at DYK nomination, and started working on it. So, I guess now you may enjoy your weekend :) I am very sorry I bothered you. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice article, I had at least a look at it. And, hooray, I've found one (probable) typo. May I keep it? --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Duplicate - bad name

There are also icons, which are exactly copies. can you look about them for deleting ? Links are fixed, The few users with links will get a table of changes, when this action is ready. Antonsusi (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


habe bei mehreren neuen Kategorien immer den gleichen Tippfehler gemacht (ohne daß es mir aufgefallen wäre - soviel zu meiner Entschuldigung) wie kriege ich jetzt die Kategorien verschoben? (Tank Batallions COA (German Army) muß ja heißen Battalions..seufz...) Servus, Erwin Lindemann 12:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Erwin, Cat-Namen kann man nicht "verschieben" also umbenennen. Deshalb muss du die Cats mit dem richtigen Namen ebenfalls anlegen und dann, falls die falschmanige Cat schon gefüllt ist, dort ein {{moveto}} zur richtigen Cat hineinsetzen. Das Verschieben der Dateien erledigt dann irgendwwann ein bot; du kannst das natürlich auch manuell machen. Anschließend setzt du dann auf die leere Cat ein speedy wegen "empty". Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Merci! --Erwin Lindemann 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Caspar workflow 3.jpg

Thanks, I think this one was a transfer from en-wiki, so you might want to alert the admins there as well :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It had already been deleted as of Code: CSD I8, whatever that means ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

my apply for adminship

Hi Túrelio,

after pondering long about it I applied for adminship, I'd really like your support on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Axpde. Thanks axpdeHello! 09:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Tag?

A naive question -- I'm trying for a better understanding of process and how admins work. At COM:CSD it says,

"There are certain instances when a file needs to be speedy deleted and under which an administrator can delete pages, images and other files on sight."

That suggests to me that if an admin sees something that ought to be deleted the admin can simply delete it, as it says, "on sight". I have noticed, most recently at Temporal lobe epilepsy), that you simply tag them with {{speedy delete}}. I think that's probably good, because it ensures that two sets of eyes look at every delete, but I don't see it written -- or is it just your personal habit? Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 11:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim,
one thing is that our "rules" can't cover every possible setting that may occur. The other thing is that over the time working here, you get some experience or feeling how to deal with such situations, highly subjective of course. In the above mentioned case, it's of course totally clear that this is out of COM:SCOPE. On the other hand, I saw the possiblity that this posting was not just a hoax or a misguided posting, but that it might come from a suffering person, for whom it might hard to take that his/her posting is simply removed on sight without a word. Therefore I took the "pain" to put the message tag on the page and in addition put a notification on the talkpage of the poster to allow for understanding why this doesn't fit here. Might have been in vain or might be not. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand completely and agree -- if it's just nonsense, zap it, but if a newbie has taken some effort to do something, take a little more care.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Der Lärm.pdf

Hi, du hast heute diese pdf gelöscht, was an sich nicht verkehrt ist. Nur leider war gerade diese Version in Wikisource eingebunden, das Resultat. s:de:Der Lärm und s:de:Index:Der Lärm.pdf. Also bitte rückgängig machen und dafür diese löschen File:Der Lärm (Theodor Lessing).pdf. -- Paulis (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Versteh ich nicht. Ich habe vor der Löschung natürlich per GlobalUsage übrig gebliebene Verwendungen geprüft. Wenn da was aufgetaucht wäre, hätte ich garnicht erst gelöscht. Davon unabhängig, kann auf Wikisource nicht das Link vom nichtssagenden Der Lärm.pdf in Der Lärm (Theodor Lessing).pdf geändert werden? --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Glaube ich dir ja, die Verlinkungen werden nicht angezeigt. Wir verwenden die einzelnen Seiten, d.h. wir müssten in diesem Fall 97 Seiten verschieben. Schau dirs an, wenn die pdf wieder da ist. -- Paulis (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, die pdf ist schon längst wieder da, nachdem ich vergeblich versucht hatte selbst das Link auf WS zu ändern; das Ändern hat zwar geklappt, aber die Fehlermeldung blieb. --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Habs repariert, die andre pdf kann jetzt weg. Mach in Ws einen Nulledit, dann solltest du das auch sehen. -- Paulis (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Danke. Mein Fehler war, dass ich nur meinen Edit revertiert hatte, aber nicht den vom CommonsDelinker. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File:BSicon uexKBFe.svg probabe artefact of CD

When checking on the CD recovery, I stumbled across File:BSicon uexKBFe.svg and the morass of internals to the file. I hesitated to clean it as I wasn't sure what was internal to the file before, and as it has your namestamp on it, I come knocking here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He he, you didn't dug deeply enough into the morass, before my CD-command, GeorgHH issued it three times ;-). However, that was likely just a "collateral damage" of CD-down-time, as neither I nor Georg would have consciously repeated a the CD-command when the first one had returned such a mess. I'll remove 3 of the 4 summaries to shorten the page size. And then the BSicon people have to take care of that. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Dorfkirche Tribohm

Hallo Túrelio, über die Schnelllöschung dieser Kategorie bin ich schon ziemlich erstaunt. Sie enthielt immerhin 19 Bilder als Unter-Unterkategorie von Category:Church interiors in Germany. Sind 19 Bilder für eine Kategorie wirklich zu wenig oder gibt es einen nachvollziehbaren Grund, Category:Church interiors in Germany nicht weiter auszubauen? Wenn nicht, mache die Löschung doch bitte wieder rückgängig. Danke und Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Ies,
als ich die cat gelöscht habe, war sie mit Sicherheit leer; sonst hätte ich sie natürlich nicht gelöscht. Die Löschung "bestellt" hatte Schiwago miit "needless sharing of 28 images, all files under Category:Dorfkirche Tribohm". Vielleicht kannst du dich erst noch mit Schiwago verständigen, dann kann ich sie gerne wiederherstellen. --17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Manually replaced

Hello, I have manualle replaced File:Río Aragón (Navarra).jpg which now is ready for deletion. Greetings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rett syndrome girl

Hi. I understand your concerns, however the girl's identity is not private anymore: - her mom made a blog about her, wehere, as you can see, her full name is given anyway. This blog also contains the e-mail addres, which was used to send us a permission (now just waiting for the license details). Masur (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew this, but we still have to stick to the applicable US law. Besides, it doesn't add anything to this very nice photo. Anyway, we can wait until permission is confirmed. --Túrelio (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Danke für deine Hilfe! Gruß. --Schiwago (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev

Done! Thank you! Discussion can be removed.

The Royal House of Osman (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the first one. You should upload the second one to Commons, not to Wikipedia, provided you have the rights to upload the image under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

/* Seattle Sounders FC jersey */

Hello, I had previously asked that [16] be removed as being a duplicate of [17]. You wouldn't delete the Sounders II file because the two files were not the same.

I agree with you that the files are not the same but I believe that the Sounders II file should still be deleted. First, the Sounders II file does not accurately reflect the Sounders jersey. Second, it does not have a transparent background allowing it to be used for other teams who may have the same jersey details but a different background color. Third, it does not use a useful naming convention for when the Sounders change their uniform details. We have started to use the convention of "(sounders)(year)(h/a/t)" to show the sounders name, the year the jersey was introduced, and whether it it a home, away, or third uniform.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong filename is never a reason for deletion, as it can simply be changed (moved). The main problem I see with this deletion request, is that this image is still used in 4 templates[18]. You first have to change that or to convince the creators or users of these template to replace File:Kit_body_sounders_II.png by whatever image. Only thereafter, a deletion can be considered. --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The file is no longer being used in any templates and the other three reasons for deletion are still accurate. Please let me know if there are any additional issues with deleting the file. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Iles des Serpents.jpg

I reinstated the copyvio tag on this image. The Wikipedia image is not the original source of this image, and even if it were that image is tagged as non-free. The source I identified for the image predates the Wikipedia upload by more than three years, and does indicate where the original image came from, with no evidence of any release of rights. Further, as the article I noted for the source notes, students and other researchers are frequent visitors to the island. A clearly free licensed equivalent image can readily be made. There is no need to host this image with such a murky background. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, sorry, but I've again removed your cv-tag, because it had no proof. The link that you claim to be the source of this image, is clearly not the source of our image, as it is cropped (smaller than ours). Also "your" source clearly states that it has been taken from wikipedia, indicating the opposite of ownership. However, I've speedy-tagged the image as fair-use, because the immediate source of our image and of the image on, is actually this one, which is marked as (sort of) fair-use, which is not allowed on Commons. Thanks for your notification, but try to be correct in statements about source to avoid additional admin-work. --Túrelio (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The source I found indicated the page had been created in 2005, years before the Wikipedia upload. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is my art I choose to publish - not a Copyright protected Trade Mark!!!

Dear T I have received information (see below) that you have deleted 4 four of my graphic images from the Wikipedia page on Rotary International. You also mention that the publication of these images is a violation of Copyright. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! This is incorrect. All of these images are ART produced by me, and I therefore own the copyright. NOT ROTARY INTERATIONAL. You are confusing this with the Trade Mark Rights owned by Rotary International but this is ART! Art recognised as art EVEN BY ROTARY INTERNATIONAL. You must realize there is a great difference between art and a Trade Mark? The images shown are all from my Library of Graphics for Rotarians which contains authorised Rotary graphics art. Please see for yourself (and read the copyright vaiver) I therefore request he IMMEDIATE correction of this censorship of my art by you.

28 April 2010

   * (Deletion log); 09:58 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rye200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
   * (Deletion log); 09:58 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rotact2.gif" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
   * (Deletion log); 09:57 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rf200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
   * (Deletion log); 09:57 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Newyellow200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)

Tordelf (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tordelf,
after your quadruplicate rant on my talkpage, I feel myself somewhat biased and therefore direct you at COM:UNDEL to request undeletion of File:Rye200.jpg, File:Rotact2.gif, File:Rf200.jpg and File:Newyellow200.jpg. Thereby, other admins will decide over the undeletion. As a hint to consider independently of trademark or similar issues, the website mentioned by you, carries a clear statement "Permission to freely use the graphics in this library for noncommercial purposes is granted to all Rotary Clubs and Rotary International.", which translates to "no commercial use". However, our policy requires that commercial use must be allowed (without individual permission). --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You ask the impossible

Hi Túrelio Sometimes it may be wise to consult the legal regulations that apply. For example in Sweden it is IMPOSSIBLE for an artist to release his/her rights to a work of art until 70 years after if was made(performed). This is no doubt one of the World's strictest copyright protections that creates great problems for everyone that believes that rights can be transferred. Nor waivered as you demand. According to Swedish law each INDIVIDUAL usage has to be specified in detail making commons in fact impossible (legally speaking). Even Rotary International has had to seek my permission to use my art, but of course I have no problem letting people use it as long as the source is mentioned (another "MUST" in Swedish copyright law that cannot be waivered). I don't mean to be so insistent, but I also feel obliged to act when I see my own works of art, posted by me for the benefit of a very noble cause, is treated with such lack of insight.

Tordelf (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You might then involve a Swedish-native admin, such as User:Lokal_Profil or User:Thuresson. Look, I've no personal problem with these images; actually they were tagged for deletion by someone else. However, in the past many Rotary Int. signs were deleted due to claims of whatever-protection on behalf of Rotary International. --Túrelio (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Gdańsk municipal police during reenactment of the entry of Napoleon to Gdańsk after siege - 1.jpg


Then I met these gentlemen and they asked me to delete. --Starscream (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then open a DR or a speedy if the personality rights-law in Poland is as strict as in Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
add template --Starscream (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Why is png preferable to svg? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe 'cause he svg doesn't exist? axpdeHello! 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
@Noodle snacks, the rationale provided by nominator DieBuche, was "This is not an SVG, just the png embedded in the svg container." Visually comparing both "versions" seems to confirm this, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Callard.jpeg

Hi Túrelio

It appears you have deleted my photo of my daughter Rebecca Callard from the Wiki Commons. Rebecca has asked me to add it to her Wiki page. I confess I am a complete beginner but I would be very grateful if you could restore the photo to the commons and explain how i can add it to her wiki page.


Dave Sowden

Hi Dave,
the problem was that the image looks rather identical to this one on IMBD and in addition it looks like a professional promo shot. Taken together it smelled as copyvio. The questions are, who shot this photo and who has the full copyrights over it? --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


If I remember right, you were one of the people who wanted to have the suggestions to use the "old" method of using just the page list? May I invite you to beta-test a HotCat replacement that would, amongst other things, also make the suggestion engine configurable? Please see User talk:Lupo/c.js for what to do if you want to test it.

The thing is in beta stage, meaning I have tested it myself on various browsers. But as always when a programmer tests his own code, it is possible that I overlooked something, and that it may actually still have a few bugs.

BTW, if I furthermore recall correctly, you were also opposed to the ImageAnnotator because (amongst other things) it was slow or a lot of code? Please also evaluate this new HotCat replacement for speed issues. It is a little bit more code, and its default search engine makes two server requests for the suggestions to combine both the page list and the search index, giving both new categories and similarly named categories. I'm interested to know whether that might cause perceptible unacceptable speed problems. If it does, the default search engine can be changed by each user to use only the page list or the search index, which then makes only one call and thus is a little faster. (For me, each request typically takes about 0.2-0.3 seconds.)

If you decide to beta-test this, please leave a note a User talk:Lupo/c.js, and report any errors or improvement suggestions there.

Cheers, Lupo 07:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Zwar kann ich mich an all das nicht mehr so recht erinnern, habe aber trotzdem mal dein Skript integriert und HotCat abgeschaltet. Außer dass HotCat jetzt erwartungsgemäß fehlt, habe ich aber keinen Effekt sehen können. Was wäre denn zu erwarten gewesen? --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Browser-Cache neu laden! Hatte ich in den Test-Anweisungen vergessen... Lupo 08:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Doch, stand in der Testanweisung und hatte ich auch gemacht. Tatsächlich hat sich aber erst nach dem 2. Crtl-F5 sichtbar etwas geändert. Werd heut abend mal etwas damit rumtesten. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Aha, ein IE user!? Ja, IE hat manchmal Probleme, seinen Cache richtig ordentlich neu zu laden. Lupo 08:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Und richtig, Du warst es nicht! Hatte Dich mit User:Teofilo verwechselt, sorry! Lupo 08:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Kein Problem. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
HotCat abgeschaltet ? Zusammen mit dem Bild ganz oben ist das eine nette Stilblüte ... 8-)) Antonsusi (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

about delete request

about delete request,just do it
I don't complain anything about that.
--Onlymyself65536 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is not about your complaint, but some of these images are used on projects pages (not userpages), like the chocolate image. In such cases a speedy for "I want it" is not justified per policy. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Turelio,

Just noticed that you were online. Would you change 50 to 107 in User:Rotatebot/config.js (lines below) so that at 6 GMT all images in Category:Images requiring rotation by bot get rotated? Afterwards, you can set it back to 50. The bot runs every 6 hours. -- User:Docu at 05:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

//Maximal rotatings at once

var limit = 50;

✓ Done, though it was a sort of blind flight from my part (in regard to bot programing). --Túrelio (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As it usually works well, I suppose it does what it says it does. Sorry about the short notice. I might have been too late though. Let's see if it worked. -- User:Docu at 06:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems it had been too late; I've restored the old value now. --Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. -- User:Docu at 07:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want, we could give it another try, it's at 149 now. -- User:Docu at 11:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I was online again only a few minutes after 14:00 of my time :-(. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've set it to 300--Luxo 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like that was too high (toolserver out-of-memory?). As Luxo is offline (I left him a message earlier today), would you lower it to 150? -- User:Docu at 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. That's really the smallest problem we seem to have in the moment. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
We will see tomorrow if it worked. Thanks. Things still need to get done in the meantime. -- User:Docu at 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a deletion of yours

This one specifically. Unless it was changed by someone else after my upload, it wasn't licensed as fair use. Any chance you can take a second look? Thank you. Nymf (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It had been fair-use-tagged by User:Алый Король. This did look reasonable to me, as the author name (Christian Misje) was not identical to the uploader name and as the source site (image no longer found at that URL) says "Copyright © 2006-2010, All rights reserved". Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly undelete. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. All the photos on that webpage was previously under the license that I had entered (I believe there was a link under permission), but it seems the webpage including the copyright notice was changed recently. There should be a discussion somewhere where I discuss the notice with another admin, but I am on vacation right now, so I'll get back to you on that later. Thanks. Nymf (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. As you may know, admin-performed deletion is not really removal of the file. Therefore, it can be easily un-deleted at any time. --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Re: [19] Willst Du wirklich versuchen, Historiograf Manieren beizubringen? ;-) Das dürfte einige Dezennien zu spät sein. "Was Hänschen nicht lernt..." Ich persönlich ignoriere die Ausfälle einfach, und konzentriere mich auf die Substanz dessen, was er schreibt. Lupo 08:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@Lupo, vielleicht bin ich ja naiv, aber ich finde es nicht o.k., dass hier anscheinend einige Narrenfreiheit geniessen, andere hemmungslos zu attackieren und beleidigen, in diesem Fall zunächst mal die "inkompetenten admins" und dann ganz direkt User:Iotatau. User haben wegen so etwas schon Projekte dauerhaft verlassen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


+1 und danke für die schnelle Arbeit! Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I hope you will be back in some time. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


LjungbergSweden.JPG was removed from the Wikipedia page on Seattle FC players. Was there some discussion or was it pretty clear cut? The bot mentioned Getty images in the summary. How was that proven? I'm not disagreeing but a couple of us were surprised and just looking for the info.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was also a surprise for me that a Getty-sourced image ( did survive for 2 years on Commons, despite its professional appearance and Getty known willingness to sue for any unlicensed use. Obviously an early case of Flickr-washing (the alleged source). --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Morgen, Túrelio, danke für "(or more)". Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Graag gedaan. --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stolpersteine in Tiel

Hello Túrelio, in Category:Stolpersteine in Tiel I have uploaded two images, which seem, after some weeks, to be embarrassing wrong. The stones on two persons with the same name but different birthdates were mixed up. The authorities have done their job and changed the stones in the meantime and new images are to be uploaded in due course. The next files ought to be deleted speedily for that reason and both are not used in articles:

  • File:Familie Samuel de Winter.jpg
  • File:Familie de Winter.jpg

Can you please do this urgent job for me. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


The other files should also deleted. They are not used in any wikipedia and they are of zero educational purpose. The BOP.jpg file depicts a source that has been rejected in all wikipedias it has been placed at, and it cites a sentence of the "Tribunal Internacional de Justicia Arbitral", whose very existence is at doubt. The information snippet was signed by the subject himself. Please note too that the "certificate" in File:Heraldica.jpg is from an entity that has zero hits in google. If you look closely to the image you will notice that it was printed in a inkjet printer (see the horizontal lines in the blue color) and that the white band and the lion have been colored with crayons. This "certificate" is most likely a hoax, and not a professional certificate that could actually be useful for anything. The documents were used by the uploader to throw rants in the Spanish wikipedia after all his editions were removed [20]. In off-wiki forums I have seen someone with the same name as the uploader explaining how he is himself the holder of that title.

Do I need to make a new deletion discussion just for the leftover images, or can you remove these images now as having no educational purpose and being of self-promotional nature? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be formally better if you could propose them for delete as the other one; just copy the text over. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Heraldica.jpg. I tagged all four images. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Condolence Book in Wejherowo Town Hall after president's plane crash 2010 - 1.jpg


Please delete.

I should not have to load this image. The person on the right side of this picture is the facial expression that can be called humiliating. I do not want that hypothetical picture of my face so it looked. So I added crooped: File:Condolence Book in Wejherowo Town Hall after president's plane crash 2010 - 2.jpg. Greetings --Starscream (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Abigor had done it already, as I was offline for a few hours. --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Maquette navire étrusque.jpg

Source [[21]] license Creative commons regards Adri08 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@Adri08, did you realize that this license has an "nc" in it? That means "no commercial use allowed". But images uploaded to Commons have to be free also for commercial use. --Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

deleting my own files?

Hi Túrelio,

I just uploaded some photographs of art, then noticed that 2 of them were copyright violations. So I flagged them for quick delete, and I believe you have deleted them.

A question for you - is there some way I can just delete them myself? I spent a few minutes looking to see if I could, but could not find any way to do it.

Thank you, Daderot (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No, deletion requires at least admin-rights. However, files marked as copyvio (with proof/source) are usually deleted rather rapidly. --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks very much. Daderot (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Buildings in Estonia

Hello one more time!

Thank you for servicing commons! But you have deleted lot of pictures with Estonian apartment buildings, which are not copirighted by two reasons:

  • 1) Lot of buildings you've deleted were built before USSR fail, when any copyrighting was forbidden by law;
  • 2) Apartment buildings are not art value at all, so they can't be copyrighted in any country.

Please, be more attentive deleting photos with buildings. Thanks for attention! Dmitry G (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dmitry G,
all these images had been tagged by an Estonian user as no-fop and in most or all cases with an information about either the year of death of the architect or the year of building. In all cases this information was highly suggestive of a copyright violation as of world standards in regard to duration of copyright duration. In a few cases, when I viewed the building as too generic, I had removed the deletion request. However, a building where the name of the architect is known, is likely copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It can be understood logically, that brick/concrete buildings with lot of windows are apartment buildings and they were built before 1990. Also it can be understood logically, that apartment building are municipal economy for city's inhabitans and as apartment building are typical they can't be any art value to be copyrighted.
So, it is difficult to imagine municipal economy as the copyrighted works of art (but maybe Americans can). It is no more, than widespread buildings designed by municipal government's order and designed without any art aspects.
As their architect name, since 1960 till 1990's those buildings were mainly designed by Mart Port and I don't think he strictly forbids photographing his apartment buildings, I'd seen photographs of his buildings lot of time in mass media (ilustrating articles) and nobody had legal proceedings with journalist; so we can do conclusion apartment buildings are not copirighted at all. Dmitry G (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If It can be understood logically .. is meant as irony, I don't get your message. In most countries works of art are protected until 70 years after the death of the artist. And whether Mart Port as of yet hasn't sued anybody for copyright infringement, is irrelevant for Commons, when by law his works are protected. In case he gave individual permission to our photographer/uploader, then it may be o.k., of course. In case you want the deletions reverted, I recommend you to open a undeletion request at COM:UNDEL. --Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean 1000 buildings with similiar design, which were built of standart USSR concrete panels with standart dimensions 5000x2500 millimeters can't be art value. As art value are missing, those buildings can't be copyrighted. As apartment buildings are not individual order, but municipal their photograps should be free to spread in internet.
I can't remember all files you'd deleted (cause I'm not computer); but for the future - please don't delete standart concrete apartment blocks where copyright is missing due to art value missing. Apartment buildings are no more, than usual standart buildings, which hundreds of copies (maybe thousand of copies) are built everywhere in city, which are built from standart concrete panels for municipal order.
Some big shop or big hotel or big theatre can be copirighted cuase of individual order with individual design. But apartment buildings can't be copyrighted cause of widespreading in city and all of them have cheap simple architecture for municipal government.
As for their arcitector Mart Port, he is ~90 y.o. nowadays, I doubt that he has internet to write him email to ask permission. But you can find his own [video on youtube]; that is why I don't think he forbids to show his works. Otherwise, he wouldn't do this video at all.
But ask you understanding - 1000 square apartment blocks are built from standart rectangle concrete panels can't be copyrighted and their photos can be used free. Cause of art components missing in those buildings. Dmitry G (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:City of Surrey Museum1.jpg

Dear Turelio,

I made this uploader request almost 1 full day ago. Can you replace the use of this old low resolution image (on Deutsch wiki) from 2008 with the New High image which I propose? Then can you please delete the old original image from 2008 on Wikicommons? I think that this is a very reasonable request. Please help. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


For deleting the file I uploaded with a name inadvertently matching an existing Wikpedia file.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Dear Turelio, Thank you for your kind help on deleting that old museum image. With Best regards from Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Karolina - girl with Rett Syndrome.jpg

Yep, I regret it as well, however copyright holder's never replied back (after my email) to finalize permission and without it it just wasn't valid. The specific free license wasn't specified as well as potential terms of use regarding to it.  :( Masur (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. --Túrelio (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello, can I get some help a sec? matanya talk 06:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but help with what? --Túrelio (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks, user:zirland has deleted a few files with OTRS permission. such as [22]. why? what was wrong? matanya talk 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Tell Megiddo - 2006 Preservation plan -4.jpg was only a talkpage. You likely meant File:Tell Megiddo - 2006 Preservation plan -4.jpg. It was deleted by Killiondude because it had been tagged as OTRS-pending since 2009-12-16. We can undelete it, but really not before a permission has been presented.
Any more deleted files to check? --Túrelio (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks, I'm the OTRS member of he-permission, and i've got the OTRS permission for the files. if I'll give you the names can you undelete them? about 10-15 files. matanya talk 06:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. But you should then immediately put the ORS-ticket on them. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course.
thank you very much. matanya talk 06:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. I've courtesy-notified Killiondude, but he'll likely have no objection. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
fine, I'm adding permissionOTRS, now. matanya talk 07:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems some (or all) of these files are duplicate of existing files. Seems our effort was (at least in part) in vain. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
yes, I'm trying to find out with the user who asked me to undelete why didn't she tell me she uploaded it again with permission. I apologize. matanya talk 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Never too late...


In mid March I created the deletion requests log Nonsense Portuguese and Union maps and only a week later you deleted one of them on the log. Thanks for that! However, you did not finish deleting the other items on the deletion log and close the discussion.

Please finish the job now that there has been considerable time passed and people have posted their comments on the deletion of each item in the log. (the link to the log is above). Thanks again, Maps & Lucy (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maps & Lucy,
if you look at the DR discussion, you don't need to wonder that this is still open. Honestly, as this would require digging deep into this whole flag business, I've currently not the nerve (and time) for that. If you think it's urgent, then try to look for an admin more familiar with flags. Ok, I've deleted the 3 clear cases. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That was fast! Thanks pall, you have just been added to my Wiki-friends list! You actually got rid of 4 instead of 3, and all the better! Thanks again! Maps & Lucy (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Dann hättste es auch ändern können. Bei dem Klickibunti-Quatsch hier blickt doch keine Sau mehr durch. Weissbier (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Na ja, Kommentare anderer User zu ändern, ist hier auch nicht soo gern gesehen. Ich hab dich ja nur revertiert, weil du unabsichtlich einen Löschantrag auf die Seite gestellt hast. Für die Zählung, wenn es dazu gekommen wäre, hätte das Icon eh keine Rolle gespielt. Nächstes Mal einfach schauen, welchen Code andere benutzen, die dasselbe ausdrücken wollen. Bei Matthiasb stand nämlich das remove. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice

Hi, Túrelio. I noticed that you have started to delete files associated with the DR; however, the DR does not seem to have been closed yet. Since you are already acting on it, can you close the DR and note what actions are being taken for it? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, all those, that I have deleted, carried a speedy-cv: File:Yoshi.png, File:Wario.png and File:Yoshi from US Patent 7338376 (colored).svg. I can restore them if you still want to discuss them. The DR seems to have no list of the related files. --Túrelio (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I am in agreement with deleting them (see my comments in the DR) even though I created the color version of File:Yoshi from US Patent 7338376 (colored).svg. However, it seems a bit strange that someone put a speedy tag on the files while the DR is still open. Could you discuss the issue with the user who placed the speedy tag (since I am not an admin and not privy to such information)? Jappalang (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As this is no confidential information, all 3 were tagged by User:Kameraad Pjotr. I've notified him of your concern. --Túrelio (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I nominated them for speedy deletion, as nothing was moving at the DR, and I was in the process of closing it before I resigned. All images nominated for speedy deletion were clear copyright violations, once it was established that {{PD-US-patent-no notice}} was no longer valid.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanketing face of the person

OK i did; let's try with this new one - File:Campagna_italiana_raccolta_legna_cavalli.jpg
Bye - Decio Mure (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Far better. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

More Good 'ol' deletions!

Hi, I noticed that even though this deletion log reached an agreement to delete the file and the administrator involved in cloding the deletion claimed to delete it they actually forgot to do so. It is not in use aymore and has been that way for a while. Would you please take care of that? Cheers, Maps & Lucy (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin didn't forget to delete, but the original uploader, Gd21091993, uploaded it again about a month later. As he is currently active, you might ask him directly about that file, User talk:Gd21091993. --Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


photo became of my grand father. He did the Indochina War then this is his photo. What is you problem ?

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Олег Р. Вязьмитин's images

Hi Túrelio, With regard to User:Олег Р. Вязьмитин's images I deleted a number of his uploads before I noticed your note on User:Олег Р. Вязьмитин's talk page. I did so on the basis of there being restricted FOP in Russia with artworks needing to be de minimis and no commercial use only, re Freedom of Panorama-Former Soviet Union, I respect your experience with deletions and will hold off continuing to delete these images unless you concur.KTo288 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi KTo288, thanks for your concern. As of the rationale you presented, the deletions seem to be necessary as per copyright, rather than as per wish of the uploader as I first thought. Therefore, go on ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
At a guess he discovered the copyright problem and then asked for the deletions, I don't think English is his first language, I would find it next to impossible to articulate a deletion request in Russian, anyway thanks, I was distracted by other things , and they had been cleared by the time I got back.KTo288 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving the files

Since you have decided to single out my contributions that have been cited the way dozens (if not hundreds) of other images have been cited on the Commons I am simply going to move them. Thanks. Wallanon (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "single out my contributions", as I've likely checked hundreds of images today. All new uploads are patrolled by volunteers to early detect copyright violations and otherwise inappropriat material. I've put the Flickrreview-template on two of your uploads, which would have been your job at upload. Your third upload (File:Lapdance topless yellow.jpg) is rather clearly out of COM:SCOPE, but may also the violate personality rights of the identifiable person in the image. --Túrelio (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Not out of scope for what it is being used for. But, really, the file should have never been here. Was trying to follow the suggestion from another site but it clearly is not worth it. Nothing personal, but the whole practice of using policy to enforce personal tastes is getting old. If that isn't what you are doing, then you may want to simply mark one file in the future and leave a note instead of tagging everything a person has posted all at once. I am going to wipe this whole block from your talk page because, again, nothing personal. Wallanon (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Yuval banay.jpg

Should this 1 month old DR be closed as delete? I notice the uploader uploaded only 2 flickr images. One passed and the other failed but he is not very active here on Commons and may not know the right license. Captain tucker has contacted the flickr owner about the license with no success and the flickr owner has been active quite recently in the past 2 weeks and must have seen the captain's request on a license change. I have a feeling that waiting a while longer will not change the situation sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acting. In this case, waiting 2 weeks or 2 months will not change the situation at all in my view. Captain tucker has had many people change the license of an image on flickr freely but experienced no success here at all. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Porn should go

I have found several pictures on Commons that are unnecessary and pornographic. Here they are:

I need your help to get these off of commons so that it can be a more wholesome, educational place for the people.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, IMHO that's not really "pornography", but if you are concerned about those pictures, you should request the deletion using the formal way! axpdeHello! 11:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
At least the first three are taken from a porn site called "nude-in-public-com". So the are more a copyright-violation, than a pornography-problem. Weissbier (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
@RayquazaDialgaWeird2210, true, most of these images are rather unless (hardly usable without a model release), but IMHO this is not p0rnography. The suspicion of violating copyright may be more relevant, but has to be verified. Anyway, thanks for the notification. As a personal note, if the age on your :en-userpage is still true, I would recommend you to avoid such non-educational images. The recent (though badly executed) initiative by Jimbo has started a thorough discussion about how to deal with such and far worse images. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bahnbilder Diskussion

Hallo Túrelio, auf COM:FORUM hast Du den sinnvollen Vorschlag gemacht die Situation betreffend der auf DB Grund aufgenommenen Bilder mal durch ein Rechtsgutacheten klaeren zu lassen. Sollen wir es mal in Angriff nehmen den Verein darauf anzusprechen. Ich denke man kann es niemandem zumuten die teilweise recht inkohaerenten Diskussionen hier im Forum, dem Portal Bahn und den Undeletion Requests zu lesen. Wir sollten also kurz die wichtigen Punkte zusammenfassen, bei denen Klaerungsbedarf besteht. Ein deratiges Gutachten kann gleich noch mehr Fragen beantworten. Stichwort: Museen. --Dschwen (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Dschwen,
den Vorschlag hatte ich in derselben Diskussion sogar schon öfter gemacht, Martina schien es auch einmal aufgegriffen zu haben, aber dann ist es doch irgendwie im Sande verlaufen. Ob es sinnvoll ist, Bahn und Museum zusammenzufassen, weiß ich nicht, da beides doch recht unterschiedlich ist; aber vielleicht ist es für einen Juristen ja doch dasselbe, woraus du entnehmen kannst, IANAL. Punkt 2 deines Entwurfs macht zusätzlich ein Commons/Wikimedia-Fass auf, was in der Forums-Diskussion auch schon angeklungen ist: kann/soll zugelassen werden, dass wir Bilder hosten, die bei kommerzieller Verwendung (was immer das denn heißt) nicht mehr frei sind, sondern eine Genehmigung und, wie bei der DB AG, sogar doch wieder Geld (wenn auch als "Gebühr" deklariert) kosten? Tatsächlich haben wir bei Portraits, die ich seit meinen ersten Commons-Tagen mit {{personality}} tagge, ja durchaus auch eine Einschränkung der Verwendbarkeit und tolerieren das ohne Mucken: allerdings gehts da nicht primär um Geld. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hallo und danke für den Hinweis auf diese Disk. Falls denn schon mal ein Gutachten zur Frage des Hausrechts erstellt wird, sollte es m.E. auch für die nächsten zigtausend Fotos gelten. Deshalb würde ich bei den Beispielen auch private Museen und Zoos einbeziehen und zwar solche, die nur die kommerzielle Veröffentlichung verbieten, und solche, die das Veröffentlichen komplett verbieten.
Ich baue mal Ergänzungen und neue Formulierungen ein. Nur als Vorschlag.
Soll ich das Anliegen beim WMDE in die Mailingliste geben oder ist einer von euch selbst Vereins- oder Listenmitglied? Bei der Foundation wäre wohl am besten ihr Justiziar Mike Godwin anzusprechen? --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Mit WMDE meinst du wohl "VereinDE-l". Hab ich nicht abonniert, scheint aber einen überschaubaren Schreiberkreis zu haben, so dass nicht zuviel Grundrauschen zu befürchten ist. Bin kein Vereinsmitglied. Fragt sich ob wir zuerst bei WM-de oder gleich (auch) bei Godwin anklopfen sollen? Inhaltlich betrifft es ja wesentlich deutsches Recht. Ok, Schweiz könnte ähnlich sein; Austria weiß ich nicht. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Schreibs doch erstmal an die Vereinsliste. Als Bitte um Hilfe, mit kurzer Beschreibung der Tragweite der ganze Sache. An Wikimedia kann man sich immernoch wenden, aber da es sich um deutsches recht handelt sollten wir es erstmal hier versuchen. Gab es nicht eine Kanzlei die fuer WMDE schon pro bono gearbeitet hat (mir ist so etwas duffus in Erinnerung). --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
JBB ist keine Freie Kanzlei. ;-) Das kostet den Verein dann schon Geld. Ich stelle die Frage ein und hoffe, dass ich damit nicht den Streit nur in die Mailingliste ausweite. --Martina Nolte (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
done [33] --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Danke; mal sehn was kommt. --Túrelio (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Dank auch von mir. Da kann man jetzt nur hoffen das jetzt nicht irgendwelche selbsternannten Hobbyjuristen meinen diese Fragen auf der Mailingliste beantworten zu muessen... --Dschwen (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ich baue mal weitere kleine Änderungen so [markiert] ein als Merkzettel für später, falls es grünes Licht gibt. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Inzwischen hatte ich den Geschäftsführer des Vereins angemailt, wie die Sache nun weitergeht. Bisher keine Antwort. Ich bleibe am Ball und melde mich, sobald es Neuigkeiten gibt. --Martina Nolte (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tääterätätää: [34] :-) --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Danke für deine konstruktive Hartnäckigkeit. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Entwurf (bitte dran rumfummeln)

  • In wieweit kann der Lizenzstatus von Bildern durch das Hausrecht am Aufnahmeort beeinflusst/beschränkt werden?
    • Beispiel 1: DB AG[1] verbietet die Veröffentlichung von Fotoaufnahmen auf ihrem Grund und Boden zu kommerziellen Zwecken.
    • Beispiel 2: Tierpark Nürnberg[2] untersagt das Filmen und Fotografieren zu kommerziellen Zwecken.
    • Beispiel 3: Tierpark Hagenbeck[3] verbietet jegliche öffentliche Verwertung von Bildmaterial ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung.
  • Dürfen diese Dateien trotzdem auf Commons gehostet werden (die Lizenz muss ja kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben)?
  • Geht der Fotograf durch Betreten des Privatgeländes per Hausordnung ein Vertragsverhältnis ein und verletzt mit dem Upload unter einer Freien Lizenz geltendes Recht auf Commons?
    • Wenn ja, wie wirkt sich die Rechtsverletzung auf den Seitenbetreiber aus (Stichwort "Forenhaftung")?
  • Verlieren Freie Lizenzen von Bildern, bei deren Anfertigung [oder Veröffentlichung] eine Hausrechtsverletzung begangen wurde, ihre Gültigkeit?
  • Sind potentielle Nachnutzer gebunden an den Vertrag(?) zwischen dem Hausrechtsinhaber und dem Fotografen? Anders formuliert: Verletzen sie das Hausrecht der Grundstückseigner bei kommerzieller Nutzung?
  • Speziell zur Bahn AG (1994 aus Fusion der Staatsbahnen Deutsche Bundesbahn und Deutsche Reichsbahn entstanden): Besteht der behauptete Hausrechtsanspruch überhaupt?
    • Wenn ja, wie weit ist seine Reichweite, z.B. in Bezug auf den Aufnahmezeitpunkt?
  • Das Gutachten sollte [auf größtmögliche] Rechtssicherheit für den Photographen/Uploader und für potentielle Nachnutzer [herstellen abzielen].
  1. Kategorie Deutsche Bahnhöfe
  2. Kategorie Zoo Nürnberg
  3. Kategorie Hagenbeck

Materialien: Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache

guckst Du hier...

Eine Werbeseite des Messias, oder vielmehr seiner pakistanischen Stiftung, siehe Messiah Foundation International - kann man das so lassen? Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Darauf hatte Herby schon hier aufmerksam gemacht. Fällt mir etwas schwer zu beurteilen, da ich den Laden nicht kenne. NPOV spielt bei uns ja keine so große Rolle. Sobald man das Ganze als Artikel ansehen muss, wäre es oos, da bist du ja geübt ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Turelio,

If you very carefully read this DR, it is clear that the picture cannot be kept and this 1 month old DR must be closed as the end. The captain has twice contacted the flickr owner without success. There is no doubt in my mind now after I saw what the flickr owner did. Perhaps the license was always CC BY NC at time of upload but we cannot be sure now. And no one else has chosen to vote in this DR in over a month. Please think about the situation. If you want to give more time, that's OK with me but I think it will be fruitless in the end. There is just not going to be a license change. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Admin Turelio for acting although I must confess I don't know what the expression 'Jeremiah 31,29' means even though I am Catholic. With best regards and keep up your excellent work here. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The meaning (not the wording) is that the sons have to pay for the faults of their fathers; in this case, as there had been no Flickr-review record at upload, we have to delete it now. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Italy Bassa padana map.svg

Thank you for taking care of many of my delete/rename requests. Would you mind looking at Italy Bassa padana map.svg, which has been waiting renaming for two weeks ? Thanks. --Pethrus (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:View of Nelson Mandela Stadium.jpg

Hi Turelio, you might be interested to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:View of Nelson Mandela Stadium.jpg.--KTo288 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File:MARGOTTON l'offrande océane.jpg

Bonjour j'ai effectivement importé des images sur la biographie du peintre René Margotton auquel je m'intéresse .ce sont des photos prises dans son atelier peu de temps après son décès et en accord avec sa veuve pour la publication qui en a les droits.J'ai demandé à Wiki s'il fallait une autorisation écrite de la part de cette dame et comment vous l'envoyer car elle n'utilise pas internet ,elle est très âgée.Existe-t-il un formulaire écrit? Même chose pour File:Baigneuse à la barque 1952.jpg et File:MARGOTTON einèg ed niaropmetnoc.jpg bien cordialement

Pardon, Camomila, mais je ne parle pas francais. Voir Commons:Administrators pour administrateurs de langue francaise, comme User:Jastrow. --Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Canadian businessman & CFL owner David Braley (2010).jpg

If you can, please mark this image uploaded by me of an important and very rich businessman and supporter of Canadian football. He is now a Canadian senator, too. The flickr owner agrred to change the license to cc by sa generic...since he knows me. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind help. I have just 1 basic rule on wikipedia...and that is to never use images which have not passed flickr review. That is why I will wait for hours and days until someone marks them. Best regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Brödraskapet "The Brotherhood" Swedish prison gang

Túrelio, Why did you delete The images Bsk.jpg and brodraskapetwolfpack45.jpg There were no copyright violations. Explain why This pictures are copyright violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesislupo (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24. Mai 2010 (UTC)

File:Bsk.jpg and File:Brodraskapetwolfpack45.jpg had been tagged by User:Tryphon as derivative work. I could un-delete them, but I would recommend you to first discuss with Tryphon. --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Sombrero, Hubble images.jpg

Hello. File:Sombrero, Hubble images.jpg is a Commons:Featured picture candidates --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is/was also a duplicate (or very near duplicate) of File:Sombrero Galaxy in infrared light (Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope).jpg. Anyway, in need, I can undelete it for you. --Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Request Norway

Hello Turelio, can you please "speedy delete" on request of the uploader File:Honningsvag 033 31.jpg and File:Honningsvag 031 28.jpg as there is no freedom of panorama in Norway. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


When tagging duplicates, do I have to tag both img or just one of em? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to tag only the one that should or can be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
If BOTH of them are the same? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You can and should choose the speedy-rationale "duplicate" only when the images are identical. Per policy, they should even be identical to the byte. However, the latter can't be applied if one image is just a scaled-down version of the other one. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
If any file is tagged "duplicate" I usually check both files and decide which file I delete. Cases of wrong spelling, non-descriptive file names and unneccessary additional information (e.g. pixel) are quite easy to decide, else the actual usage can be a good hint ... axpdeHello! 19:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chisato Mishima

Leave this article alone. Do not make anymore deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milegiven719 (talk • contribs) , 16:05, 26. Mai 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Here on Commons we have no articles, but only images and other media files.--Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
First and only edit of this user ... strange! axpdeHello! 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


i know there was a problem with the logo, but i do remember there is a page where you can add logogs to wikimedia, but i can't remember where it is. could you possibly tell me?

thanks --MKY661 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi MKY661, the problem was that the source of this image/logo carries the note "Copyright © 2002 - 2010 Monarch". Therefore, we have to assume it is copyrighted. However, you might ask the people of directly whether they are willing and able to grant you written permission for uploading the logo under a free license. (It could then still be tagged as {{trademark}}, but would be free in regard to copyright.) --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This DR (settled)

Dear Turelio,

Why is this 6 month old DR from November 2009 still kept open when there is no COM:FOP for modern architectural works of art in South Africa? It should have been closed long ago, I think. Do you agree. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, I'm on travel till sunday. --Túrelio (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  • That's OK. Have a safe trip. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

File:AUTH - Faculty of Education.jpg

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

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

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

-- fetchcomms 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a little note, as you restored it earlier.  fetchcomms 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

May able to blocking JohnMarcelo

all images uploaded by JohnMarcelo has deleted due to copyright violations. anyone you have blocking(indefinte) of JohnMarcelo.sorry for bad english-- 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@, our blocks are not (should not be) punitive, but used to prevent damage to the project. As JohnMarcelo (talk · contribs) had only 4 uploads (all in 2009) and hasn't been active since then, a block now doesn't make any sense. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Sincerly speaking, I don't see how this photo could be affected by the Italian law ruling the (not) Freedom of Panorama. This is not a panorama, in simply a wall with a write (that's no art, for Italian law, since is considered as vandalism) on it. Could you explain your idea, please? Fale (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, 1) this image was already tagged for speedy-deletion when I saw it, likely due to your own bot as no one else edited it; 2) on its source[35] it is tagged as "do not move to Commons", and 3) yes, such a long text might be considered as copyrighted as any other writing (not meant ironically). Of course, I could undelete it and put it into a regular DR, if you prefer that. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix-up


I'm sorry for causing a problem, all I was trying to do was tag the image for Category:Chris Paul using HotCat. I was looking at the edit history and comparing my edits to the previous version, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one who tagged it as "no permission." I don't want to point fingers, but I did not intend to make any edit related to the permission status of the image and I'm pretty sure that I did not in fact make such an edit. If I did cause this problem, however, I apologize for my mistake, but it was not something I was intending to do. Take care! TFCforever (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, I have to apologize. Seems the confusing edit history of that image led me to mix-up things. Actually the uploader himself added (unnecessary) OTRS-pending already at upload despite Flickr-review, and as there was no permission sent, several people were led astray. Sorry. --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

files tagged as copyvio

hi. all files that I put as {{copyvio}} are logos of brazilian football teams and other objects belonging to them, like flags. if I put a link to the official website of each team, would take too much time. some of them has a {{PD-old}}, but it's not true because they actually exist in today. sorry. -- 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Túrelio: Just as Info: I have maked all those edits as patrolled. I don't know if they are copy vio or not. They should probably go throgh DR.) Amada44 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. How are you, i wanted to ask you, what's the problem with the image?, I s because it did appear in gainax website?, thanks for answering ;)


Why was this marked as a copyright violation? I specifically looked for a picture of her with correct licensing on Flickr and found the one I had uploaded. It was marked only with the Creative Commmons logo and a person inside a circle, which according to Commons:Upload was acceptable. - Talk to you later, User:Presidentman (talk) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 20:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Presidentman,
it had been tagged as {{copyvio|1=uploader's source is a copy and is licensed incorrectly | source=}}. Though it was sourced to (upload to Flickr May 2, 2010), it was actually from (upload to Flickr November 21, 2009), where it is (C) ARR. If you get a permission under a Commons-acceptable license from the second Flickr-user, I'll be glad to restore it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, how/where do you know this is PD-old? May be it's not old pic. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's PD-art rather than PD-old, as it's clearly a reproduction of a painting. However, as you stated, unless we have the date we can't be certain. Nice name by the way, I saw that play a few months back with Rosamund Pike as leading lady. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
@Hedda, nowhere I said "I know". I just wrote "likely PD-old". It's rather a strong gut feeling, as today hardly somebody would paint the "Ottoman siege of Constantinople in 1453". --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deine Rückfrage wegen der drei Nackedeibilder

Die Webseite nennt sich . Von da waren die drei Fotos wohl geklaut worden. Sorry für die späte Antwort, aber ich war im Urlaub. Grüße Weissbier (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Das wusste ich schon. Mich hätten die deep-links interessiert. Trotzdem Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


...kannst du dir die Aktivitäten dieses Benutzers ansehen, der - trotz meiner Hiweise - weiter fremde Artikel z.T. mit Fotos hochlädt und sie für jeglichen Zweck ohne Bedingungen "freigibt". Vgl. Artikeldisk. und URF auf de-WP. Danke! --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Danke. --Martina Nolte (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Hallo. Ich wäre froh, wenn du darauf verzichten würdest, diese Kategorie kurz nach dem Übertragen durch mich hinzuzufügen. Ich hatte nun schon mehrfach einen Bearbeitungskonflikt deswegen. --Leyo 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nun ja, es gibt schlimmeres als mal einen BK. Wenn ich bei der Eingangssichtkontrolle von Logos auch noch prüfen muss, ob du es hochgeladen hast, dann lass ich es gleich ganz. Gibt eh genug anderes zu tun. (Wenn ich etwas hochlade, überlege bzw. überprüfe ich vorher welche cats infrage kommen und setze die in der Uploadmaske unter die Beschreibung; aber das muss man natürlich nicht so machen.) --Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Da ich den Upload per Bot von Magnus mache, kann ich die Seite nicht vorher anpassen. --Leyo 21:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


How did File:Neenyo-seangettiphoto.jpg encounter copyright violation?

As I wrote in the deletion summary, it's from MySpace, exactly from Material on MySpace is copyrighted. If you are the rights holder, please sent a written permission to the address found on OTRS. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


I made an error in my statement here. There is a source...but the given source does not show the license on panoramio. Do you see the problem now? If the image has no license and the uploader uploaded only a few photos here, then its safer to delete I think....unless you can find the source or if you trust the uploader. Based on his limited record here, it is not possible to trust him/her. So, we need the actual source with the license. If not, it is best to delete this image file. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. However, as it is not that urgent after >6 months, I like to see the normal panoramio page of that image. As I don't know the way from static to normal, I've asked for that on AN. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Your gut feeling was correct, as I had expected anyway. At its source,, the image was (C). --Túrelio (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi Turelio, I just noticed that this morning you did the speedy deletions of orphaned redirects that I put up for deletion. I only recently was granted the right to move files and I just want to check with you whether I did allright. After moving a file, I checked whether the old name was used anywhere else in commons or globally. If so I first repaired the broken links, then I tagged the old filename for speedy deletion. Is this the common process and do all users with filemover right use the speedy deletion template in similar cases? Thanks for taking notice. - Wikiklaas (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikiklaas, 1) for the usage checking: you are aware that the Usage-"button" on top of the image page does show only global, but not Commons' usage? For example, the empty file/link File:Sint-Baafskathedraal tower.jpg was still "used" on a page on Commons. I've replaced the outdated filename on that page by the new one, which I found in your edit history. 2) whether such redirects should be deleted at all, is a matter of debate. I tend to deletion, but if the deleted image/filename was on Commons for a long time or if it is a sort of high-profile image (quite used on Wikimedia projects and likely used outside), then I would leave the redirect, to avoid broken source links for outside users. --Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Túrelio, thanks for your kind and quick answer. Yes I was aware of the situation you described with file usage on commons but this one obviously escaped my attention. And I just read about the reasons for not deleting redirects in a topic on the Village Pump, so I'll keep that in mind! I'm just glad to notice you did not raise eyebrows when you saw my requests. You just sort of encouraged me to go on like this, cleaning up some of the mess in the botany section (especially misidentified species). Thank you. - Wikiklaas (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


[36] Your tag removed - do you think this is ok? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. No, I think this image is still not ok. Though a source was added, its license is still unproven. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Marcelo prensa.jpg

Hey Túrelio,

The article where it was included was about himself, so is probable that image is own work, but on the other hand, in the deleted article he says that he's Honduran, but he doesn't look like Hondurans (just IMHO) so there's a little probability that image has been taken from somewhere else. Anyway, I removed the speedy template, if you think it should be useful, I trust you :) Best regards --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Smerek Bieszczady.jpg

I'd like to have this photo deleted because it is not used in Wikipedia and it has very bad quality (it is a scan). Smerek.jpg, although different, shows the same mountain, from the same place and is much better. --ŁukaszWu (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do fully understand that. But, IMHO this "bad" image is still of additional value as it shows this mountain in a different state (of vegetation) than the "better" image. If you want to have it deleted, open a regular DR, that will allow for more opinions than only mine. --Túrelio (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've read about the deletion procedures and they are rather complicated. I'm going to finish my activity on Commons and Wikipedia so I will not request any more. If you don't want to delete, just don't do it. --ŁukaszWu (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I can nominate it for deletion for you, but not today as I'm too busy. I hope that is not the reason you quit Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't the reason. It's just an addiction to Wikipedia. Spending so much time editing articles which can be spoiled any time by anybody is a nonsense. There are also so many articles with serious mistakes - in my opinion it is a waste of time. By the way, could you permanently protect my talk page against editing and delete my user page? --ŁukaszWu (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Wish you well for your life after Wikipedia ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's images

Are these user's images here copyrighted or not? I don't know if they are in the public domain or if they are flickrwahese as I don't know the uploader. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, though Bapti performed most deletions. --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussions for User:How

I noticed that you have tagged uploads modified by How (talk · contribs) in the past, and that he removed those tags. One of them has been under discussion for deletion for a few days now, and I have nominated two more. The files that you were involved with that are now up for discussion are File:Abdul Baha Abbas.jpg, File:Shoghi Effendi.jpg, and File:Shoghi Effendi2.jpg. His Commons upload File:Tehran - Iran.jpg is also up for discussion. He has still been removing speedy deletion tags and dispute tags, so I am nominating all questionable uploads that he has touched, so that they each get a full discussion. (He seems to have the idea that all copyrights expire everywhere after 50 years, and/or that photographers don't have names like human beings, and/or that all photographers die immediately after taking a picture. Obviously, the difference between creation dates and publication dates eludes him also.) --Closeapple (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Permission

The images that were uploaded are Angel Vazquez's. I got permission to upload them. I created this account for him to use here on wikipedia. If there is anything else im supposed to do please let me know. Angel Vazquez (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a line my eyes met rather instantly ... "NOT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT" ... i.e. commercial use is prohibited, which doesn't conciliate with GFDL/CC licences required by wikimedia! Regards axpdeHello! 06:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
@Axpde, thanks for reminding me of this thread and for touching on the sore point.
@Angel Vazquez-fan, thanks for your efforts and honesty about the Angel Vazquez-account on Commons. As Axpde already pointed out, images uploaded to Commons have to be free for commercial use - at least per copyright. (Portrait images need additionally a model release (due to personality rights) for any commercial use.) Though the statement by Angel Vazquez seems to rather clearly forbid this, you may ask him directly about "commercial use". If he agrees to that, then go to Commons:Email templates (spanish: Commons:Modelos de mensajes), take the boxed "Declaration of consent for all enquiries", enter the filenames or complete URLs and the license of choice, mail that all to Angel Vazquez and ask him tom sign/date it and to mail it back to --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I followed your instructions. I gave him this information. He said he would send the email you asked. Angel Vazquez (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If he logs in and uploads more images with the same license, will he have to send the email again for the new files? Angel Vazquez (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
One permission can cover more than 1 image; but the filenames of the images to-be-covered have to be put into the permission. --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting images

It is enough to delete an orphaned image at the request of the author, the statement that another has been uploaded to replace it was just to show they were not arbitrarily being deleted. I don't really want to go to each file and post the link, seems a bit of a waste of time. But I assure you I drew and painted better versions than the rough cartoonish ones being deleted, which were only meant to be temporary. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is enough to delete an orphaned image at the request of the author - sorry, no. With properly releasing an image under a free license to Commons the uploader gives up most of "his" control over the image. This is nothing personal, just policy.
In reality we do usually honor reasonable uploader/author requests, but you shouldn't make it extra hard for the deleting admin by forcing him to do what you consider "a waste of time" for yourself ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
They are orphaned images with a deletion request by the author and uploader, that being me. I know that Wikimedia Commons can keep the image being these were released to the public domain, but you also said it yourself, that in "reality we do usually honor uploader/author requests". So it is enough to delete an image per my request, and especially so with the image being orphaned. I went a step further to mention that a better image was created so that in net total nothing is really being lost by this deletion. Yet, this extra step is a point of contention for some reason; why is it so much more difficult to delete an image if I say I made a better image to replace it? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult for you just to add the filename of the alleged better replacement into the request? Why do you expect me as (unpaid) admin to search categories for similar looking images just to find which file you meant? Simply being orphaned does not per se qualify for speedy, if the image is in scope. Everything should have been clear after my first reply. Commons:Deletion policy for further reading. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Alleged? Really? I would like to remind you that I am unpaid as well. That there is a policy of assuming good faith. So, since it is clear I have already contributed to Commons numerous times (there are numerous files listed after all), then it is likely and a good faith assumption that I have contributed these "alleged" files. No, now you want to imply I am trying to delete images I created and that are orphaned for some nefarious purpose? Why use terms like “alleged” otherwise? Tell me, what conspiracy are you thinking that this is too much to trust a contributor concerning that which he contributed? What exactly is too much work? Going through trying to find these "alleged" higher grade files? If it is too much work for you to trust me on my very own files, that is not my issue. If it is too much work for you to search them out and link them because you are unpaid, then it might just be that it is too much work for me to do the same thing being I am likewise unpaid. After I am wasted my time drawing, painting, digitizing, uploading and labeling the files, I am sorry that I wanted to just take a few short cuts to save me some time so I could have it to myself today. Had I known admins were so untrusting of people‘s intentions and that doing as I had done was to take up even more f my time, I would have not only posted the links but also mailed you certified copies of the higher grade paintings for your personal inspection. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


I know that they do, but I also know that the policy says an {{own}} claim is sufficient. If one disbelieves the claim, one can file a deletion request. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied over to your talkpage to keep discussion at one place. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

file:Avenida Bias Fortes

We just had a strange edit conflict of sorts. I moved Bias.JPG to Avenida Bias.jpg a few seconds after you moved Bias.JPG to Avenida Bias Fortes.JPG, leaving a redirect.

So, I actually moved the redirect, not the image -- and the software didn't pick it up. I only discovered it while editing [37], when the image wouldn't come up. I'm going to move Bias.gif also.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny. Thanks for notifying. I've now deleted both File:Avenida Bias.jpg and File:Bias.JPG as both were unused. --Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sony PSP and Darkstalkers Chronicle.png

Are you sure that's a copyvio? I've modified the screen and it's not on focus, so it shouldn't be a copyvio.. or not? Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 12:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for tagging it as copyvio by Kungfuman, had been "copyrighted game screenshot content. Not de minimis.", which seemed plausible to me. If you are strongly convinced it is not a derivative, I can restore it, at least temporarily. But keep in mind that even modifying a copyrighted work can violate copyright, if the existing work is still visible. --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Dear Túrelio,

I have tried to order the Category:Saxifraga. It was not an easy job, because of the lot of - sometimes very similar - species (more than 400), with a lot of confusing synonyms. Moreover, misidentifications are common even in botanical gardens...

Yesterday I asked for speedy deleting S. facchinii and its category. It was a mistake. Sorry for it, nobody is infallible! I have corrected it this morning by recreating S. facchinii and redirecting S. facchini to it. I have also corrected the content of some obvious misidentifications and, when possible, I have reclassified it appropriately.

I have still some doubt about two pictures identified currently as S. groenlandicum. S. groenlandicum is an obsolete name which was given by several authors for different species, among others S. exarata, S. cespitosa, S. pubescens and S. rosacea. I will try to solve this remaining issue...

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Reginald, thanks for the notification and for your hard word - the kind that usually goes unnoticed on Commons. And there is nothing to be "Sorry for it", as deleting a cat is as easily done as its recreation. As are one of our botany specialists, in some weeks I will likely ask for your help for identification of some flowers. right|thumb|what kind of flower might that be? taken on a cemetery in Aachen --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

some advise

Hey, Túrelio. Can you give me a little hint. Is it right permission? Алый Король (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Алый, problem is, I don't know any Russian language. If I understand it right, you uploaded this image, but it comes from this website. Therefore you have to check and to put the evidence onto the image site, that this image is really under the free license under that you uploaded it to Commons. Sometimes there is a CC-license note on source websites. But, as I don't understand Russian, I can't check it in this case. Recently active Russian-language admins are User:Butko, User:EugeneZelenko and User:Putnik. --Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Fine. "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike", without other restrictions, is perfect for Commons. If they don't provide a special version of CC-BY-SA, you might choose the newest one (3.0) and/or a Russia-localized version, if available. --Túrelio (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
so I can continue uploading without doubt? --Алый Король (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If there is no other restriction mentioned and if the site, where the individual image is located, doesn't have a different (C) note, it should be fine. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thank you a lot. --Алый Король (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"user page images" von user:Attrition

Hallo Turelio, bei dieser Gallery [38] sind drei der vier Dateien "User page images", die nicht länger in Gebrauch. Der "User:Attrition" (Andrew Runciman) hat in der englischen WP auch nicht mehr als 50 Beiträge, überwiegend die Bearbeitung der eigenen Seite. Die Bilder sind dann eigentlich private und out of scope, oder ? Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cholo, da aktuell keines der Bilder mehr auf der userpage benutzt wird, sind sie von dieser Seite alle ooS. Der Cartoon hat eventuell gewissen Eigenwert, wobei etwas unklar ist, ob der Uploader der Urheber ist. Das jüngste Bild, File:Andrew runciman - mutton chops.jpg, hätte möglicherweise Eigenwert wegen der Frisur, ist aber problematisch, weil der Dateiname den Abgebildeten eindeutig identifiziert. Die anderen beiden habe ich schon gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate deletion

Hi I uploaded the Dipt_PMathome in commons but for some reason it was not appearing in the English Wiki article en:Diptendu Pramanick - hence uploaded photo in English Wikipedia and thus this photo in commons is orphaned and duplicate. This can be deleted. Pramanick (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you direct me to instructions of how to remove earlier version of uploaded photo. If there are two versions uploaded and latter is an improvement, the earlier version is of no use. How to delete the same? Pramanick

In case you want to have removed a special version of a file, you can just put a speedy on it and write exactly which version you want to have removed. --Túrelio (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio, zweimal habe ich das {{duplicate}}-tag bei dem Bild entfernt, da es eben keine exakte Kopie von File:PSM V01 D112 Celtic hatchets.jpg ist, das habe ich als admin so entschieden. Gut, Du hast das anders gesehen, aber darum geht es mir garnicht. Ich finde es aber eine Frechheit, dass da jemand meinte, das {{duplicate}}-tag solange einzubauen, bis ein admin nicht so genau hinsieht. Das erfüllt m.E. den Tatbestand des Vandalismus! Wie siehst Du als erfahrener admin das? Gruß axpdeHello! 11:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, in dem Fall habe ich tatsächlich nicht so genau in die history reingeschaut, weil mir beide Fassungen, abgesehen von der m.E. weniger relevanten Hintergrundfarbe, identisch erschienen und die jetzt verbliebene Variante eine deutlich höhere Auflösung hat. Ich kann die andere gern wiederherstellen, wenn dir daran liegt. Bzgl. des mehrmaligen taggens: wenn mir das auffällt, weil ich es beim 1. mal revertiert habe und derjenige es dann nochmal reinsetzt, spreche ich den meistens direkt an, entweder via edit-summary oder sogar auf seiner Disku. Hier File:TPSMV1P113.jpg ist dann wohl eine ähnliche Situation. --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Bei File:TPSMV1P112.jpg wurde nicht nur die Hintergrundfarbe geändert (die wäre mir persönlich auch nicht so wichtig), sondern auch die Bildunterschriften gelöscht! Beim ersten Mal habe ich geschrieben "-duplicate (no exact copy)", beim zweiten Mal"(-delete (this is still NO EXACT COPY!))". Ich finde es schon eine ziemliche Frechheit von User:Ineuw, dreimal den gleichen Löschantrag zu stellen. Was macht man denn üblicherweise mit so einem Früchtchen? Sperren? Hmmm ...

Auszug aus der Versionsgeschichte:

  1. (zeige/verstecke) (Unterschied) 01:53, 21. Jun. 2010 . . Ineuw (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (406 Bytes) (image duplicate deletion requested)
  2. (zeige/verstecke) (Unterschied) 16:39, 20. Jun. 2010 . . Axpde (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (353 Bytes) (-delete (this is still NO EXACT COPY!))
  3. (zeige/verstecke) (Unterschied) 15:50, 20. Jun. 2010 . . Ineuw (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (401 Bytes) (duplicate deletion requested)
  4. (zeige/verstecke) (Unterschied) 08:23, 19. Jun. 2010 . . Axpde (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (353 Bytes) (-duplicate (no exact copy))
  5. (zeige/verstecke) (Unterschied) 00:00, 19. Jun. 2010 . . Ineuw (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (401 Bytes) (duplicate deletion requested)

Gruß axpdeHello! 12:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Die BU hatte ich tatsächlich übersehen; Datei wiederhergestellt. Erkläre es Ineuw am besten auf seiner Disku; dass er zwar vorübergehend erfolgreich einen admin irregeführt, dadurch aber außer unnötiger Mehrarbeit nichts erreicht hat und es nächstes Mal beim ersten Widerspruch erst einmal diskutieren soll. --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Pour info, toutes les images que j'importe sur commons sont des photos que j'ai pris moi-même et qui sont totalement libres de droits. Et la fresque dessinée par les enfants de l'école de Montjean est elle aussi libre de droits. Mais comme elle n'a pas grand intérêt si ce n'est de montrer que l'art s'invite aussi dans un village charentais, je ne la remettrai pas. Bonne journée --Rosier (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon, mais je ne sais pas trop the francais. If your complaint is about Montjean9.JPG, the problem was that your photo was of a likely copyrighted artwork and there is no freedom of panorama in France. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Turelio,

Did you see this DR I filed? This uploader borrows many photos from web sites and does not ask for OTRS permission. This image is likely a copy vio too. As far as I can tell, only his first uploaded image here is probably 'own work' as he claims. He does not have many photos here...but this image is used in this king's wikipedia article. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you for making a comment in the DR. But still it is unsettling to see how easy it is to upload images from other web sites here (without permission) into Commons...and no one notices this. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Juliana image

Hi Turelio,

I noticed that you deleted the above as a "privacy violation". AFAIK, it was labeled as a "self-portrait". If this is an imposture, shouldn't the account be blocked? -- User:Docu at 07:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no fault by anybody leading to these deletions and there is nobody to blame, just a request by the depicted to disassociate her realname. If you need more input, please contact me by email, I can't do it because you haven't activated mail contact. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, I noticed that several other images were deleted and a user renamed. Which was the reason for the speedy deletion per current policy? -- User:Docu at 06:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about "a user renamed". As I had written in the edit/deletion summaries they were performed on request of the depicted person due to "realname identification" in the descriptions and filenames. Due to recent reallife events, the matter was pressing. All uploaders were privately notified (shortly) in advance, none objected. A part of the images will probably be re-uploaded soon, of course without the incriminated information. I'm not going to discuss more details publicly as this would violate the privacy of the depicted. See the second sentence of my first reply. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange. A person who had chosen to be very public, suddenly wants to disappear. Which is of course impossible on the internet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

May be. But sometimes people change (or are forced to) their self-"image" and then the former can become a problem. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

re: File tagging File:Cantareus apertus 04Schultes.JPG

As you can see here (bottom of the page) all Schultes' pictures are released in the pubblic domain:

“Copyright of pictures: my mollusc pictures are public domain. If you are using them, a link to the corresponding AnimalBase webpage (picture homepage) would be nice.”

--Esculapio (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While that's correct, the image in question in NOT from Schultes, but from Vollrath Wiese[39] and unlikely PD, at least there is no proof for that. If you value this image, I would recommend you to contact either Schultes oder Wiese directly and ask them to release this image either into PD or under a "free" license such as CC-BY-Sa. --Túrelio (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This DR

I think this DR has to be closed as delete Lupo had said. Its been here too long and the author was contacted but never changed the license. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for actong. It is regretable that it has come to this but MGA73 did contact the author...and the author did nothing for 3 full weeks. That is much too long. So I have to agree with Lupo now. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Should this image be kept--because it is a rather generic looking building--or should it be deleted for the reasons I gave? No one has voted in the DR and it is more than 2 months old. If you think it can be kept, than feel free to keep it. If not, it should be deleted due to the FOP problem. All that I know is that it is not used on wikipedia. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OOPS. Thanks. Nataly8 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for making a decision. I had notified the uploader but received no message from him either. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Trillium catesbaei

Dear Túrelio,

I am updating the page fr:Trillium and the related pages for its species. On the en:Trillium catesbaei I find a picture of this species (en:File:Trillium catesbi.jpg), which has locally been uploaded but not on Commons. Since this picture is in the public domain, it can be used it on the Frech site. How can I solve this issue?

Thanks for your help, --Réginald (To reply) 13:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You could move/copy it to Commons, using this tool. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done it. See file:Trillium catesbaei.jpg. Thank you for your help. --Réginald (To reply) 14:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SF building

My categorizing is mostly based on info from Wikipedia and haven't gotten to that image yet, so I can't say. Xnatedawgx (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Please involve in voting for a nice picture: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpg Urgentos (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

German speaker needed

Hi Túrelio, at User_talk:Caronna#E-mail_permission_and_OTRS I'm trying to request OTRS permission for an image in which the uploader claims to have received consent by e-mail, but they only speak German. If you agree that this is the right action, could you please consult with them? Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Manuel Quiroga Losada

Hi Turelio. I´m family of Manuel Quiroga Losada and I have photos of him I want to know why you consider that the manuel quiroga´s photo may be delete of Wikipedia page for you. 28-06-2010 user Milagros bara

Hi Milagros bara,
I don't know to what you are refering, as you have no uploads at all, even no deleted ones. Could you write the name(s) of the file(s) in question. --Túrelio (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Turelio the image is Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Sab93!--Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[edit] File:Manuel Quiroga Losada.jpg

I contribute in Wiki but I don´t know sure how I have to play it, but I cant understand Why the photo was delete and I tougth by you... but I really I dont sure. Milagros bara (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. This was October 2009, 8 months ago!!! And it was not User:Milagros bara but User:Sab93. The File:Manuel Quiroga Losada.jpg was not deleted by me (but by User:Abigor), though I had tagged it as copyvio, because the source website had a note "Copyright © 2008 Cuarteto Quiroga. Site by Gatonegro deseño. All rights reserved. The photographic, fonographic and other material in this site may not be reproduced unless otherwise stated." Honestly, as you realized the deletion only >8 months later, the image can't be really important for you. Anyway, if you want it undeleted, you should either ask Abigor or go to COM:UNDEL, but be prepared to have proof that you have rights over this image. --Túrelio (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Turelio. Ok, Manuel Quiroga Losada is my family and I dont think you can say that the image can't be really important for me. I dont stay all the day in Wikipedia, I have other things to do. The Quiroga´s Quartet no have the copy rigth image of my family only have of his owns images. When someone tagged it as copyvio may be sure about it, because in this case you make a mistake. User talk:Milagros bara

Hola Milagros bara,
o.k., but as there is this copyright claim from the mentioned website, we need a legal binding permission by the rights holder to upload this image (or more) under a free license. Here is the way to proceed: go to Commons:Modelos de mensajes (assuming that you are a native spanish speaker), take the "Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones", enter the filename of the image in question (it can be more than 1) and enter the name of the license of your choice, mail that all to the legal rights holder (you have to determine yourself who that is in your family) of the image(s) and ask him/her to put the current date and his/her full legal name under the permission text and mail it back to, using an email address that is clearly associated to Manuel Quiroga Losada or his heirs.(this permission will not be made public) In the moment this permission is sent, leave me a note here; I will then restore the image temporarily until the permission is confirmed by our OTRS volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted category

I am interested in this deletion you did:

  • 17:48, 27 June 2010 Túrelio (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Anwynd the Breaker (Bröt-Anund)" ‎ (empty category)

Did you notice that that category was emptied just a few minutes before you deleted it? It was thus emptied by someone who does such things, in my experienced opinion, to push personal POV and ideology, not to further neutral and factual work here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing,
no, I didn't notice that, but I would not deem it important for the deletion of this cat, as cats can easily be re-created by anybody (contrary to images). In case you have good reason to re-create it, I would recommend to discuss or at least communicate it to Pieter, who tagged it for deletion. The original contents was as follows:
  • '''Anwynd the Breaker''' or ''Bröt-Anund'' (he who broke roadways through the wilderness) is the name of a Swedish king of the ''Saga'' period whose existence cannot be substantiated factually. Local tradition for centuries has had his grave at ''Anundshög'' (the tumulus of Anwynd) between Enköping and West Aros, Sweden. [[Category:Mythological kings of Sweden|Anund 01]] [[Category:People by name]]
--Túrelio (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this considerate reply. I avoid Mr Kuiper due to considerable past experience which has been exceedingly unpleasant.
Would you please reinstate the category, and put the subcat about that grave of legend back? Would appreciate it very much. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've undeleted Category:Anwynd the Breaker (Bröt-Anund). However, as I don't know this mentioned subcat, you might do this yourself, as it does not require special rights. Out of courtesy, I've notified Pieter about the undeletion. --Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Pieter has filed regular DR for the cat at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Anwynd the Breaker (Bröt-Anund). This gives you plenty of time for discussion and for providing a rationale for this cat. Despite of my Quenya username, I'm not a specialist in nordic history or lore. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

permission from Victor Koulbak

Hello, I am not Victor Koulbak. Viltor Koulbak sent his authoirization the 29 of June 2010. LKedition82.229.188.209 11:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lkedition,
does the permission by Mr. Koulbak include all Koulbak-related images that you have uploaded? --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kategorie umbenennen

Hallo Túrelio, würde gerne die Kategorie Category:Frickenhausen umbenennen in Category:Frickenhausen (Württemberg), da es mehrere Frickenhausens gibt. Ich trau mich da nicht selbst ran, könntest Du vielleicht...? Ich würde anschließend alle Bilder suchen, die dort reingehören und die kategorisieren. Danke Dir! --Schwäbin (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Danke! <knicks> --Schwäbin (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of files


The following files have been deleted by you: Saint_Priest_001.jpg Saint_Priest_002.jpg Saint_Priest_003.jpg Saint_Priest_004.jpg Saint_Priest_005.jpg

I do not understand why those files have been deleted. I made these pictures myself and I do not see why those picture have any problem as far as copyright is concerned.

Moreover, the following file from the same series has been preserved: File:Saint_Priest_006.jpg

Here are the other pictures I contributed to wikipedia. Not a single one is infringing any copyright: User:Oliwan/gallery

Please explain what happened with my pictures above.

Regards, --Oliwan (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oliwan,
it might have been better to ask User:TwoWings who tagged your files for deletion and notified you about that. Anyway, the reason provided by TwoWings and found possibly justified by me, was "No FOP in France. Recent architecture." You know that for buildings, that have some originality, the copyright is with the architect. And as there is no FOP-provision in French copyright law, photos of such copyrighted buildings cannot be used or uploaded to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Dear Turelio, It seems certain that these 2 images are copyright violations...since the uploader does not claim to be the author. How do we know that he owns the business site where he derived the images? So they should be deleted. The long absent uploader only has 3 images on Commons.

What do you think? His final image is under DR. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acting. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

category: Personal images

Hallo Turelio, zwei Sachen: Du hattest mich mal auf die Category:Personal images hingewiesen, siehe [40] - spricht etwas gegen ein Redirect der Category auf die Category:User page images ?? - das würde ich sonst einrichten - Sorry, ich kapiere auch nicht, ob die Vorlage User page image oder die Kategorie besser ist - gibt es ja beides. Mit hotcat ist es einfacher (scheint mir), die Kategorie hinzuzufügen?! Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, momentan zu busy. --Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Poorly made map

This poorly made Afghan ethnic map (File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg) is not in use and has noticable errors, missing 3 or more ethnic groups, and there are 4 CIA highly professionally made Afghan ethnic maps available at Commons. In normal cases it would be ok to keep the map but in this case it is used to spread some kind of ethno-centric POV and political propaganda, so I was wondering if you can have it deleted. The population of Afghanistan is multi-ethnic and it's not determined by districts as the map is trying to present it. BTW, the uploader is not putting up any opposition. Thanks!--Officer (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at the deletion discussion. However, it is not a case for speedy deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Somehow this DR was missed from April. Image is not used and failed review. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the uploader here and on :de about whether he is the Panoramio user. --Túrelio (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. But I doubt he will reply as he has been away. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello Túrelio,

The user in Panoramio was deleted. I dont know why. Part of the his photos that I uploaded pased the review. Unfortunately, the other photos have to delete. I made a category of his photos in Panoramio Category:Otiko's photos. Geagea (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

License question

Hello, Turelio, you just deleted the File:DimonaComixMembers.jpg. I am not very familiar with licensing from FLickr, but the pictures Author clearly states "free for use by the media - be it newspapers, websites or any other". Could you explain why this is not sufficient for Wiki Commons? Or is this because of the other people in the picture who might not have been asked for their consent? This is not meant as a complaint, I'd just like to make sure not to violate any regulations with in further uploads. Thanks and bye! --Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gonzo,
as I had looked at the Flickr page, I've seen this contradictory statement. But as words are words and a license is a license, I've decided on the safe side and taken the license at face value. If you are interested in this photo, I would recommend to directly contact the Flickr and ask him 1) whether he/she is really the photographer, 2) if yes, whether he could change - at least temporarily - the license on Flickr to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. If he does that, please notify me immediately. I will then undelete the image and let run Flickr-review again to confirm the license. Thereafter he may change it back on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Reva nxr solar panels.jpg

Dear Admin Turelio,

Maybe you should mark this photo. I don't see what the problem is but there is a strange error message that I have never seen before by the flickr bot. I am not brave enough to mark this photo. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, something fishy. As of Flickr image was uploaded October 7, 2009, but shot December 5, 2009, may be some reverse red-shift effect ;-). I'll look into at later. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: That is brilliant Turelio! I did not think of looking at the upload date at flickr, only the metadata. Now it looks suspicious. I am just glad that I did not mark this...but someone (another Admin/Bureaucrat) must eventually either pass or fail and delete this picture. I only know Lupo and you well (E. Zelenko very little). It is a hard decision and I don't envy your job here sadly. With Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Could be just an error when setting up the time and date (I've done it before, fact is two camera's of mine are still in daylight saving time). But looking at the uploads it does look suspect or it could be the company who makes the car. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

NikiCruel (talk · contribs)

I see you've already deleted two copyright violations from this user. But I just noticed that all his contributions are copyvios (and he already re-uploaded one of them); would you mind nuking everything? –Tryphon 10:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put a no-more-copyvios-warning on his talkpage. If he goes on, he will get blocked. It may, however, also be a language problem as his description are Russian-only. And I don't understand what's written here. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be a language problem, yes. That's why I didn't ask for him to get blocked right away. But his contributions are obvious copyright violations nonetheless (they don't even have a license, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any permission for them), that's why I thought you could nuke them. –Tryphon 11:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen now that the article on :ru where he placed these images is requested for deletion too. As these are not Getty Images, I'll wait until tomorrow morning. If there is no answer from him, they will go. --Túrelio (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. –Tryphon 13:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Dear Friend, I have looked and tried to post files that are public domain. Sorry if I made a mistake. I will try to be more careful next time. Thanks for informing me. regards

See COM:CB for a general instruction with many examples about which types of images are ok and which may be not. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Secret of Fatima

Hi Túrelio, since you deleted File:Secret of Fatima.JPG, would you mind also taking care of File:Third secret of Fatima.jpg, which was also part of the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Secret of Fatima.JPG. Thanks! Huntster (t @ c) 08:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Liebeskraft 1.JPG

Hello Túrelio, I have imported an image from AW-WIKI.DE (wikimedia project?): File:Liebeskraft 1.JPG. I'm not sure whether I did it the right way. Can you please confirm that? Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gerardus,
yes, seems to be fine. I've only added the fop template. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Linkfunktion bei Bearbeitungen

Hallo Túrelio, seit einiger Zeit habe ich hier folgendes Problem: Nach Erstellung oder Bearbeitung eines Artikels ist die gesamte Arbeit nicht mehr vorhanden, wenn ich in der Vorschau einen Link testen möchte. Ist das so beabsichtigt oder handelt es sich um einen Softwarefehler? Gruß. Orchi (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ähem, da du von "Artikel" sprichst, du meinst nicht zufällig Wikipedia? Falls nicht, weiß ich trotzdem nicht, was du eigentlich meinst. Hast du irgendwo ein Problembeispiel oder kannst du es etwas genauer beschreiben? --Túrelio (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
....mein altes Terminologieproblem. Mit "Artikel" meine ich hier eine "gallery". Erstelle ich eine neue "gallery" und verwende im Text Links, lasse mir dann die Vorschau zeigen und teste die Funktion eines Links, werde ich zur verknüpften Seite verbunden. Will ich dann zurück auf die Bearbeitungsseite, ist die nicht mehr vorhanden. Das gleiche Problem habe ich bei Bearbeitung einer "gallery", nur das ich hier mit der Rücktaste des Browsers auf die alte und nicht veränderte Version der "gallery" komme. Leg' mal eine neue "gallery" an, setz' einen Link darein, zeige Vorschau an und versuch zurück zu stellen. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, verstanden. Also ich hab das gerade mal mit der existierenden Gallerie Human suffering gemacht, bin in der Vorschau nach :de gesprungen, wieder zurück und meine vrläufige Änderung war noch voll vorhanden. Vielleicht ein Browser(einstellungs)problem? --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
...danke für den Hinweis auf den Browser. Ich benutze seit ewigen Tagen den Opera, aber die letzten Versionen haben mir schon manche Schwierigkeit bereitet. Ich habe auf Deine Analyse hin den Firefox mit dem beschriebenen Procedere eingesetzt und ich hatte "mein Problem" nicht mehr. Mal sehen, wo ich den Einstellungsfehler suchen kann. Nochmals vielen Dank. Orchi (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
....ich hab' in den Opera Einstellungen folgende Änderung vorgenommen: "als Firefox ausgeben" und die Vorschau mit richtiger Rückführung funktionert wieder. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive user

On the 15th you gave a "final warning" to a user for disruptive behavior regarding faking flickrbot. While not the same behavior, with File:Toni Gonzaga 2.jpg the user has once again uploaded an image of questionable copyright. 02:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying.. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Images to be deleted

These 3 images from "computer" or with no "author" should be deleted. The uploader, sandyiyercool, has been notified in some cases and does not fix the mistake. I notice he/she has many copy vio notices.

Only this photo: File:My-Viola-viola-3011662-2560-1920.jpg seems to be own work. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC) ✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Neue Kategorie

Hi Túrelio, ich hoffe, ich bin bei Dir richtig :-) Ich möchte gerne eine neue Kategorieseite Achalm anlegen (vgl. de:Achalm). Da ich aber die Kategorien-Struktur nicht überblicke, würde ich das gerne in erfahrene Hände legen. Ich sortiere später gerne die entsprechenden Bilder dorthin ein. Würdest Du das bitte tun oder mir einen Commons-Benutzer empfehlen? Danke Dir! --Schwäbin (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Da wär sie: Category:Achalm. --Túrelio (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ich danke Dir! --Schwäbin (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Dessel signs in.jpg

To fix Special:GlobalUsage/Cyril_Dessel_en_maillot_jaune_(Tour_de_France_2006)_DSCF0996.jpg, would you run

{{universal replace|Cyril_Dessel_en_maillot_jaune_(Tour_de_France_2006)_DSCF0996.jpg|Cyril Dessel en maillot jaune (Tour de France 2006).jpg}}

with Commons delinker. Hopefully, this works.  Docu  at 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, tried at least. However, CommonsDelinker behaved somewhat strange over the last days. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it worked. Thanks.  Docu  at 07:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Looking south toward Sihyuan Wukou.JPG

Can you please make sure that I am correct?Please fill out the correct File Name, "File:Looking north toward Sihyuan Wukou.JPG".—Yiken (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.—Yiken (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Filename is Looking "south" toward Sihyuan Wukou,but it not in the right direction.—Yiken (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand "but it not in the right direction". --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Republica Stadium 1.jpg

This should be deleted, I believe. I gave clear reasons when I tagged it. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for responding and have a good night's rest Turelio. Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello Turelio. I mostly do my work in Wikipedia, and has only as of recently started helping Commons, so I don't know the environment here that much. I just came across this weird category and would like to know if such is permitted here on Commons? Kind regards. Rehman(+) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Rehman, this is a user category and as such permitted. Most contributors have such a category to keep their uploads together and manageable. However, user categories have to carry the attribute hidden, so that most other users won't see it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thanks for the tip. And thanks for the welcoming. :) Kind regards. Rehman(+) 10:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Craters of the Moon National Monument.jpg

Hallo Kollege, hast Du 'ne Ahnung, warum der CD versucht, obige Datei durch eine beinahe gleichnamige (vermehrt um den Zusatz "-2000px") zu ersetzen? Zumal ich letztere Datei vor einem Monat gelöscht habe ... siehe hier. Gruß axpdeHello! 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Axpde,
hmm, nee, ist mir auch schleierhaft, obwohl laut CD-Angabe ich selbst das ja befohlen haben soll. An das Bild kann ich mich optisch nicht erinnern, was aber nicht so viel bedeutet, da ich in den letzten Tagen eine Menge Datein zum CD geschickt habe. Allerdings habe ich bereits seit ca. Mitte letzter Woche den Eindruck, dass sich der CD etwas merkwürdig verhält, vor allem äusserst träge (Befehlausführung nach Tagen) und teilweise trotz Entlinkung keine Meldung auf die Dateien setzt. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Vielleicht überarbeitet? Zumindest entlinkt er derzeit immer wieder mal gelöschte BSicons aus den Beschreibungsseiten der anderen BSicons ... müsste eigentlich nicht sein, wat wech is is wech ... ;-) Gruß 10:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Another probable copy vio. Even Eusebius has warned this uploader about his/her copy vios. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking action here. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't merit your thanks in this. I wasn't soo sure whether that was a copyvio. Bidgee deleted the image. --Túrelio (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. I noticed after I posted that it was Bidgee who deleted the image. But from the uploader's record and the web site given from the image, it was most likely a copy vio sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Admin Turelio, Is it possible if you could consider closing this DR I originally initiated as a keep? If it is closed as a keep, I will pass this image myself based on MGA73's comments. Please look at the discussion and the source permission on panoramio and decide if you wish to close this DR as a keep or a delete. You know I always respect your judgment...whatever it is. With best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, though we have think about what to do with the still formally negative Panoramio-review ticket. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. In this case, the photo can be passed as the uploader intended--where the copyright owner receives attribution. As MGA73 notes, the permission is extremely clear with no restrictions and it was given very close to the 2009 cut-off date so WikiCommons can likely keep it. Secondly, the copyright owner was notified of the photo's presence here and never objected. So, I would pass just this single photo. The DR does not appear to be controversial since few people replied to it after they read the DR discussion and saw the panoramio permission from the author, too. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandyiyercool unblocked

Hi! I unblocked User talk:Sandyiyercool#Blocked this user. The block was ok but I think it was new user that did not know better. I told the user to be careful and ask other users for help. If that does not help I think we should block again. Hope you don't mind. If user makes a mess I'll clean it up and you get to say "I told you so!" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio, Just a quick note, while patrolling anonymous edits I noticed the syntax got a little funky over here. Fixed it now. –Krinkletalk 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Image without a viewable source

Howdy. With regards to this image, I wasn't aware of where the piece of artwork was, so I didn't tag it as violating FoP. Thank you for fixing the source. I've removed my part of the speedy template.--Rockfang (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've notified the photographer on :de. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:HummelGestartet 9851a.jpg

Dear Túrelio,

The flower from which a bumble-bee is taking off is a Hibiscus syriacus. I have classified it accordingly.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 09:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You are wolcome. As agreed don't hesitate to asking for other identifications. --Réginald (To reply) 09:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio! Zeichnung Schlafen_ElmarErsch.jpg wäre für mich o.k. Elmar Ersch — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22. Jul. 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Chernishev evgenii.jpg

Почему вы удалили страницу без обсуждения со ссылкой на работу гораздо меньшего качества [41]? Автор размещенной фотографии, насколько я понимаю, был коллегой погибшего и естесвенно, что менее качественные официальные фотографии офицера передавались журналистам.Georg Pik (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand russian. Try english, german, or another admin. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do you remove a page without any discussion with reference to the work of much lesser quality [42]? By posting photos, as I understand, was a colleague of the deceased and lower-quality official photos of the officer handed to journalists. Why did you delete the photos from the description in Russian, if you do not know the language?Georg Pik (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The image had been tagged for speedy deletion as potential copyvio by Trycatch, who had found it on which carries "© 1919 – 2010 Редакция газеты", but no hint of a free license. As of this URL, it has obviously been uploaded to this site just two days before it was uploaded to Commons, thereby suggesting that "our" image came from this website. I didn't need any russian to see this. Of course, I can undelete the image, but before that I want you to verify that either the original uploader EMERCOM is really the photographer (he claimed "own", but that doesn't mean much with a 1-image uploader) or a proof that the image is free, independently of the uploader. As a reminder, "photos for the press" are usually not free in our sense. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
OK Georg Pik (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I have seen you add some of the copyvio templates to the user page of Janhb1. I have informed him above, that all of his images are copyvios as I think it is a nonsence to place there the same template 60 times.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about the content of your message to this user. In contrast to your opinion, putting more than 1 copyvio-template (IMHO, 3-5 times for a series of many copyvios) on the talkpage of a user does make sense, because for us admins it is relevant to see/know the earlier "copyvio-history" of a user, in case he/she uploades further copyvios at a later time. Your own single-language note is of use only for those who understand that language, whereas all others would get the wrong impression that there had been only 1 copyvio-upload. --Túrelio (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A I see. So I have added there also an English translation. Next time in such cases I will write it in both languages than.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


One more thing. Could you click on + when entering a new topic on the discussion page pls. Thanks!--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


why did you add the non-free-logo template to File:Clojure-glyph.svg? If nothing is changed, image will be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad (already fixed it). Permission for use this file at Wikimedia is here --PL Przemek (DISCUSSION) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for delete my incorrect category . By the way , I want to see your images gallery and I see just one image and a message :A database error has occurred Query: SELECT cl_to as cat FROM categorylinks LEFT JOIN u_daniel_cache.commonswiki_nontopics ON namespace = 14 AND title = cl_to where cl_from = 8451192 AND id IS NULL Function: getCategories Error: 1146 Table 'u_daniel_cache.commonswiki_nontopics' doesn't exist (sql-s4 “ . A nice day .Argenna (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I couldn't reproduce that error message when accessing the subgalleries of User:Túrelio/gallery. May be, it was temporary problem. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Barmen - Wupperufer 06 ies.jpg

Please to intervention. The complete absence of mural features. The overall features of graffiti. --Pomeranian (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pomeranian, I recommend you and Ies to calmly discuss this either on the talkpage of the image or on your or his talkpage. It may somewhat help to study the wikipedia articles en:Mural and en:Graffiti. Though I am no expert in this area, I tend to classify it as mural, but due to the simple style it may be borderline to graffiti. --Túrelio (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen that there is already a discussion on Ies talkpage. I've left a comment. But again, I am not an art expert. --Túrelio (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Metternijer (talk · contribs)

Hallo du hast dankenswerterweise den User:Metternijer gelöscht. Er hat in den Kategorien von Koblenz viel Durcheinander veranstaltet. Ich habe das weitestgehend wieder aufgeräumt. Er hat auch jede Menge Fotos hoch geladen, die meiner Meinung nach, völlig unnütze sind und keinerlei Qualitätsansprüchen entsprechen. Was kann man da tun? Darf ich für die wirklich schlimmsten Fotos einen Löschantrag stellen? Gruß --Schängel (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ähem, das ist ein Mißverständnis deinerseits. Ich habe natürlich nicht den User gelöscht ;-), wie grausam wäre das, sondern nur seine Userseite, weil er das so wollte, wenn ich mich recht erinnere. Löschungen sind keine "Strafmaßnahmen". Unterschiedliche Meinungen bzgl. Kategorien sollten unbedingt im Dialog gelöst werden, nicht durch Hin- und Rückänderungen, wie es z.B. im Thread direkt hierüber passiert ist. Wenn sich jemand trotz ehrlicher Dialogversuche und selbstkritischer Prüfung der eigenen Meinung (jeder kann sich irren, auch ein Admin) als uneinsichtig erweist, kann es zunächst sinnvoll sein, einen anderen User ins Boot zu holen, der sich mit dem Thema auskennt. Danach bleibt noch der Weg einer offiziellen Diskussion via Category:Categories for discussion.
Bzgl. deiner LA-Frage. Du kannst für jede Datei auf Commons einen LA stellen, sofern deiner Überzeugung nach die Bedingungen gemäß Commons:Deletion policy vorliegen. Bei qualitätsbedingter Löschung ist aber ein regulärer LA erforderlich, also kein speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Is something wrong with the flickreview bot? I notice it marks only 1-2 or 3 photos right now. Maybe you know who runs the flickrbot? Just a notice. The backup is 80+ images at present. I wonder if Admins and trusted users will have to mark the images in this category in the end. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kowelenzer (talk · contribs)

Bitte schau dir dringend mal diesen User an. Vermutlich der selbe wie zuvor. Er legt in Koblenz massenweise Kategorien mit deutschen Namen an (z.B. Category:Koblenz (Rhein), Category:Stadtteile von Koblenz). Ich weiß nicht mehr, wie ich dem Herr werden soll. --Schängel (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Na, nicht gleich verzweifeln. Cats lassen sich leicht wieder entfernen, sofern sie nicht bereits mit Dateien gefüllt wurden. Ich habe dem Neuling eine Info auf der Disku hinterlassen. Das hättest du übrigens genauso machen können ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Er hat aber schon Dateien hinzugefügt. Außerdem legt er massenweise Userprofile an. Wie soll ich dem da Herr werden. --Schängel (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"Userprofile" - was meinst du damit? Da ich zeitlich etwas knapp bin, könntest du vielleicht die korrekten Namen der von ihm falsch/doppelt angelegten Kateg. heraussuchen und mit {{moveto|RichtigerKatName}} auf die falsche Katseite setzen? --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ich kann ihm bisher folgende Profile zuordnen: Was solls? (talk · contribs), Caduta sassi (talk · contribs), Metternijer (talk · contribs) und Kowelenzer (talk · contribs). Ich habe so eine Vermutung, wer dahinter steckt, in der deutschen Wiki gabs da auch schon Probleme. Ich fürchte nur, dass die Probleme so schnell nicht aufhören werden. Naja mal sehen. Danke jedenfalls fürs Ordnungschaffen. --Schängel (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Der erste scheint ja schon lange tot zu sein. Falls von den vermuteten Sockenpuppen gravierendere Probleme als mit den Koblenz-cats ausgehen sollten, würde es hier COM:CU weitergehen. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Dear Túrelio,

I have put some order in Category:Colchicum.

I have removed duplicated links, updated the page Colchicum and reclassified 3 incorrectly identified pictures in Category:Colchicum cilicicum. (Don't always trust the labels of the botanical gardens!!!)

One of these incorrectly identified pictures (File:Colchicum cilicicum 01 ies.jpg) was used in the taxobox of de:Zilizische Zeitlose. I have replaced it by a correctly identified picture of my own.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The cat looks ver well sorted now. --Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Charles Wintzer Building, eastern side.jpg

Thank you for deleting this file. The problem was that the thumbnail never appeared, but now that I've reuploaded it, the thumbnail appears without any problem. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my page ? why

I was wondering why you deleted my page on Vacuum Seal Food Showing the difference between shelf life Dave ?

Hi Sealerdave123,
sorry if that wasn't made clear by me. 1) The content was rather promotional, which is out of the Commons:Project scope. 2) It was plain text, which is also out of Commons' scope, as we are a repository for media (images, audio, etc.). Wikipedia might have been a better place, but they also will not accept content that is mainly promotional. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Assuming Sealerdave is watching adverts on your user page are also unacceptable. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


...for executing my speedydelete request! Greetings mathias K 07:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please protect the page User:Tp61i6m42008, he has been blocked

Please protect the page User:Tp61i6m42008, he has been blocked--Twhk2011 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Please removeUser:Tp61i6m42008REDIRECT--Twhk2011 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First you want it blocked; now you want it removed. I would prefer, that User:Yyatttw himself requests deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Dear Admin Turelio, I'm sorry but this image cannot be kept for the reason I cited. It is likely a copy vio. I think the uploader did not know this. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DieBuche was faster, while I found the image here. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm! I wonder if you found it through TinEye? I use TinEye sometimes and yet many images are still not found by this web site. It can be difficult sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't use TinEye. I just googled for "Sarkozy separating". --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

Dear Turelio,

I am not lying when I tell you that All of Otiko's 19 images MUST be deleted in this DR not just the one St. Gevorg image. Even the uploader, Admin Geagea has agreed with this as has Bureaucrat Zelenko. No one can trust Otiko's images are his own and the evidence is very strong. The DR is almost 7 days old now. Feel free to look at the discussion. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dupe photos and categories

Hi, thanks for your work. One point; File:100504-N-6268N-085.jpg which you deleted as a dupe of the later uploaded File:US Navy 100504-N-6268N-085 Members of the Naval Air Station Pensacola Pollution Response unit deploy an oil containment boom at Sherman Cove.jpg had some relevant categories not on the image kept. I took care of adding them to the 2nd image. I suggest when deleting duplicate files, first make sure that any useful info or relevant cats on the one to be deleted are also on the one to be kept, and if not copy them to the kept version before deletion. Thanks much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for missing that and thanks for taking care. --Túrelio (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Es geht weiter. Bitte mal hier schauen: Category:Photos of Koblenz by User:Kowelenzer Und nu? --Schängel (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Muss ich mir eigentlich die Beleidigung auf seiner Benutzerseite gefallen lassen? --Schängel (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, da gibt es hier leider viel schlimmeres. Er hat dich ja nicht genannt, weshalb es kein persönlicher Angriff (i.S.v. Wikipedia) ist, sondern eher eine Meinungsäusserung. Ignoriere es einfach, das schont die eigenen Nerven. --Túrelio (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Zweifel an der Richtigkeit einer Lizenz - wo melden?

Hallo Túrelio, wenn ich bei einem Bild (z. B. diesem) Zweifel an der korrekten Auswahl der Lizenz habe, wo melde ich das? Oder bindet man einen Baustein (welchen?) ins Bild ein? Danke Dir, --Schwäbin (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Da musst du in die Sprechstunde der Lizenzmeldestelle. Im Ernst, ich würde {{subst:npd}} auf die Seite pappen und in der Edit-summary und/oder mit der Warnung an den Uploader auf dessen Disku deine Begründung (er ist offensichtlich nicht der Autor, kann es also auch nicht selbst PD stellen). --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, ich guck mal, was der Baustein bewirkt ;-) Danke Dir, --Schwäbin (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hello Túrelio, these three Files are due to deletion since July 11. Since we are splitting up a category, please act now.

Your help would be most welcome.--Gerardus (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for dealing with Otiko's images. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Empty categories of railway lines

Please follow the discussion Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Empty subcategories of Category:Railway lines in the Czech Republic by number and other related discussions about deletion of empty categories. --ŠJů (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:BudapestCastle 028.jpg

It needed the flip. Look at Google Maps for example. The red roof at the right of the flipped image is the Sándor Palace, there is a Turul bird sculpture there, too. These are in the northern direction. As the Castle is west from the Danube, the north must be on the right. Qorilla (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Should this DR be closed as keep since the nominator withdrew his nomination? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Mashhad fun-fair.jpg

I just noticed that this is the only upload by the uploader and it failed panoramio review. Should it be deleted? MGA tagged it as npd more than 1 week ago now too. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank You. I noticed that this was a recent 2010 upload and there was no typed contact with the panoramio author anywhere. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio. I've just nuked the above image. External usage or no, let's try to be kind here. The editor who released this image is a minor & while I know there are wiki jurisdiction issues, etc, etc, there have been oversight actions re. this editor and personally identifying information on enwiki - Alison 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection. The external use issue was only not to expose these external users to copyvio litigation, in case they haven't any record of the former status of this photo. --Túrelio (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Túrelio :) What I'll do (when I'm not on my cell) is leave edit history and licensing details in the talk page, which should cover everything. Thanks again :) - Alison 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, ✓ Done now - thanks! - Alison 01:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletation of redirects

Hi! Yesterday I uploaded (with a help of Commonist) many files (101 pieces) with names with bad name of the author (the author of drawings is Henri Meyer actually, not Léon Benett as stated in the name of files) so after that I changed their names but there still left previous files with redirects. Because redirects are not used and have misleading names, I think, their should be deleted.

The files of redirects starts from: File:'Dick Sand, A Captain at Fifteen' by Léon Benett 001.jpg to the last file: File:'Dick Sand, A Captain at Fifteen' by Léon Benett 101.jpg (numbers are increasing from 001, 002, 003... to 101).

If you have time and will to help I will be grateful... Regards :) Electron <Talk?> 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the first 10 are gone. --Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Next time I'll be more careful with communists ;)... Electron <Talk?> 14:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:SCovey speaking.png

Hi, das ist ein Duplikat von File:Stephen Covey 2010.jpg: aus demselben Bild extrahiert, derselbe Ausschnitt, nur halt künstlich aufgeblasen, png und nicht genutzt. Muss ich da wirklich eine Löschnominierung machen oder Eustress um Schnelllöschantrag bitten? Er/sie hat mir auf sogar einen schönen Stern gegeben weil ich das neu gemacht hab. lg Hekerui (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, dann schreib dies das nächste Mal doch gleich; hätte uns beiden Arbeit erspart. Wenn du nur "duplicate" schreibst, gelten halt die üblichen Kriterien. --Túrelio (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Ja, sorry :( Hekerui (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, just thought I'd notify you of my report of Stanovc (talk · contribs) at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, since you apparently warned him for copyright violations last year. There seem to be serial copyvios that need deleted. Fut.Perf. 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done already by a colleague. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request User:Gouwenaar

Hello Túrelio, User:Gouwenaar, who has over the years uploaded thousands and thousands of images, wants one specific image to be deleted and has submitted a deletion request. This is his first time doing so and I support his wish as I myself am involved in a rather bad editwar on nl.wikipedia. His reason was badly explained, but the case is now that the photo was taken on a private estate without consent of the owner (he sneaked in). There is opposition and I beg you to interfere. The case is: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tuin_Harinxmastate_Beetsterzwaag.jpg#File:Tuin_Harinxmastate_Beetsterzwaag.jpg. Thanks,--Gerardus (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As there is "opposition", this DR has the be left open for the regular time span. The only possibility I see in this case, is a courtesy deletion, as the mentioned problem does not concern copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention, which is greeted by uploader (with I'm sure a sigh of relieve). You're great. Yours,--Gerardus (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Túrelio, please inform me how long it will take till we give User:Gouwenaar the peace of mind he so desperately needs. He stopped all activities here and on because of this affair. Can't you do anything? Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Dear Turelio,

I'm afraid Commons cannot keep these 3 images. The npd tags have been here for 14 days now (since July 25) and the uploaders were contacted:

It is safer to delete them all sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Turelio, can you consider deleting these 3 images. The npd notice is now 14 days old. The uploaders were told, too. The first image isn't even used on wiki. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the last two. With the first it is differrent. On the image page on Panoramio there is clearly communication between the author and our uploader. However, as it is in Russian, I don't understand a word. Could you ask a russian-speaking user or admin the check whether the statement by the photographer is sufficient? --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I see that MGA73 deleted the first photo. I also told him the situation; he had first tagged the photos with npd without my knowledge initially. The important thing was 1. the first photo was never used on wikipedia anywhere 2. the uploader was given 2 full weeks to reply (which is reasonable) ....and never did do so and 3. the uploader should have got a license change or an OTRS message from the copyright owner and this was not done. A simple permission by the copyright owner would be OK for Commons--as Lupo has told me--for 2006, 2007 or 2008 images but this is a newer image. So, deletion is really the only option left here. MGA73 has got the uploader to contact the copyright owner to change the license to cc by OR cc by sa generic in a few cases but this was not possible here. So, its safer to delete. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please fast delete this redirects

100% no links and 100% unnecessary. And trashing my watchlist. Thank You. --Starscream (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, delete it!

Hi, Túrelio,

The problem with 1420 Sallust de Geneve.jpg and 1420 Salustio de Ginebra Peninsula Iberica.jpg is that where I upload the pictures, I did not know that WikiMedia Commons does not allow images for non-commercial purposes.

And the site from which I download the picture,, is very strict about the terms of use, I can only use their images for non-commercial purposes.

For this reason I beg you to delete these two files.

Greetings, Hermericus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermericus (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hmm, isn't this another National Portrait Gallery-situation? Whatever has come of this? Hekerui (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Bằng Di tích lịch sử Đền Thái Bá Du.jpg

Sorry, but what is you idea? I did not add any tags for this picture--minhhuy*= (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


I've undeleted this although I basically agree with the logic (don't think you notified the uploader on this one). See here. Regards --Herby talk thyme 14:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I really delete that? Sure I've tagged[43] for deletion. It seems that Abigor deleted it (and its dupe) again. About notif, I may indeed have missed that; though I notified this uploader about another file. Anyway, he has the habit to immediately remove any notifications from his talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Gone again anyway. I deleted it, you tagged it for info. Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


By deleting that category, commonscattemplates in some wikipedia language versions became nonfunctional (for ex in de and in en). I seriously have no idea why you deleted it at all, if there is another commune by name of Bernay it could be called "Bernay (name of département)" there was no understandable reason to delete the category.--Stanzilla (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This cat was empty (empty cats are deleted on Commons, per policy) and before it had been tagged for speedy deletion by User:Parisdreux with the rationale "Il existe deux communes Bernay, créations d'autres catégories". --Túrelio (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Aboriginal welfare 1937.djvu

hi, I removed the tag, djvu file can contain OCR text layer and this one was so wrong the user tough it was better to delete the file, I fixed the text layer. Phe (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio, könntest Du als vertrauenswürdiger Admin so nett sein, diese unten genannten und von mir von Panoramio übertragenen Bilder, mit dem template {{Panoramioreview|Túrelio|Date}} für die Übereinstimmung mit der gegenwärtig bei Panoramio vergebenen Lizenz versehen und sie gleichzeitig in die Category:Admin reviewed Panoramio images einsortien?
File:Bornsee (Ankershagen).jpg erlaubt KEINE kommerzielle Nutzung (NC)
File:Krummer See (Kratzeburg) - 30589570.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND)
File:Havel (vor der Schleuse Steinhavel) - 8409052.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND)
File:Woplitz (Himmelpfort) - 8411220.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND)
File:Woblitz (zwischen Haussee u. Gr. Lychensee) - 8520815.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND)
File:Hohennauener See - 22994852.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND) oder kommerzielle Nutzung (NC)
File:Hohennauener See - 22995830.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND) oder kommerzielle Nutzung (NC)
File:Wolzensee - 37407852.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND) oder kommerzielle Nutzung (NC)
File:Wolzensee - 37407849.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND) oder kommerzielle Nutzung (NC)
File:Wolzensee - 37407858.jpg erlaubt KEINE Bearbeitung (ND) oder kommerzielle Nutzung (NC)
mit Dank im Voraus --Botaurus (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Tja, das war irgendwie nichts. Mit den aktuellen Lizenzangaben auf Panoramio ist keines dieser Bilder nutzbar. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe für alle Bilder Schnelllöschanträge gestellt. Danke für die Mühe. mfG --Botaurus (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Im übrigen kann Flinfo auch für Panoramio-Bilder (und auch ipernity-Bilder) benutzt werden. Flinfo hätte Dir gleich gesagt, dass diese Bilder nicht nach Commons hochgeladen werden sollten. Lupo 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Danke f. d Info., Flinfo habe ich mir verlinkt - fürs nächstemal. --Botaurus (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Masta baba frontside.jpg

Was re-uploaded eight minutes after you deleted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fashion year categories

Hello. I see you deleted Category:Fashion in 1808 in favor of Category:1808 fashion. The wording in the first example seems more common, however; we have Category:Fashion in 1908 and many more examples. I think either wording is ok, but we should be consistent and have all the year fashion categories match. What do you think? Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I performed that deletion just because it was speedy-tagged with a valid rationale, but without much further thinking. If the most used cat-terminology is "Fashion in xxxx", the deleted version would make more sense than the remaining version, of course. Therefore, feel free to recreate the deleted cat (or drop me a note if you prefer un-deletion). --Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rungius sheep2.jpg

Hi. I noticed you deleted the redirect at File:Rungius sheep2.jpg. The problem with this was that the file was in use on en.wp (perhaps among others). When you deleted the redirect without correcting the usage on other wikis, the picture disappeared from the article. Please try to make sure that the file is not in use before deleting redirects, and if it is, then fix them. Cheers, Oreo Priest (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that. This empty page had been speedy-tagged by User:Electron for "misleading name of redirect", after the file had been moved to File:Wary Game by Carl Rungius.jpg. I've notified the "tagger". --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy & redirects

Hi! I know the problem but I don't know a good solution... The name should be change by Commons Delinker. But it takes long time usually (ca 1-2 days) to do that. I can leave the redirects as they are of coarse but some of them are really misleading or saying nothing (e.g consist only of some numbers). On the other hand there is small possibility that I will propose them to delete for two days or later when Delinker do its duty. I have a good memory but it is rather a short one ;) Electron <Talk?> 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Digamma (letter)

Hi Túrelio, it seems back in May you assisted [44] in the moving of Category:Digamma (letter) to Category:Wau (letter). This move was apparently done on the instigation of IP socks of en:User:Wikinger, a user banned long-term on multiple projects for malicious socking, trolling and obsessive fringe pushing related to Greek alphabet issues (recognizable by IPs in the 83.* and 79.* range from Poland, or use of open proxies). I'm not saying "wau" is totally wrong, but "digamma" is far and away the more common name of this letter in English ([45] vs. [46] and is also the name of all relevant files in the category, and of the relevant article on most projects. In fact, even the reference you linked to in the deletion log (no doubt on Wikinger's suggestion) confirms use of "digamma", not "wau".

Would you mind moving the category back? Not sure what the preferred procedure is, do I simply recreate the old cat page and re-cat the files? Fut.Perf. 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mind, as your explaination of the background seems sound to me. I've restored the cat to the version before the IP edits. Should all files in Wau (letter) be moved back? --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that now. The "Wau" category is orphaned now. Fut.Perf. 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Nurlan Uteshev.jpeg

As I wrote in comment for speed deletion this file was shot by me. I am often write articles in mass-media of Kazakhstan connected with youth politics that is why some of my photos were used before at other sites. As prove of my authorship you can see that file uploaded has all metadata. You cannot find the file of such quantity anywhere.

But once I was told in Russian Wikipedia that if a file was published before, it could not be uploaded to Wikimedia. If this is a problem you can delete file (then I will replace it by newer file made yesterday by me which was not published yet anywhere). If it is not a problem, then please delete speed deletion notification. Please inform me about result on my page of discussion-- Mheidegger (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jean Effel

Sehr geehrter Herr Turelio,

Wenn es Ihnen Spass macht, koennen Sie das Bild zehnmal loeschen. Das macht schon keinen Eindruck, ich bin schon daran gewoehnt. Es hat keinen Sinn, darueber zu diskutieren. Mit der Logik hat das sowieso nichts zu tun. Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dateien werden nicht gelöscht, um jemanden zu beeindrucken, sondern weil ein Löschantrag gestellt wurde oder, wie in diesem Fall, weil sie offensichtlich das Urheberrecht verletzen. In keinem deiner 3 fast gleichlautenden Postings (incl. Email) hast du auch nur 1 Argument geliefert, warum dieses Bild keine URV ist oder warum sie ent-löscht werden sollte, was ja durchaus möglich wäre. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

The record shows you deleted File:Aafia and Ahmed Siddiqui in custody in Ghazni Afghanistan, July 2008.jpg as a copyright violation, citing two URLs that published the image, apparently crediting it to AP.

I believe that deletion was premature, and explained why, in detail back on Commons:Village_pump#.22work_of_Afghanistan.22.

I followed the events of July 2008, prior to, and just after Aafia's 2nd capture, in detail, as they transpired up until early August. If this photo had been published in July, I would have seen it.

If there had been a photo-op, on July 18, I would have seen it. If there had been a photo-op, on July 18, google would show references from that date. It doesn't. (The first three references on that list look like they are from July 17th. But they are actually from early 2010, and google's robot that determines the dates of articles got confused). There is no record of photo-op. There was no photo-op.

What do you suggest should be the appropriate steps to getting this image restored? Geo Swan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan,
I had read your thread on VP before deleting it, but still found the risk of being copyrighted by AP too high. Anyway, as this will likely require some more discussion, you should formally request undeletion on COM:UNDEL. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it simply isn't possible that you read the thread I linked above, prior to deleting the image, since I drafted that comment about 12 hours after you deleted the image.
Over on the wikipedia the policies for requesting review of deleted material tell those with a concern that their first step should always be to contact the closing administrator. Nevertheless, some closing administrators routinely blow off good faith questions and concerns over their closures by telling the concerned uploaders to initiate a formal review.
Personally, I think that is a mistake. More often than not the closing administrator did not make a mistake. I regard this kind of question as a teaching moment, an opportunity for the closing administrator to explain to the concerned uploader where they went wrong. This saves time.
When a concerned uploader's good faith questions are given a fuller answer by a more experienced and knowledgeable closing administrator, the most likely outcome is that the concerned uploader will come to understand what they did wrong. This saves time three ways. First, it saves the time of everyone who would otherwise have read, and may have participated in the deletion review they would otherwise have started. Second, now that the error of their ways has been explained to them, they won't waste their own time making the same mistake in future. Third, since they won't repeat that mistake in future, no one's time will be wasted cleaning up after them. It seems to me that at least some of the time those fuller answers will be of the sort, "have you read section X of policy Y? I think your upload lapsed because of Z." -- ie. not a lot of work when the closing administrator feels their decision was firmly based on policy.
Sometimes the closing administrator's attempts to provide a good faith answer to the concerned uploaders good faith questions will save time because in the course of answering the questions they will realize that they did err in the deletion -- and they can then restore the material without involving anyone else in a deletion review.
And, I suggest, even if after the closing administrator's good faith answers the concerned uploader remains unconvinced, their explanation when they initiate the deletion review may be more focused, and easier for those at the deletion review to read and respond to.
Now maybe you meant to acknowledge that I raised valid issues, but you don't consider yourself competent to respond to them? Or maybe you think responding to them properly will require more time than you are willing to budget for this image? If this is what you meant could you say so explicitly? Thanks.
Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to reply to the very first statement of your long comment. This thread was surely present, at least to my eyes, before I decided to delete the image. And that is what I meant in my first statement.
And to answer your last questions: yes, when reading the speedy rationale and your above mentioned first statement on VP, to me it seemed somewhat more likely that the image is copyrighted by AP (as stated already in my first reply). Of course, I may err in this, but - as per our policy - with potential copyvios it's better to err on the save side.
Now, as I have no stake in the deletion of this image (I erroneously thought it to be a routine deletion) and as your heart seems to be in it (no offense meant), I can restore it, but only to immediately file a regular DR with the same rationale as in the speedy-request. If you prefer that way, say so. --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You, and other contributors have interpreted the credit line "AP File photo" to mean AP owns the intellectual property rights to the image. Over the years I have seen this credit line used for lots of images that I knew, for a certain fact, were PD images. I believe you are all mistaken, and that AP adds images to its files in different ways, including:
  1. photos taken by its actual employees;
  2. photos taken by freelance photographers, and purchased by AP;
  3. photos taken by whistleblowers and secret leakers, and, again purchased by AP;
  4. photos which, for one reason or another, are in the public domain.
Some people suggested at the village pump discussion that I contact AP, and request the provenance of the photo. Given that I believe this photo was sold, under the table, by a corrupt official, the possibility that AP would reveal their sources is about zero. Geo Swan (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
While it is not unlikely that you are correct, IMHO that doesn't change much. If we are aware of a claim by AP that an image is theirs, we cannot simply ignore that. This could only be justified, if an image is proven to be PD (or under another free license). --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree -- that we can't simply ignore image credits that say "AP file photo". But is there is a difference between ignoring an AP credit and recognizing when it is clearly can't mean that AP is asserting it owns the intellectual property rights to the image. In this particular case those asserting AP owned the intellectual property rights assumed:
  1. That a credit line saying AP file photo implied AP owned the rights to the image;
  2. that if this image had a credit line that said AP file photo' that meant that an AP photographer took the image at an organized photo-op.
I don't think either of these assumptions are supportable.
AP and other similar agencies acquire images from all over the place. Other news services buy images from them. Other news services that don't have the resources to download and keep public domain DoD images, when they were released, willingly pay AP for those images for AP's file. AP's customers don't seem to care that the images were originally PD.
In fact Afghan and American security officials did not make public that Dr Aafia had been in Afghan custody for over a week after she was handed over to American security officials. There was no photo-op in Afghanistan. The first opportunity reporters had to see Dr Aafia was when she appeared in a NYC court about a month later.
If an American GI or security official had taken this image, it would clearly be in the public domain, because all images taken by employeees of US Federal agencies are in the public domain, when they took those images as part of their official duties.
The copyright status of images from Afghanistan is more complicated. The position of some contributors is that the Berne Convention says that images taken by a citizen from a country with copyright protection, in a nation like Afghanistan with no copyright protection, should still be considered automatically copyright. But images taken by Afghan citizens are not automatically copyright. The giving or selling of this image, by an Afghan policeman, to the AP, constitutes publication.
In the village pump discussion it was suggested that I contact AP for the provenance of the photo. I have actually done this with some images. There was an image of a Colonel, in his uniform, posed before an American flag, just like hundreds of photos the DoD uses to illustrate officers' official biographies. This image I downloaded from the Miami Herald. Well, it was challenged. I contacted the Miami Herald's photo editor. The Miami Herald is a serious paper. Unlike other photo editors I have contacted they did reply. I believe what they told me was typical, even of serious papers. They told me that the Miami Herald does not record the source of the images they use, other than in the credit they published on the photo itself. If a photo had no credit I should assume it was in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

deleting redirect

Hi Túrelio! I have just seen that you have deleted a redirect. The thing is, that file is still in use. See here. This is why I created the redirect. On the page it said that the file needs to have this name so that a fr:wp template works. I took the freedom to undelete the redirect ;) - Amada44  talk to me 08:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks for correcting my mistake. Before deleting redirects, I usually check their usage; but seem to have missed it in this case. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've re-checked the mentioned image. The alleged use on fr:Montana is an artifact. If you jump to the fr-page and click on the image, you immediately get to File:Montana quarter, reverse side, 2007.png. As I remember, that was already the case when I deleted the redir. --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate files

Hello Túrelio, I'm writing to you because I disagree with this. The image I uploaded a few days ago is exactly of the same coin, but with higher resolution and true color. Whereas the other side of the coin I had made the same request, in fact, it was replaced. I think it's best to proceed in the same way with this one.

Sincerely, --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Banfield,
though it was also me who substituted/deleted the second one, I disagree with you in regard to the first set of images, as the photos are very different and may both be of use. Actually the one you want to have deleted, looks slightly better to me as it shows less flash or light reflection on the coin. Anyway, though I rejected your speedy-request, you are free to open a regular deletion request that allows for input by other users who may agree (or disagree) with you. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Shilpashettty.jpg

All diese Bilder von Bollywood Hungama sind frei außer "screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters" - das muss falsch gemacht worden sein. Das Bild ist zwar unter "partiesnevents" aber eben ein Poster. Hekerui (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Danke für die Info. Habs gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Kategorie anlegen (Category:Berkheim (Esslingen am Neckar))

Hallo Túrelio,

ich möchte gerne eine Kategorie anlegen (Category:Berkheim_(Esslingen_am_Neckar)), als Unterkategorie von Category:Esslingen_am_Neckar. Ich hab zwar in der Hilfe nachgelesen, aber nirgends gefunden, wie ich die Kategorie nach dem Anlegen einsortiere (also Esslingen unterordne). Da ich nicht immer andere die Arbeit machen lassen will, sondern es gerne selbst lernen und können möchte, wäre ich Dir für eine Anleitung dankbar :-)

Grüßle, --Schwäbin (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bin grad erst wieder nach Hause gekommen. Am einfachsten ist es, wenn du eine Datei hast, der du die neue Kat. zuordnen möchtest. Ich habe mir dafür File:Esslingen am Neckar Berkheim.svg herausgesucht. 1. Schritt (mit Hot-Cat), 2. Schritt: auf den zunächst noch roten Kat.namen am Fuß der Bildseite klicken, dort das Category:Esslingen am Neckar einfügen; sofern entsprechende WP-Artikel verfügbar, kannst du als letzten Schritt noch ein Interwiki dorthin einfügen. Das wars. --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Túrelio, Du musst nicht 24 Stunden Bereitschaft haben, es ist okay, mal ein paar Stunden offline zu sein :-)
Die Lösung, die Du präsentierst, ist so logisch, dass ich nicht drauf gekommen bin <g>. Meine zur Verschiebung hierher beantragten Bilder sind leider noch nicht soweit, aber ich werd sie dann noch einsortieren. Danke für Deine Hilfe! --Schwäbin (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio, kurze Frage: Ist die "Vorschau" Funktion im Moment gestört, oder muss ich wieder den Fehler in meinen Browsern suchen? Gruß. Orchi (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Du meinst die Seitenvorschau nach einem Text-Edit oder die Bild-Thumbs? Letztere sind oder waren m.W. gestört; ersteres m.W. nicht, hat jedenfalls gerade noch bei mir funktioniert. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
...bei mir ist auch die Seitnschau nach Text-Edit nicht in Funktion. "Seite speichern" - Button und "Änderungen zeigen" - Button funktionieren. Habe in Opera 10.61 und Firefox 3.68 nur keine Vorschau. Dann warte ich noch etwas, bevor ich meine Browser auf Fehler durchsuche. Danke für Deine Auskunft. Orchi (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting those photos that I tagged. I don't know why anyone didn't notice that they were copyright violations. Danke! ethansmith | talk to me. 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama

Thanks for catching my error in identifying the photos of the Freddy Mercury statue as copyvio - I was unaware that Switzerland had FOP laws. After reading the FOP guidelines on the commons I was hoping you could help me with some questions. 1) Are we legally supposed to attribute the original work depicted to its original author when that author is clearly identifiable (like with this statue)? 2) In countries like Switzerland that have freedom of panorama laws but do not have their own tags for this on the commons should the generic "FOP" tag be added to these pages even though it makes reference to German law? Thanks! 04:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1) yes, if not for legal reasons, at least out of fairness or honesty any work of art should be attributed to the artist. Therefore, a photography of a work of art should carry the name of the original artist and eventually of the photographer. 2) As of yet, this is handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on who works on it. At a minimum, such images should be categorized as FOP, just by adding Category:FOP. However, for re-users that is likely not enough as it provides no legal information. As of yet there are indeed no country-specific FOP-templates (Category:FOP templates) for Austria and Switzerland, who have different FOP provisions by law. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please rename


Please rename:

Because, my inattention. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank You. --Starscream (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:German officer POWs in Paris HD-SN-99-02952.JPG


I uploaded this image 2 years ago, yet it was deleted as a duplicate of File:German pow liberation of paris august 1944.JPEG, which was uploaded just 6 months ago, and I'm curious as to why the more recent image wasn't treated as the duplicate vs. the older one. Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 02:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it was dupe-tagged by User:Smooth O [47], but as I deleted scores of dupes yesterday I don't really remember why I choose to delete your version and not the other one. Would you prefer to have it reverted? --Túrelio (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I would appreciate it. I assumed that preference was given in dupe cases to images that were uploaded first, is this true or is it the admin's discretion and things like the name and current use? Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 15:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Túrelio Bot

Thanks! If you continue to be that fast some day you will delete a page before I request it Wink.png Béria Lima msg 09:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution slogans

Hi Villa Giulia, did you take the original photo in 1976 or did you reproduce a print of the original photo? --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I took the picture myself, I was a student there at the time, I have the b&w negative in my attic to prove it! Thanks for giving me a chance to explain this, and sorry if my sloppy commenting/wiki-skills did not indicate this! User:Villa Giulia (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion tag. --Túrelio (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Home aranya.jpg

This file is not a reproduction of copyrighted work but a photografy of a popular street decoration made by uninteresed people in a party. I've seen you have, for example, men dressed as spiderman, it's the same case. Thank you.--Slastic (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily undeleted the file and removed the speedy-tag. However, the image may be nominated for a regular deletion request in order to invite expert opinions about such "derivative" works. --Túrelio (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How to rename?

Hello Turélio, I am not sure how to rename: I put the renaming at the delinker command page, and then I rename. But I have the impression, I have to wait with renaming. What is the right procedure? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When you put the rename-template on a page, you find - after a lot of instructions etc. - a link to the DeLinker and below a link for the actual renaming process. When the to-be-renamed image is in use, then first right-click on the DeLinker-link and thereafter left-click on the renaming-link, finalize the latter first and the former immediately thereafter. --Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I'll try that next time; these two went wrong:

CommonsDelinker: Replace File:DSC02647 Nijmegen, de witte molen.JPG with File:Nijmegen rijksmonument 31207 De Witte Molen, Graafseweg.JPG across all Wikimedia projects. Reason: File renamed (More specific)

CommonsDelinker: Replace File:DSC02642 St.Annamolen Nijmegen.JPG with File:Nijmegen rijksmonument 31199 St.Annamolen, Hatertseweg.JPG across all Wikimedia projects. Reason: File renamed (More specific)
Ok, look what I now did with the latter: File:DSC02642 St.Annamolen Nijmegen.JPG; did the same with the former also. --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I watched it; the correction is quite simple, undelete and do it again, using duplicate template. Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bild austauschen

Hallo Turelio, das auf dem Bild bin ich. Ich wollte es gegen ein bestehendes Bild in meiem Wikipedia Artikel austauschen, aber ich seige hier überhaupt nicht durch. Grüße puschellblume

Ok, hab ich bereits gemacht, und die DSC..-Dublette gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Everything179

You posted a comment regarding images uploaded by this user on their talk page. Note that the user has been blocked at english Wikipedia due to a sockpuppet investigation. The original (and several other previous socks) were blocked for improper claims regarding copyright images (as well as other disruptive editing). Active Banana (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Transfer of a picture from a wikipedia site to Commons

Dear Túrelio,

Picture en:File:Picea brewerianafullform.JPG has recently been uploaded in the English wikipedia.
I want to transfer this picture to Commons so that I can use it in other wikipedia sites.
I have forgotten how to access the template for doing it. Can you please help me?

Thanks in advance, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with me, as I have never used it. But I found our former talk about that. The tool is here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(You're fast, I thought I'd preempt you here :) I use the Move-to-commons assistant to create an original upload log and the basis for the information box before using the "basic upload form" at Commons:Upload. To this image the uploader added no description, but added the caption when adding it to the Wikipedia article, so I used that. I also checked the metadata for the date of creation and whether the category is correct. Compare File:Picea brewerianafullform.JPG. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
When saying template, perhaps you mean Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons? I think that one can be handled by a bot (perhaps requires review still, idk). Hekerui (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot to you both! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio, ich hab heute eine Soundfile bei "Media of the day" aufgereiht. Mir ist jetzt aufgefallen, dass im Song "sun" vorkommt und er für den 13. September passen würde, auch weil er "spacig" ist. Könntest du bitte Template:Motd/2010-09-07, Template:Motd/2010-09-07 (de) und Template:Motd/2010-09-07 (en) jeweils zu 2010-09-13 bewegen und die Originalseiten löschen? Vielen lieben Dank Hekerui (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ähem, was meinst du jetzt mit "bewegen"? Einfach verschieben? Diese Templates sind ja auf allen möglichen Seiten eingebunedn. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ach, ich wollte erst einfach Template:Motd/2010-09-07 etc. blanken und bei ...-13 neu machen, aber dann sieht es ja nicht mehr so aus als wär's frei und ein speedy template auf das Template, naja wegen der Einbindung wie du sagst, deshalb wollte ich -07 gelöscht haben. Ich hab den Text auch rauskopiert, vielleicht wärst du so nett einfach die drei Dinger zu löschen. Tut mir Leid, dass ich dich mit sowas nerve, aber das ist mir zu spät aufgefallen und ich hab leider keine Adminknöpfchen zum korrigieren :-) lg Hekerui (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, jetzt sind alle 3 weg und du hast wieder freie Bahn. --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank, das war sehr nett. Hekerui (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"LX is so uncooperative and slow in answering (but very fast in nominating deletions of photos unfairly) so I'm asking you this"

Okay, I have some friends at Flickr that ALLOW me to use these photos on Wikipedia. Now what kind of license should I add for that? I'm sorry about putting most of the pictures as my own work. And I did it because I had no idea of its consequences until now. Secondly, for the images that have 'NO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION' on them, what kind of license should be used on them. Please clarify these things. SomeonePakistani (talk, contribs)

For the images on Flickr, the Flickr user him/herself should change the copyright status of these images - at least temporarily - from "(C) All rights reseved" to "attribution or CC-BY" only. When this has happened you might re-upload the respective images, add the Flickr-URL in the source-entry and add the template {{Flickr}}. Then our Flickr-bot can check and verify the license status. However, you should be aware that if we doubt that the Flickr-user really owns the image, we still can question and eventually delete such an image if we have a strong suspicion of that - that was just a general remark, not especially directed at you.
With images with 'NO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION' you eventually meant, "public domain" images, right? It is always the task of the uploader to provide evidence or proof that an uploaded image is actually free or in the public domain. In most countries of the world, works of art (including images) become public domain only 70 years after the death of the artist (or photographer). Therefore, you will have to check whether that is true also for Pakistan (likely) and you will have to find out the name and year of death of the photographers of such images. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bird's-eye view

Hi Túrelio. Just have a small question. The above category would be better off into subcats of Category:Aerial photographs. Is it a bad idea if I move the files into the relevant cats? I though it would be a good idea to ask you since you know the Commons more than me. ;) Rehman(+) 07:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rehman, thanks for asking me. One might object that such a cat could be justified as there are several wikipedia articles with the same lemma (see interwikis on cat page). On the other hand I agree that it may be difficult to discriminate between Bird's-eye view and Aerial photographs. You see, I'm not sure for myself about that. Therefore, I would recommend you to open a discussion thread at a public board such as COM:VP (broad) or COM:CFD (focussed). --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will take it to CFD soon then. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 08:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Flight Warsaw-Chicago 2009

Sorry to bug you again, just doing a brief cleanup of Category:Aerial photographs. The above category, can be moved straight to subcats of Category:Aerial photographs (or Category:Aerial photographs of unidentified locations) right? Or is it still a good idea to CFD it? Rehman(+) 09:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems a rather clear case for moving the cat. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok I will do that then. This category also caught my eye, similar to the Flight cat, but a little more official? Move that too? Rehman(+) 09:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It is already a subcat to Aerial photographs, so nothing more to do IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The one above also has numerous identical images (with tiny differences). Do Commons have any policy to delete such replicas? Is it ok if I CSD-duplicate-tag very-identical images (like this and this)? Rehman(+) 09:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For me thats ok, but opinions may differ. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm offline now, at least until tomorrow. --Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I will be bold and try to properly categorize this. If I do something wrong it can always be undone. Thanks for your time. Good night? ;) Rehman(+) 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in participating in this and this deletion discussions. Also, is there a way to add the deletion tag to those files by bot? There is so many to do manually... Rehman(+) 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch maybe?

Following your sensible comment here and the fact that I found two uploaders of the same book cover I've blocked some socks. Based on those deleted these look like they come from the same place I think. It is always possible it is actually the publisher but they don't seem to pay attention to messages sadly. Email too! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now found 2 of the 3 Tonetta photos on her (?) Facebook page, which has a lot of photos of similar size and quality and thereby may be authentic. Whether they are legal by copyright is another question, of course. Eventually we have to directly contact her. Have a nice "break". --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:George Wettling Gottlieb.jpg

You cropped the image, maybe the history should be hidden? ZooFari 14:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I did the actual cropping, I wasn't involved in the discussion here. You might comment there (though it's the German Forum, you may write in english). --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

--- Thank you very much for deleting the file--م ض (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, but it was actually User:Herbythyme who deleted it. --Túrelio (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on categories relating to people by hair color

I've left a response at "Category talk:Women with blond hair". I've also left identical messages at "Category talk:Women with black hair", "Category talk:Women with brown hair" and "Category talk:Women with white hair". The same issue arises with all these categories, so I suggest we discuss the matter at "Women with blond hair". (Love the cat picture, by the way!) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. Too busy for the moment. --Túrelio (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


für die Ausführung der Schnellöschung! Wir haben von ihm zwar noch andere Bilder, z. B. dieses. Ich stehe aber mit dem Schauspieler in Kontakt, um ein Bild zu verwenden, was ihm auch gefällt. Das ist zwar strenggenommen nicht nötig, ich meine aber, der Anstand fordert es. Ich möchte noch öfter derartige Bilder machen und da ist es wenig hilfreich, wenn einer der Schauspieler "böse" von uns redet. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2 images

Should these 2 images be deleted? One appears to be a derivative image:

The other is almost unusable. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Regards --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello Túrelio, I 've promised you to ask mr. d'Ansembourg, the owner of the Harinxmastate [48], to give his permission to make some new photo's of his estate. He gave me his permission, but only to make photo's if they are not commercial used. Also I can publish these photo's only on my own website, but not in Wikimedia Commons. Gouwenaar (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That is sad, but we can't help it. Thanks for your effort. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this photo allowed here?

[49] it contains an image of a beer logo. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This is an interesting question. Maybe the beer label image above must be deleted or perhaps a label is just a label? If this is deleted, then perhaps this catalogue of wine labels should all have to be deleted too. Interesting problem....though I have no strong views here. Strange to see that Supreme Deliciousness uploaded this image in the first place. Anyway, best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is it strange that I uploaded it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I'm currently on travel, far from home, and the internet access in my hotel seems to be unreliable (I tried to answer here already 3 times, unsucessfully). As the label/logo isn't really the center of the image etc., it could go by de minimis. So, I don't see a problem here. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Normally, one asks an Admin if an image is OK before one uploads it but everyone is different. Its not a big deal here. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

3 images

Dear Turelio,

If you can please delete these 2 images, I don't think any of them are in scope and the third is a duplicate:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help, Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


für das Löschen des Verschieberests. Allerdings bin ich immer noch nicht ganz sicher, ob ich die richtige Vorlage verwendet habe. Wäre für kurze Rückmeldung dankbar. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bin momentan auf Reise und mit etwas unsicherem I-Zugang. Generell würde ich sagen, wenn du einen "Verschieberest" findest, solltest du zuerst mal via "Global usage"-Reiter prüfen, ob der ursprüngliche Dateiname noch irgendwo verwendet wird. Wenn das der Fall ist, würde ich {{NeuerDateiname}} setzen und danach auf ersetzen klicken (oder letzteren Schritt einen admin machen lassen, falls der DeLinker dich nicht reinlässt. Wird der alte Dateiname nachweislich nirgends mehr verwendet, kannst durch einfach ein {{speedy}} setzen. --Túrelio (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Der Verschieberest war für mich nicht schwer zu finden, ich hatte ihn nämlich selbst produziert und war mir dann nur nicht sicher, was ich tun muß, damit ihn ein Admin findet und löscht. Danke für die Infos und Dir eine gute Reise! --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

this is nonsence deletion - Turkish copyright allow use this photo like " national heritage" see: "Article 47 ("Expropriation")"

please, restore file "evren.jpg" -- 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Permission Sent - Please Undelete

Hi, I sent permission as you suggested for the image- File:EASY_STAR_ALL_STARS_DSOTM_COVER.jpg Would you please undelete the file until it is confirmed. Thanks very much.


Undeletion isn't necessary as it hadn't been deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio, ich habe gerade mit Mark Holloway korrespondiert und es kam raus, dass er allen Bildern auf seinem Stream cc-by-2.0 Lizenzen gegeben hat, selbst solchen, die er nicht geschossen hat. Er hat zugestimmt in Zukunft Sachen die nicht von ihm stammen zu "All Rights Reserved" zu machen - nicht klar war, ob er bei alten Bildern die nicht von ihm sind die Lizenzen ändert. Eine große Zahl von Bildern hat er sicher selbst gemacht, aber dazwischen sind einige einfach von woanders rauskopiert. Ich hab ihn jetzt gebeten sich über einen Link alle Bilder anzusehen die von seinem Account "27000124@N05" stammen und mir zu schreiben ob nicht-freie dabei sind. Ich hab auch nach einer Relizenzierung nicht freier anderer Bilder auf seinem Stream gefragt, aber bei der Anzahl Bilder schätze ich, die Chance dass er alle nicht-freien raussucht, für gering ein. Wie für zukünftige Uploads vorgehen? Ihn bei Commons:Questionable Flickr images zu listen fänd ich auch fraglich, weil sicher viele selbstgemachte Bilder von ihm dabei sind. Eine Idee? Oder meinst du die bisherigen Maßnahmen reichen aus? lg Hekerui (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vielleicht solltest du die Kernbotschaft dieses Postings in englisch auf der Disku von QFI posten und, wenn du die Möglichkeit hast, beobachten, was er nun tatsächlich macht. Wenn er die falschen Lizenzen auf Flickr nicht korrigiert, würde ich ihn doch auf QFI setzen, aber mit einem Hinweis (Comments) gemäß deinem obigen Posting. --Túrelio (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)]
Ja, das klingt gut. Hekerui (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello, Turelio! I heard this user called Freewayspeeds got infinitely blocked. Martin H. blocked the user, and the block reason was "Vandalism-only account". That user hasn't vandalized Wikimedia Commons before, so can you discuss the block with Martin H.? Thank you! 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who "Freewayspeeds" is. The only account blocked (for a day only) by me over the last 2 days was IP, and this one was fully justified. If Freewayspeeds thinks his block wasn't justified or should be shortened, then he/she should file an unblock request. --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

a request

Can you tell me whether concerns that File:ISN 743 CSRT 2004 transcript Pg 5.png was a duplicate was discussed anywhere prior to deletion? I don't believe I received a heads-up on my talk page.

I accept that it was a duplicate. But if this was a summary deletion -- one with no prior discussion -- then I want you to know that it took considerable time to clean up after this deletion. Note that my first edit to clean up was at 10:18, and my final edit was at 10:39. If I count drafting this request to you, then cleaning up after this deletion cost me something like 45 minutes.

If you come across duplicate files could you please avoid summary deletion? Could you please verify, if they were tagged with a speedy tag, that the individual who placed that tag fulfilled their responsibility to advise the uploader?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your 1st question, I don't know and I usually don't check for this, as with removing a duplicate file nothing is lost, because there is still the remaining one. When aiming to delete a speedy-tagged dupe, I do check whether it is used on any project and, in case it is, I order the DeLinker to replace it, as I did in this case[50]. The actual deletion is performed only after the Delinker has confirmed that all uses have been replaced. Therefore, I don't understand why there was any remaining clean-up work.
Anyway, sorry if this was caused by my action. --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason it took so long to clean up is that once I had uploaded the correct image for page 5 I had to go and edit all 14 files where the delinker bot had replaced links to page 5 (which had erroneously contained a dup of page 4) I had to go and re-edit them to make them point back to new version of page 5 that actually contained page 5. Not having a bot it took more than a minute per each.
  • Anyhow, thanks again for the heads-ups. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:PL Na drogach duszy str 107.jpg and other

Hi. Yes, I know about it. I reported these files to remove. You can to delete them. Tommy Jantarek (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will put no more speedy-notification on your talkpage and you can removed my ones. --Túrelio (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Aerial photographs of unknown localities in Italy

Hi Turelio. Can I know the reason why this category is cancelled? "Uncorrectly named"? I think that aerial photographs from locations in Italy they are know is different fron unknow locations in Italy. Thank you for your answer, --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi DenghiùComm, I deleted it only because it was speedy-tagged and empty. I assume that User:Rehman reorganized the Aerial photographs of unknown ...-cats for several countries; see the thread Category:Bird's-eye view some paragraphs above. --Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I saw. It's an other order. He made the categories for each region, so the unknown images remains in the generic category of Italy. In this manner we can accept it. Thank you again, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bordanyi templom kornyeztete.jpg


I saw that you renamed File:Bordanyi templom kornyezete.jpg to File:Bordanyi templom kornyeztete.jpg. It should have been the other way around. Can you reverse the redirect?

Thanks, --Dami (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I renamed File:Bordanyi teplom kornyezete.jpg (teplom) to File:Bordanyi templom kornyeztete.jpg (templom), as had been requested. Are you really sure, that the teplom version is right? --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, there were two typos in the name, I think you corrected one and might have introduced an other in the rename. It should be "templom" and "kornyezete" (actually with accents "Bordányi templom környezete". -- 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


I added next to the photos to delete the photo substitution. Please delete, the author of the picture is me. I only took photos of the others. --Valentini17 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I've deleted most of them and left you a note on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to delete the photoGesù Morto because is in a different place than where now. Are not free to delete images uploaded by me? --Valentini17 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, once you have released a photo under a free license, you are no longer in control and you are no longer free to delete it. As we value our contributors, sometimes we delete out of courtesy if we think the request is rational and if the image is unused.
Anyway, as my question on your talkpage was related to the older image, this one had to stay until you could comment to my question, which you didn't as of yet. Though the statue may have been moved, would it still be possible to take a shot from a similar view point/angle as in the old image? --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello Turelio, I have beeen checking the user's uploads as he contributes in es-wiki, as you can see here I've deleted 3 images because of clear copyvios and a fourth one clearly scanned from a publication. I have not been able to find the rest, but they all look too suspicious to me, some are very small, some look like collages and none of them have EXIF data, so I think they all should be deleted. Do you agree? Regards. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Moin Túrelio, ich hoffe Du kannst mir helfen, folgende Aufgabe hab ich mir gedacht und komme dabei nicht weiter. Ich habe ein Musterseite angelegt, wie ich gerne die Foto bei andern Webseiten weiterverwendet sehen würde. (Da ich öfters danach gefragt werde). Ich versuche das dann immer zu erklären, aber das klappt, vor allen in anderen Sprachen nicht so gut. Meine Überlegung war, jedes Bild mit ein seinem eigenen kleinen Muster zu belegen, so wie bei den Beispielfoto mit Wulff hier.

Jetzt kommt die technische Frage, es gibt ja den Baustein {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} gibt es diese auch für Bilder? Und wie bring ich {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} dazu, nur das {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Original}} so aussieht (Also nur LINK auf Original)? Ich hoffe Du hast verstanden was ich gerne möchte. ;-) Geht das überhaupt? Tschüß und schon mal Danke -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ich denke, ich hab halbwegs verstanden, was du möchtest, bin dafür aber definitiv nicht der richtige. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, ist User:Lupo ein guter Coder; es gibt aber sicher noch viele andere, die das beherrschen. Am besten stellst du die Frage mal auf dem Forum, oder, wenn du gut genug englisch kanst, auch auf der VP. --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Huch bist Du schnell, ich danke Dir, ich werde mal bei User:Lupo anfragen, mein denglisch ist nicht so gut. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos of F.C. Internazionale players

Images user:Millucci0 has uploaded are taken from the links resulting in the Google image search page. I.e. File:Sneider-inter.jpg can be found here, resulting in the google page after searching "wesley sneijder inter"; File:Cambiasso-Cuchu.jpg can be found here... et cetera et cetera.. Just by searching files with the right width&height. That is why I haven't pasted every url in every image.. thought an admin would have understood (it would be a very long work for me) ;-) Hope you will delete this copyright violating files soon, bye (& sorry)! --Osk (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know how to search for images, but my first search went exactly for the source of File:Cambiasso-Cuchu.jpg and after searching through >10 google image pages without success, I gave up. As we are rather few admins here and as there is so much work waiting, which requires admin buttons, we have far less available time as many regular users. Anyway, thank you for pointing us to likely copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ameri 1238T8x12S.jpg

Turelio, I assure you I own the rights to this image. Not sure what you would like to see in terms of proof. I can email you the original image which I have sitting (along with many other originals taken the same day) on my hard drive. --johndoe555

Beyond what I wrote on your talkpage, I only wonder why this same image was already published in 2004 at and, in both cases strangely without any photo credit. (Besides, you shouldn't have removed those URLs from the other version entry of the description, as anyone else who finds one of these links later, will surely cry copyvio because both publications were far earlier than your upload to Commons).
Anyway, as this is nothing about me or what I think, to remove reasonable doubts you should send an individual permission to OTRS, using the "Declaration of consent" on that page, where you have to state your legal ownership and to identify yourself - though this information will be treated confidentially; only OTRS volunteers have access to that. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


He did it again, so it might be a good idea to block him promptly, give him some time to read COM:L. –Tryphon 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Right back at you. –Tryphon 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:El Molo 1979.jpgFile:Turkana Woman with Baby 1979.jpg

Hi Túrelio

Please note that "El Molo 1979" is the better name because the people pictured are not Turkana but El Molo. Naming the picture "Turkana Woman with Baby 1979" is therefore misleading. Regards, Béka (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello Túrelio, so what do you think should be done about those images? The Flickr user is not an author of those images, that's for sure. The originals uploaded to Kron are gone. Even if they were released under a free license, I believe the name of the photographer should be mentioned somewhere at the very least, but I am not sure how to get it. What do you think? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, EXIF has for all 3 images a "Bryan" as name. Also, the line "Courtesy KRON 4 Viewers" suggests that the Flickr-user is not the photographer. Now, I've replaced the Flickr-user's name by "Bryan" in the author field. However, as the Kron terms do not transfer their own "forced" license for user uploads to others, we need a permission by this "Bryan" to be on the safe side. But I've no idea how to contact this Bryan. Do you? --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No I do not. I asked Flickr user, but he simply removed my comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would take this for an answer, and for a negative one. As I'll be offline for the rest of the day, you may tag the images for deletion, if you want. Otherwise I'll do it myself tomorrow. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian stamp

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Túrelio. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

A Disputed template

Howdy. You might be interested in this.--Rockfang (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And I just realized you are discussing a quite similar topic in the section above this one. Sorry. :) Rockfang (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WN editprotected request

Hi, I see you're a Commoner and may not see what goes on over on WN after placing requests. I thought you should see Wikinews:Talk:South Africa reopens beaches after fatal shark attack. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Images of August

Hello Túrelio, the images of August can not be eliminated why? [52] [53] --Truu (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere I said they cannot be deleted. However, after looking at all uploads of this user and his edits on :de, he is likely a representative of this local banking company and likely not Wiki-versed. Probably he just forgot to add the license to these two uploads, as he did add it to his other uploads. These are not images form Getty Images. So, there is little need for haste, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I had done something wrong. Truu (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Brits/ brits

Hi Túrelio,

I am a little concerned about your replacing brits.ogg by Brits.ogg at nl.wikti. In this particular case the pronunciation of the two words is identical, so it does no harm, but this may not always be the case. There is a good reason why wiktionary is case sensitive: the words "brits" and "Brits" actually mean something totally different (stretcher/field bed and British). Sometimes there may also be a pronunciation difference.

Greetings nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 22:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try to take of that. Luckily, it's rather rare that there audio file dupe-deletions. --Túrelio (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


The images were published pseudonymously, therefore copyright protection lapses in Germany after 70 years. As the images were completed in 1925, the images are Public Domain. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 16:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you any proof for your first claim? I mean, how did the one who tagged them as copyvio (not me), know about the author. And could you give me any hint/page/whatever about your second statement? --Túrelio (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I cannot view the deleted page, but you can check the file description and see the name of the book in which they were published - and Google should confirm it was published in 1925, with the illustrator named pseudonymously. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous publication does not matter here. If within 70 years following publication (or 70 years following the creation if the work is unpublished) the artist admits authorship or authorship becomes known and there is no doubt in the authorship (the artist disclosed his identity to anyone or had left traces, so the work is not anonymous or pseudonymous) or the hires decide to admit authorship to gain the full protection time the copyright will expire 70 years p.m.a.. See §66,2 UrhG. This is possible in any form by just undisclosing the pseudonym or by leaving anonymity in oral or written. Because it is so simple to gain the full protection of 70 years p.m.a the existing formal way (Register anonymer und pseudonymer Werke beim Deutschen Patent- und Markenamt) is unimportant in practice. --Martin H. (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

One more

Hi Túrelio, thank you for deleting copy right violations. I believe here's one more File:Pipe-from-Sanbruno-explosion.jpg. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't overlooked this. The difference to the two deleted ones is that here was no "Courtesy: Kron 4 viewers" on the Flickr page. Therefore it seems justified to assume that the Flickr user is the photographer, until we have evidence/input to the contrary. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the similarity is that it was also taken by Bryan. So, if we are to assume that Bryan is flickr user, then 2 others should be undeleted as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Update: it looks like Flickr user works for Kron 4 [54]. So maybe it is OK to have those images?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you get the Sherlock-Holmes-award. Only 1 small mismatch, EXIF has Bryan, he calls himself Brian. Anyway, I'll take care of that tomorrow. Too tired after performing some 700+ deletions over the last 2 days. --Túrelio (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Leonardo da Vinci Madonna of the Rocks 1483 Louvre.jpg

Hi Pataki Márta, your upload File:Leonardo da Vinci Madonna of the Rocks 1483 Louvre.jpg has been tagged for deletion due to the heavy watermarking of the image. Could you consent to the deletion? --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! S'il vous plaît ne pas supprimer. C'est une image magnifiquement retouché, il n'est pas sombre.--Pataki Márta (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! Please do not delete. This is a beautifully retouched picture, it is not dark.--Pataki Márta (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pataki Márta,
ok, but the problem is not that it might be dark, but that it is full of watermarks "(C) Lessing Archive" and hardly usable. Could you obtain it without that many watermarks? --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I see, the watermark disorder, why?--Pataki Márta (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying. You do see the watermarks distributed all over the image, do you? While that is not forbidden, it heavily reduces the usability of this image. Therefore my above question, whether you could try to get another version of this image, that has no or only 1 watermark. --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This picture is so good, as it is. So here is authentic. I think so. I do not have a problem if you think otherwise.--Pataki Márta (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
@Pataki, do you really understand what the "watermarks" are? Look at the image now, as I have marked some of them. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ThaiFutsal (talk · contribs)

i already edit my uplode file Piyachat 3.jpg and add my website link .it correct? Thank you very much. User:ThaiFutsal Date 2010-09-20 15:56

Hi ThaiFutsal, did you see "Copyright © 2008 - 2009 All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of the source website? You cannot upload any images from this website. Images uploaded to Commons have to be a free license. See COM:CB. Also, when you upload images made by someone else and copied from a website, you cannot write "own work", that is simply not true. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bbcwebwise september2010.jpg

Hello - I'm new to Wikimedia - I was wondering why this image was deleted, when Wikipedia pages for other BBC websites like BBC News Online and Bitesize have screenshots? Thanks. Heckzecutive (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the difference between english Wikipedia (:en) and Commons. Did you ever click on these two images? When you do, you will see a template saying "non-free" and "fair use". "Fair use" is a specialty of US copyright law and, mysteriously, such material is allowed on :en, though this material is illegal in the UK. Anyway, on Commons it is expressedly forbidden, because it would be illegal in most of the world. --Túrelio (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
So these images should probably be deleted too, then? To be honest, I work on the website in question. Obviously it is owned by the organisation I work for (the BBC) - does this mean I can't upload it? Heckzecutive (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
No, as you are likely not the legal representative (or head of the department of rights management) of the BBC. You may ask them, but it is unlikely they will grant that. --Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
And what do you mean by "these images"? Your uploads or the fair-use-tagged images on :en? The latter can stay as this policy of :en currently has the "blessing" of the WMF. --Túrelio (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant the latter. I suppose it's not possible to upload my image under the same licence? All I want to do is illustrate the article with some kind of image. I have logos as well - is there nothing at all I can upload? Heckzecutive (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You may try, but not on Commons, only locally on :en. For that, you'll have to provide a solid fair-use-rationale, a good reason why this copyrighted image should be uploaded to :en (no free ones available, for example); see [55]. - Now, I'm going to bed. --Túrelio (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain this - I'll have another go at uploading to :en, since there really aren't any relevant free images available (see Wikipedia article). Nighty night. Heckzecutive (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

image referencing for illustrators

I think it is imperative as an illustrator that the actual printed format of the magazine is shown. This is the only way to reference actual work. The printed Magazine is becoming obsolete, and therefore is even more reason for illustrators to include a jpg of the image as a historical document. I have recently had a few of the images taken down, and unfortunately I just received the notice now so I didn't respond in time. For Illustrators to either reference or have a citation to a graphic example is extremely important for the proof of creation. Thanks so much Turelio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertman (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lbertman,
I not sure what you want me to do. As explained on your talkpage, if you can and want to give permission for your uploads (that can be easily un-deleted), go to Commons:Email templates, take the boxed "Declaration of consent for all enquiries", enter the filenames of all files to be covered by that permission, enter the name of the license of your choice, put the date and your legal name under it and mail that all from an account clearly associated to your office/studie/legal name to the email address mentioned on OTRS. This permission will not be made public, but can only be accessed by our OTRS volunteers, who will then give "clearance" for the covered files. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Redact an edit.

File:Bryle2.jpg may be a suitable image for the Wikimedia Commons if we can find a use for it, but the original intention was a pure attack. Perhaps you or somebody could redact the first content and edit summary? If that can't be done, the image should be downloaded, deleted, and then reuploaded so that the original intention can be hidden. mechamind90 15:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename File:Pedagogiczna Biblioteka Wojewodzka Lodz.jpg

Thanx ;) --Zorro2212 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Hi Túrelio,

Milky restored Centre commercial de la caserne de Bonne - Grenoble.JPG - a picture I marked for speedy-delete and you deleted because of the absence of FOP in France - arguing that the shopping center was not the main topic. You're probably more versed in this than me, so I leave it to you to decide what to do. --Pethrus (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened a DR where we can discuss this. –Tryphon 11:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That was the right thing to do. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Entschuldigung aber ich kann nur ein bisschen Deutch sprechen :-(

Ich glaube das alles sind in copyviol (diese aus ) oder nicht in "Art Libre" :-(

Vielen danke und gruss --Pil56 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Mille grazie. --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Images from Flickr

Hallo, Túrelio. You has deleted this file taken from flickr as a copyright. But why, for example, these files[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] are still in commons (they're also from flickr)? --Interfase (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems you didn't at all understand why File:Bəzz qalası 1.jpg was deleted. This file had been uploaded to Commons in Sept. 2010 by User:Sefer ibrahim with the following claims "Source=own work, Author=Sefer ibrahim", whereas it had had been uploaded to Panoramio ( by Hossein Barkhordari already in August 2007 and with © All rights reserved. So there is no association to Flickr, as you seem to think. Of those other files, listed above by you, I've checked only the first and the last one, and both were properly under the same free license on Flickr and on Commons and also the author name was the same. So why should they be deleted? See, images on Flickr can have very different license, some are compatible (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) with Commons, others (NC, ND, ARR) are not. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Doppeltes Bild

Hallo Túrelio, das von mir vor einigen Tagen hochgeladene Bild File:Hurricanes Karl, Igor, and Julia, GOES-East, 2010.09.16.jpg ist dem Anschein nach identisch mit File:Igor Julia Karl sept 16 2010 1445Z.jpg und dem Anschein nach auch schlechter in der Qualität obwohl die Dateigröße um ein vielfaches größer ist. Magst du bitte meine Doppelung beseitigen und die Ersetzung im CommonsDelinker befehlen. TIA und Grüße. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Ich musste erst mal nachschauen was "TIA" bedeutet ;-).--Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sequencer namespace

Please note that the item you removed Sequence:Cats is in the sequencer namespace and is part of the sequencer video labs project. I have added a note to the village pump. Mdale (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It really looked like some test edit. If possible, a note directly on the page wold be helpful. --Túrelio (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my Speedy deletion requests

Well, what I really want removed is my proper name from the permissions fields. Is that possible? ---Kilbad (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kilbad,
of course, that is no problem at all. You can do it by yourself or I will gladly do it for you. I would only ask you to add a license tag to File:Pilosebaceous Unit 4x.JPG, at least a {{PD-self}}. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but your way leaves it in the history. You need to delete some of the histories too. ---Kilbad (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now I've re-uploaded File:Insertion of sebaceous glands into hair shaft x10.jpg, as this is easier than to involve an oversighter. However, if you want to go this way, you should make an edit in this file, just writing in the edit summary something like "Confirmed by User:Kilbad". Instead with File:Pilosebaceous Unit 4x.JPG, you could simply add the {{PD-self}}, as explained above. I would then do the same with the other images and, after your confirmation, substitute them for the old ones and delete the latter as dupes. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Baltika logo.png

Dear Túrelio,

Recently I downloaded an image from English Wikipedia (see name above). I used the same description (i.e. the same license) which was in original file. The only thing I changed was the way to the original file location — to prove that this was from Wikipedia (and not my notebook), I showed the path to htp:\\wiki... etc.

Please tell me what was wrong? Whar was the reason for you to delete it?

Thanks in advance Cherurbino (talk)

Hi Cherurbino,
the source was this image: When you jump to that image, you see a template with the words "Non-free media use rationale". That should have alerted you, that this is not a free image. :en wikipedia allows the local use of unfree content under the conditions of the "fair use" clause of US copyright law. And such fair-use images carry exactly the template as in this image. However, Commons and most other wikipedias do not (and cannot) allow fair-use material. That was the problem of your upload. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

imagens deletadas

coloquei 2 fotos e deletaram elas alegando que estava errado o copyright, mas está correto, é de autoria de uma pessoa, mas para fins de divulgação, tanto que da para baixar as fotos no site da lnb. nao entendi por que tomaram essa decisão..

na verdade pelo que eu entendi eu não estou errado, mas sou novato, por favor se eu estiver errado me desculpe, e peço explicações para não cometer o erro novamente. grato --Icaroaol (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand Catalan. As this is likely about the 2 deleted images: both were sourced to a site that says "© 2009-2010 LNB - Liga Nacional de Basquete. Todos os direitos reservados". --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It's brazilian portuguese, anyway, I upload 2 pics of this web site that you said, but the pics are in the press page, so I can download it right there. I think that if we can download it, you can use the pic for publish. Am I right??? By the way, I am a new user here, and I am trying to figure out the way that I can upload pics correctly. How can I know exactly the licence that I apply for pics?? and how can I know that I can use pics?? and where can I find out pics for it??? I tried to read the help page here about licence, but there is so many pages and I get lost in that. so, I'm really sorry about type in portuguese in the first moment, thanks.. -- 12:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I thought it was Catalan. Images for "the press", "in the press kit" or on "the press page" are not free enough, because the "press" label usually means, you can use them for reporting (newspapers etc., but Commons & Wikipedia are not newspapers) in the context of the event/group/person/whatever. But that is not equivalent to a free license, such as Creative-Commons-BY. So you need to have an explicite statement about the license or you have to ask the rights holder for a written permission. For the latter way, see Commons:Modelo de mensagem.
To know what to do if you want to upload an image made by someone else and want to know the original license (that can only be issued by the rights holder/photographer), go to File:Amy McNally OVFF2009.jpg, click on the entry in the source field and you will find yourself on a Flickr image page. If you mouse over the license/copyright field at the right side, you see something like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. These are licenses that are allowed on Commons, whereas CC-NC or CC-ND are not allowed. For an overview see COM:CB. --Túrelio (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, thank you, just another question, I uploaded pics from basketball players, so, If I go to the game and take a pic, can I upload it saying that it's "own work"? or even this I should get a written permission of the player. --Icaroaol (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I forgot to say that before you alerted me I uploaded another pic, so Can u delete this one too -- 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the play is a sort of public event, there is usually no need to ask the players for permission, as they have to expect being photographed - except may be, when the organizers explicitely forbid taking photos. Of course, if a player sees you taking photos and after the play asks you not to publish photos of him, you should honour this request, not per law,, but per courtesy. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

All right , thank you so much, anyway, if I take the pic in a public event like you said, and I upload the pic, What is the licence that I have to specify? pic took by me, and just it. --Icaroaol (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your choice. I license my own photos by CC-BY-SA 3.0. If you want do that too, than add {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the description when uploading. --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please rename


Because my wool-gathering, please rename:

None is currently in use. It will be used later. Greetings! --Starscream (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank You :-) --Starscream (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
and also File:Press photographer IV Meeting Of Fans of the TV Series "M jak miłość" in Gdynia 2010 - 08.jpg to File:Press photographer at IV Meeting Of Fans of the TV Series "M jak miłość" in Gdynia 2010 - 08.jpg. Sweet girl. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, friend. --Starscream (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


This is a sockuppet of User:CuoreAlVanadio with the same problems of copyright :-( --Pil56 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying, but you should post such notices at COM:AN or COM:AN/U. --Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Gabor Franciszek .JPG


This redir is 100% false. Please delete. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Selbstschutz leaders in Bydgoszcz.jpg

Hello! I read that you doubt that PD-Polish applies to this file. During the second world war this photo (made by unknown Nazi photographer) was placed in so-called "Album of fame of Selbstschutz" (known also as "Alvensleben Album"). But after the end of war this album was found and taken over by the Polish authorities. Now it's in polish archive and that's the reason why the polish book is mean as a source.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dreamcatcher25, thanks for this information. While I do not doubt that this archive is the immediate source of the image, I question the legitimacy of the license. Simply by "found and taken over" one does not earn any copyright. The US government has done the same with material confiscated in Germany during WWII. However, here on Commons we do not accept this either. A possible license might be based on anonymity. But for that you will really have to proof that this photo was never published with an author credit. As this will take time, I will not urge for speedy deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Túrelio! Thank you for fast reply and patience. I will check in this Polish book and in other sources if this album was officaly publicated in Germany before 1945. However, at this moment it looks for me that we have similar situation with this "Alvensleben Album" like in case of Stroop report (see the discussion here [65]). It's also interesting that in the most complex German book about Selbstschutz ("Der Volksdeutsche Selbstschutz in Polen 1939-1940" by Christian Jansen and Arno Weckbecker) you will not find any photo. But I will try to find some more informations. Best regardsDreamcatcher25 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Good day! Whether I have received the letter from the manager with a question I am NINA SILAEVA under anybody NINAEVA???? I am not so sensible I understand in english and have decided to make a new nickname NINA SILAEVA, now at me two nicknames and pictures are loaded under anybody ninaeva. Help me if I something not that have made many thanks

I will take care of that next weekend. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ford Comuta electric car.jpg

Any chance you could give me a hint as to what that file was? Was it an OTRS-pending, perhaps? Jarry1250 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The speedy rationale was {{copyvio|}}. --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and cleaning this up. I don't understand, though, why this happened -- he blanked four user talk pages -- yours, mine, Messina (a substantial editor, not an admin), and a newbie. As far as a quick look shows, none of us had any interaction with him. Which makes me wonder if he is a sock puppet for a more established user? Any thoughts?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At a guess it's the same guy as earlier. I'll add the IPs and stuff to the CU I started. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and the clue about the non-working page protection. Before that it was like sort of dooms day. --Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Amateur Porn

Dear Túrelio, please put your views in these image..--Common-Man (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


What about the libelous and defamatory content that <censored> Tiptoety added? Are you going to remove that, too?

If you think you have a case, either appeal to the WMF or take a lawyer. But stop vandalizing Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File: Bodo Illgner

ja ist gut, hauptsache mein kompletter Nachname ist nirgends mehr in den Metadaten oder sonstwo.--Florian K (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Girl and cat.jpg

Hi Turélio,

I'm puzzled how you got all those addresses... and pleased to know you are a cat lover. Should we (Commons, I mean) do anything about the license violation? All best, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do this checking regularly for my high-profile images (Category:High-profile photos by Túrelio) and when I stumbled again today over your sweet image (I had seen it earlier, of course), I just was curious how much it is re-used. I did only a rather quick google search for Girl_and_cat (web and images) and I didn't actually check whether these re-uses are legitimate or copyviolating. You might do that by yourself. For uses on more relevant pages, you may use the published template {{published| author= |date= |url= |title= |org= |legal= }}, which belongs on the image talkpage (for example: File talk:DozingCat0796.jpg). What to do when you detect copyviolating use, depends on you. Blatant copyviolations on commercial pages shouldn't be tolerated. However, asking for a remuneration for re-licensing (and any legal action) does only make sense in your own country (or eventually in neighbouring countries) as people in more distant countries simply will ignore you as they assume that you cannot afford to take a lawyer in a foreign country (which is usually correct). Non-commercial copyviolators might at least be asked to add a missing credit. All this has to be done by yourself, the rights holder. Commons can do nothing about that. --Túrelio (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You could use {{Published}} instead of listing them. I've had a few of my images used without attribution, even trying to deal with Government Departments (yes they do it [use other peoples work and not attributing] as well) is worse then a commercial website! Bidgee (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your prompt reply. I guess I was only flattered for seing those two close relatives of mine in the web... Yes, being credit for our work is nice but is it worth the effort? . Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Depends on how much cost and effort there was to create the photograph. I hate to add-up how much I have spent doing photography for Commons. I have some images in the PD (never expect any credit) and others in CC-BY-SA (I do expect that Commons and myself get some credit). Bidgee (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (after EC) Depends. However, by accepting long-term uncredited use of an image of yours, you may get problems to accomplish a claim against a commercial copyviolator. At least, in Germany there was recently a case where the court rejected a claim by a photographer exactly with this rationale, that he hadn't objected against long-term uncredited use. Of course, this was a professoinal photographer, not a Commons user. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I've just found this], where my bee and wasp poster is being offered for sale and is credited to some "beverlytazangel". This looks like an American company. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
They even offer a "Report Violation" button. You should use this. US companies usually do act when you report a copyvio, as they are required per the DMCA to avoid litigation. By the way, when I wrote "commercial", I didn't actually mean such cases where they even sell your (free) image without any credit to you, but also any company or organization who uses an image of yours on their homepage, such as this (unlicensed use of a crop of File:Blick aufs Mittelmeer von Juan-Les-Pins.jpg). And I forgot to say, you should of course request removal of your images from Photobucket, if uploaded by someone else, as the user terms of this platform give them huge rights over the uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Turelio, would you be so kind to run this request. I could then do the next steps.  Docu  at 07:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It just finished.  Docu  at 08:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:MonjYOcas2.JPG

I altered the face of the nun with Gimp, is blurred, non? With the privacy subject I have thought about the project, thought that we had no problems, were that. Then I'm going to remove the "speedydelete"; thanks for your opinion and commentary! A hug :) --Yeza 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine now. In case you/we get a complaint, we could still delete it. --Túrelio (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Ummmm, well, I think that's not possible ident. the nun and, by the other side, now we have a image for the "Kapuzinerinnen von der Ewigen Anbetung" articles, actually :). It wins my side contructive... ;). If there was a problem minim in a future, with laws, etc, , there's we have time for delete the photo, ok? Thanks a lot! --Yeza (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Qingdao (DDG 113) sails away 060910-N-4856G-132 0TWIH.jpg and File:Qingdao (DDG 113) arrives in Pearl Harbor 060906-N-9643K-006 0TURN.jpg


File:Qingdao (DDG 113) sails away 060910-N-4856G-132 0TWIH.jpg and File:Qingdao (DDG 113) arrives in Pearl Harbor 060906-N-9643K-006 0TURN.jpg, which I uploaded over a year ago were tagged as duplicates and universally replaced by File:US Navy 060906-N-9643K-006 hinese Sailors man the rails aboard the destroyer Qingdao (DDG 113) as they arrive in Pearl Harbor.jpg and File:US Navy 060911-N-4856G-132 The Chinese Navy destroyer Qingdao (DDG 113) sails away at the completion of training with the guided missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93).jpg, which were uploaded 5 months ago. In a similar situation regarding a deletion about a month ago I asked you if it was possible to reverse this, is it possible to do this again? Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though the CommonsDelinker will think I'm crazy, but at least don't issue a death threat ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your understanding. BrokenSphere (Talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Constitution 1861 - Tunisie.jpg

Dear Sir,

Would you mind please to delete the first image that I uploaded in this file, because I made a mistake (I uploaded some other image, which is even not in PD). Thank you very much.--DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)



I don't see the point of changing the neme

Entschuldigen mir für Englisch gebraucht, ich wusste nicht, das in Deutsch zu sagen. Friendliche Grüsse --Pjacquot (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pjacquot,
you don't need to write in German, I know english as well, but only a little French. However, I do not really get what you want to say with "I don't see the point of changing the neme". Are you User:Jjackoti[66]? Anyway, all uses of File:Fr-Paris--liteau.ogg have been replaced by its duplicates. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Innab, please ask directly at the OTRS/noticeboard about the permission/ticket for this image. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an email from Keiana Page in South Carolyna Democratic Party, granting Wiki rights to use the picture of Alvin Greene under ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License in this Wiki article I already posted the picture and send the email to Commons, so the Alvin's picture was once approved, but then someone keep deleting it. I can forward the copy of Keiana Page email to Wiki users, if you really need the proof. I cannot understand if I do something wrong, or if someone is just do not like Alvin Greene? Even if you do not like Alvin's personality, he is still a curious political fenomen, so he deserves his place in Wikipedia. Please leave me message and your email address at my main Wikipedia page and I will email you the Keiana Page permission to use his photo: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 17. Oktober 2010, 06:00 Uhr (UTC)
I have nothing against Mr. Greene, who is totally unknown to me (living in a different continent), and also nothing against the image. Actually I moderated the speedy request of somebody else. Please do the following: forward the permission to, but don't forget to include the current filename or complete URL. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete please

Hello. The uploader of File:«Der Gletscherdrache» von Adi Holzer.jpg requested that it be speedy deleted as a non-commercial file several days ago. It's not been done yet although speedy deletion doesn't usually take that long. Could you delete this please? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted this one. But be aware that some concerns about revoking a license had been voiced in the context of the speedy requests by this uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As I read the request - my German is rubbish, so it will be just luck if I have this right - in this case he'd assumed that he could get the artist to release this under a free license, but the artist wasn't willing to release it without a non-commercial restriction. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


That's but a point of view. Actually, homophobia falls under antiracism laws in many countires. I am submitting the issue to the village pump: Commons:Village_pump#Is_homophobia_a_kind_of_racism_or_not.3F. Please abstain from deleting my edits before the thing is settled. Of course please made your opinion clear at the pump. Best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, may be VP is the best way to come to a balanced view. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

CMYK correction

Hoi Túrelio, Du kümmerst Dich offenbar häufiger um die Ausbesserung CMYK-codierter „Schwarzbilder“. Mir ist nun ein Schwung entsprechender Dateien aufgefallen, vgl. Category:Negative images. Die einzige Cleanup-Markierung dafür scheint die Vorlage {{invert}} zu sein, wobei „Invertieren“ das Problem nur halbwegs beschreibt und bei denjenigen Nutzern, die die Bilder „ganz normal“ sehen, ggf. Verwirrung stiften kann. Gibt's da Handlungsbedarf (erweiterte/neue Vorlage/Kategorie) oder bewegen sich solche Fälle mengenmäßig noch im Rahmen? (Ich habe da keinen Überblick.) Viele Grüße --:bdk: 17:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Bdk,
ja, diese Notwendigkeit ergibt sich öfters bei der Eingangskontrolle, aber ebenso bei speedy-markierten Dateien wegen vermeintlich "corrupt file", weil im IE nix angezeigt wird. „Invertieren“ sagt mir in diesem Kontext allerdings nichts. Ich verrate dir gerne das große Geheimns, wie ich diese Dateien auf Spur bringe. Ich lade sie runter, öffne sie in IrfanView und speichere sie gleich wieder ab; damit verschwindet der CMYK-"Kram", wie ich es gerade bei File:070221-F-2014R-048.jpg getan habe. O.k. manchmal jpg-"optimiere" ich sie noch (Shift-J in Irfanview). Ich habe den Eindruck, dass es nicht allzu viele sind, könnte mich da aber täuschen, weil ich nicht danach suche, sondern eher drüber stolpere. --Túrelio (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I did not take that photo. Excuse me. --Esteru (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for being honest! You might try to ask the photographer for permission, if you know him, or to re-shoot the photo by yourself, if you are nearby. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you for the advice and sorry for the things that I have done badly. The photo File:Revilluca.jpg has not been taked by me.

Copyvio objections

Hello Túrelio. I notice that you take part in CAT:COPYVIO frequently and often raise objections underneath the template, as shown here. Can you add those comments in the talk page and remove the speedy? This might work better. Thanks, ZooFari 03:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


All of the images that the user uploaded recently are copyvios, can you delete them? Regards!!--Esteban (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

May be later the day. However, I don't understand what you want to say/show with the link [67] that you put as rationale in the speedy-meesage box. --Túrelio (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It was a mistake, the photos are copyvio of [68] --Esteban (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Túrelio and Ezarate, Just for the record; the pictures are "plain" Luke Ford images ([69]) Best regards, Gohe007 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Hilde ekeberg.jpg

This file is an upload of a press released photo released by a political party in Norway. I see from the log that you have deleted it because it is found on the website but as far as I can see, this webpage claims no copyright to this image? This is the persons offical "Press" photo released for free use by news papres, tv or anyone else.

What steps are necessary for this picture to be undeleted, and why wasnt the uploader asked about the copyright/licensing of this picture before the deletion?

Oflatval (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify some of your statements. 1) the uploader, User talk:ALFRE, was notified about the speedy deletion. 2) the above mentioned website carries a clear bottom note "Universitas © 2010". 3) even it wouldn't carry such a note, content of websites is copyrighted, if not explicitely stated otherwise. 4) "press photo" or "free for press" is not equivalent to a free license. Besides, neither Commons nor Wikipedia is "press". 5) it was (and is) highly suggestive of being a copyvio that the image was found on a website, though the uploader had stated "own work". If you want have the image undeleted, contact the real photographer or rights holder, as him/her to send a permission (prepared by you; see Commons:Email templates) releasing the image under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift reply, I'll contact the right people and get the process going on releasing it under a free license. I'm pretty sure the intension is to already use it as such. Oflatval (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


This image is appearing only in deleted articles and its not live in Wiki...Please delete this image, otherwise Martin H. will take action against me. I am doing a clean-up for my sock puppet account.... (Treated commons as a media server for the images and uploaded several copyrighted images)..I dont want to keep any traces of that account. I will upload the picture once i got necessary information to re-start the article..--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass delete

User:LoverOfDubai - Please see the uploads of this user as 90% is belongs to No-Freedom-of-Panorama category..--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am on travel from today on. But I think others will take care about these uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


That is my own image. I don't ordinarily upload such high resolution images to Commons, and that one was uploaded by mistake, though I just noticed it now, quite some time later! (So, basically, I am ceasing distribution of that image under a free license. That is certainly within my rights, as the copyright holder--it was never released into the public domain, but published with a CC license.) So I would like to go ahead and restore the delete request to that image and would appreciate it if you would not revert it. --Cotinis (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I'm on travel and can't take care about that until end of the week, you might wait until then or file a regular DR, which would be better anyway. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

About File:José Mentor Guilherme de Mello-Parnaíba-PI.jpg

Dear Túrelio, Could you clarify why an NC/ND license photo has to be deleted, if this is one of the possible licenses to which we may classify an image when uploading? I think this interpretation of yours disserves Wikipedia, as it impedes the illustration of the contents which have no shareable image as, for example, File:José Mentor Guilherme de Mello-Parnaíba-PI.jpg of José Mentor Guilherme de Mello. Thanks, Sethemanuel (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sethemanuel,
as I'm still on travel, only very shirt: as per our policy, images uploaded to Commons have to be free for any kind of use (including commercial) and for producing derivatives. Therefore NC, ND or NC/ND-licensed images are not suitable for Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

request (File:Ghave_talkh_t.jpg)

Hi. nice to meet you. you deleted file:Ghave_talkh_t.jpg 2 days ago. thank you. but I wannt request send me that poster. I need that poster for Article of that serial correctly. I couldnt find that poster in the wiki so that is only good poster that I saw. I know rules of non-free content. so you can trust me and mail it to me. also, I show you uploaded poster on do you help me?(send poster by email)

Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gire 3pich2005,
the image had as source. But this website carries a Copyright note "©". If you don't find a really free image for your article, I recommend either to shoot one yourself, if possible, or to try uploading a low-resolution version of a copyrighted image under fair use locally at :en. Fair use-images are not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

hi again. I know must upload low resolution version. but there is no poster with advertising watermark in the web. that image you deleted hadnt advertising watermark. that is the point. look at this. there is no official poster like you deleted.

this is just picture likest picture to official poster but have a advertifing text in the mid of picture.

I say again please email that picture for me to resize and upload it at the

Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue of Jeannie Cho Lee's photo

Hi Turelio,

Jeannie Cho Lee is my mentor and she personally grants me rights to use this photo of hers (jeanniecholee_1.jpg) in her wikipedia site. Therefore I don't know why there is copyright violation. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winestudent725 (talk • contribs) 14. Oktober 2010, 08:49 Uhr (UTC)

Ok. But who did really shoot File:Jeanniecholee.jpg? And how about an answer to my question: are you the same user as User:Asianpalate? --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Same issue: you cv-tagged a lot of prom-photos, but did not provide any "proof", i.e. a source from where they might have been taken or any other evidence. Without that likely nothing will happen. Therefore, please add some evidence. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. All these photos were attributed "own work", including those from the 19th century. Quite clearly, photos from the 19th century can not be "own work". Pdfpdf (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, but that happens often, as people think they become the author by scanning an existing image. However, with images from the 19th century that doesn't mean the need to be deleted as they are likely PD-old. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Good point. So how should such images be tagged? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The copyvio-template should be used for clear cases, i.e. that are either absolutely evident per se or for which you have provided a link to the very likely source that makes it again evident. The assumed source is added like this {{copyvio|1=source URL}}. In less clear cases, when you have no direct evidence, but are still convinced of copyvio, you should open a regular DR, where you enter your rationale why you think it's a copyvio or at least fishy. It means a little bit more work for the requester (you), but eases (actually invites) input by others. It can be filed either by the short-cut from the last menu panel at the left side or manually by inserting {{delete}} and then following the 3 steps shown in the appearing message windows. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Interieur Amarante 406 coupe.JPG

Bonjour, ce fichier est également visible sur mais c'est avec l'accord de l'auteur qu'il a été uploadé sur wikimedia. Je vais donc ré-uploader ce fichier en le précisant dans sa description, en espérant que cela suffise. --Malsa (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi TheMalsa, I'm not that good in French, but with the help of Google-translator I could understand you. The problem is, you need to provide a written permission by the original author/photographer. Therefore I've tagged your re-upload not as copyvio, but with permission-missing. Please follow the instructions in the message/note on your talkpage. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, je vous transmet la copie du mail indiquant que l'auteur m'a fourni et autorisé à mettre ces photos. J'espère que cela suffit. Hi, I send you a copy of the mail stating that the author has provided and authorized to use these pictures. I hope that's enough. (sorry for my bad English) voilà la copie partielle du mail de l'auteur :
De : "Mawell74" <>
À : "Malsa" <>
Envoyé le : Jeu 7 octobre 2010, 20h 23min 20s
Objet : photo pour wiki
Bonsoir Malsa,
Comme demandé, je te fournie les deux photos que tu souhaites mettre sous wiki.
Pour la protection dont tu me parlais, je n'y connais rien alors je te fais confiance.[...]

Mercy, mais, send the original permission email to (it will be treated confidentially), please. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour votre aide, c'est chose faite ! En espérant que les suppressions du fichier cessent ! Cordialement. Thanks for your help, it's done! I hope that can stop serial-delete of this file! Regards. --TheMalsa (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced the no-permission tag by a OTRS-pending tag (thereby signaling that a permission has been sent to OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

+iw, if you don't mind

Regarding your edit, I don't know whether I mind or not, because I don't understand the significance of your edit. Instead of a red link, I now have what displays as an empty page. I think I prefer the red link. I look forward to your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is up to you to put something on the empty page ;-). Besides, it is not really empty as it contains an interwiki to :en. In addition, a blue userpage link gives you a slightly better standing than a red one. But if you prefer, I'll delete it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
Well, it is up to you to put something on the empty page ;-). - Agreed. I chose not to.
Besides, it is not really empty - I didn't say it was empty. I said: "I now have what displays as an empty page."
as it contains an interwiki to :en. - Agreed. Can you either explain, or point me to a page that explains, the significance of that? (Thanks in advance.)
In addition, a blue userpage link gives you a slightly better standing than a red one. - That's interesting to know. Thanks.
But if you prefer, I'll delete it. - As I said above: "I don't know whether I mind or not, because I don't understand the significance of your edit." I'll answer your implied question when I understand.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Verne-Etoile.jpg and others pseudocolourd "Verne's" illustrations

Hi! If you like to keep pseudocoloured ilustrations to Verne's novels I have not against it but you should notice that the orginal illustrations were b/w (only few of them were ful coloured but not only pseudocoloured in one shade of colour like this one). These pseudocoloured illustrtion were coloured probabyly by Andrzej Zydorczyk who used them to illustrate some Verne's novels, see here -> Here -> you are oryginal scans. Also the pseudocoloured ilustrations have worse resolution than the b/w oryginal scans. Regards Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't have a strong opinion about that. However, I found some of the colored version simply looking better. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for the images i cliqued myself!!

Hi Turelio, The majority of images which assigns author and source both as Chhora were cliqued by me only.I will try to provide link for the images i didn't cliqued.Please let me know what should i do to keep them here.RegardsChhora (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest, you make a list (here or on your talkpage) of the images that were originally shot (cliqued) by you. And you make a second list of images, though shot by you, but where you reproduced an already existing image (such as File:SriSawai Bhoj templeAsind.jpg, File:Shri Devnarayan BhagwanVeerGurjar.JPG, File:Shri Devnarayan Bhagwan the imperialGurjar.jpg for example). --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok,Thanks for your consideration.Images which were originally shot by me are :File:Gurjar Samrat MihirBhoja TheGreat.JPG, File:Shri Devnarayan BhagwanVeerGurjar.JPG, File:Saadu Maata Gurjari.jpg, File:Gurjar-pratihar art.jpg, File:Gurjar-pratihar2.jpg, File:Gurjar-pratihar3.jpg.

And the images such as File:GurjarPratihar9thCentury.jpg, File:Shri Devnarayan Bhagwan the imperialGurjar.jpg, File:Statue of Gurjar Samraat Mihir Bhoj Mahaan in Bharat Upvan ofAkshardham Mandir New Delhi.jpg were first uploaded on forum them on wikpedia so i will provide the OTRS for that from the owner of that forum. It will be helpful if explicitly tell me the procedure for that. Image File:Gujjar Girl Jammu-Kashmir in traditional costumes.jpg is taken from blog of a Gujjar of jammu, he has no offence in it.If you can retain the image by just providing right author as in case of File:GoddessNainadeviGurjars.jpg, please do it.RegardsChhora (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

At Commons:Email templates you will find a permission text template that should be used as it has all necessary statements. You should enter the filename or complete URL and the license of choice and mail all together to the rights holder. He/She should then put the date and his/her legal name under it and mail it back to
A caveat in regard to photos taken from blogs or forums: before asking the blog/forum owner for permission, you should ask him whether he has shot the photo himself or is really the rights holder for the photo. Otherwise, any permission by him has no value at all. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, i will do that but what i need to do for the images originally shot by me as they are totally my own work.ReagrdsChhora (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I will check the latter and perform what's necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.Also i have forwarded the permission email from the owner of that website (Ashok harshana) to permissions-co and added otrs pending tag to concerned images.RegardsChhora (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Turelio, I come to know this link, which says that The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.).So i think the images which are really my work will need no further source(The list which i quoted u initailly as images shot by me originally).regardsChhora (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Túrelio, I'm not used to send many messages with the same content so I was going to let a longer explanation in Italian while I had to go afk, so thank you for your help :) --Vituzzu (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Túrelio!

Warum hast du diese Überschrift eingefärbt? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm3.svg Also eigentlich solltest du das aus dem thread auf COM:AN/U selbst ersehen. Der von Matt begonnene thread "The person reading this - yes, you." ist doch eine spassige Reaktion auf die neuerdings auf COM:AN und AN/U stark in Mode gekommenen, äusserst subjektiven Beschwerden über andere User/Admins, mit denen wir uns ständig rumschlagen müssen. Mit der Einfärbung wollte ich die nicht-ernst-gemeint-Natur des ganzen zusätzlich unterstreichen. Die lolcat ist übrigens auch von mir. --Túrelio (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Tut mir Leid, aus dem thread auf konnte ich das nicht folgern. --High Contrast (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Miranda Cosgrove Bild

Guten Abend Können Sie mir sagen wo ich Bilder, z.B. von Miranda Cosgrove, finden kann die nicht gegen das Urheberrecht verstossen? Bei diesem Bild dass, Sie gelöscht haben, ging ich folgendermassen vor: Google Bilder > Suchbegriff: Miranda Cosgrove > in der Erweiterten Suche: die Nutzungsrechte auf kostenlos zu nutzen und weiterzugeben gestellt > Google Suche > Bild bei Wikipedia hochgeladen.

zu deiner Frage: keine Ahnung. Aber du musst einfach überlegen: professionell wirkende Fotos von Promis werden normalerweise von Profis gemacht, die ihre Bilder an Agenturen verkaufen oder selbst vermarkten, aber sicher nicht unter einer freien Lizenz anbieten. Deshalb gehen bei solchen Uploads bei uns Admins immer die Alarmglocken an, und meistens zurecht. Selbst wenn du auf Flickr Bilder findest, die Commons-kompatibel lizensiert sind, musst du sehr genau prüfen, ob der Flickr-user wirklich der Photograph ist. Denn im Unterschied zu Commons prüft bei Flickr niemand, ob die beim Upload behaupteten Rechte überhaupt bestehen. Ich habe schon jede Menge meiner Fotos, die dort illegal hochgeladen worden waren, von Flickr löschen lassen. Im Zweifelsfall solltest du sogar die Getty Images-DAtenbank durchforsten, ob das vermeintlich freie Bild nicht von dort stammt, wie ich es bei dir auch gemacht habe. Denn Getty klagt sehr gerne, €1-2000 pro Bild macht das dann. Das beste ist halt immer noch, selbst photographieren, was bei Miranda Cosgrove natürlich nicht so einfach ist. --Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln - Disneyland.jpg

Is this wax statue modern 3D art and thus copyrighted? Just curious. If it is, then I would think that Commons cannot keep this photo. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm no specialist for wax statues. But as a wax statue is likely an interpretation of reality by the artist, it should be considered copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Здравствуйте, Túrelio! Хотелось бы узнать попобддробнее и более понятнее про загрузку изображений. Как я поняла, даже, когда я загружаю фото и пишу реального автора и ссылку,откуда взяла - все равно пишется,что он может быть удален.Но как тогда загружать файлы и что про них писать? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle125 (talk • contribs) 17. Oktober 2010, 16:18 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Miracle125, I am sorry, but I don't understand that language. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jante_Hoggar_16p_406_coupé.jpg & File:Peugeot_coupé_406_1999.JPG

Bonjour, j'ai publié ces photos avec l'accord de leurs auteurs, elles ont été supprimées seulement quelques heures plus tard sans laisser le temps aux auteurs d'envoyer un mail à OTRS ! Je trouve complètement abusif vos méthodes de suppression à la volée. --TheMalsa (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand enough French. However, the problem with both images was that you had declared them as being licensed "{{CC-BY-NC-SA}}", which is not allowed on Commons (NC). --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake