User talk:Zirland/Archive3

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

Nora Zehetner pic[edit]

Hi, I just saw by chance in the logs that you deleted on 1. October a pic named "Nora Zehetner at console.jpg". As I believe that image came from flickr ( where it is released under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic (and noted as uploaded to Commons) I'm wondering if the license was just not properly declared after uploading or if that license wasn't valid for any reason. Any idea? Thanks. Optimale 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Use information:This image is intended for Editorial use (e.g. news or commentary). Any commercial or promotional use requires additional clearance. Contact your local office to see if we can clear this image for you.
Restricted usage, not compatible with Commons License Policy --Zirland 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - of course, my fault I was concentrating too much on flickr thinking the guy there took the photo himself. Silly me. Optimale 08:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud[edit]

Hey guy, I dont know what was your intention to delete the well-known image of Sigmund Freud (File:Sigmund-Freud-1907.jpg), but a lot of wikipedia-articles in many different languages have now lost a very good picture. When you search for a source, maybe its a good idea to have a look here: en:Image:Sigmund_Freud-loc.jpg, as they state the source (congress library) and licence very exactly. Greetings from Vienna, -- Rfortner 09:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute the source and license of Sigmund_Freud-loc.jpg image (congress one). But the deleted image was different and it was not sourced since July 23. According to deletion policy the no-source images are subject to speedy deletion after 7 (seven) days. I have deleted this image after 27 days, but still unsourced. --Zirland 09:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm, as the picture is already deleted I cannot see it and also who was the user that uploaded it. Did you contact him/her before you deleted the image? Because the problem is, normaly nobody looks on the original Commons-page of a pic, everyone just uses (and sees) them in the regional Wikipedia, so you dont recognice that there is a problem till its too late as the picture is already deleted. So it would be a good policy to inform at least the original uploader and see if he/she reponds anything about the topic ... -- Rfortner 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolesław Prus illustrations[edit]

Before you deleted "Image-Prus_coin.jpg" and "Prus_statue.jpg," did you look at these illustrations? Both had originally been tagged as lacking licenses; but I had subsequently added licenses to both and asked the original tagger to remove his tags, which he failed to do. Could you please restore these illustrations? Logologist 11:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted the statue. In case of the coin I am not so sure about the license, still deleted yet. --Zirland 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The Bolesław Prus-coin illustration should be in public domain, on the same basis as this Nicolaus Copernicus-banknote illustration: 300px. Logologist 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the 1994 Polish copyright law permits use of the Copernicus-banknote illustration, wouldn't it apply as well to the Prus coin? Could we get the coin photo undeleted? Logologist 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Why did you delete the image: Image:WeldaOstWestDirection.jpg

I asked on the common page to get in contact with me in case my transfer of licence for this image is not suffient, but I did not get any feedback. What I need to do in order to reinstall the licence? WBOERDE 11:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't tag the image with a proper license template. I have undeleted it and corrected. --Zirland 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:KappAhl wordmark.svg[edit]

Hello, I have posted an undeletion request for the file you deleted at Commons:Undeletion requests. --Hautala 11:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

sure, no problem. --Zirland 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Don't you think its foolish to remove self made pictures that are uploaded and releases as non copy righted, as you did with CARDNEL.jpg Hardyplants 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is foolish. As I can see on your talk page, you got the warning message on July 19. Nevertheless you didn't update the image description. --Zirland 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My image deletion[edit]

Hi, you deleted an image of mine for copyvio reasons.

Can you justify this, besides the fact that other people say it's a copyvio, without, apparently, really knowing if it's the case ? Did you read what I said about it before doing so ? In France there is a similar case law which turned out to be in favor of the photographer. See this. It's in french, but I give a translation of the most important part here

Thank you for your response. - Benh 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Meena-7.jpg[edit]

Hi. Please be aware of the current discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Meena-7.jpg. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mickey en friends.JPG[edit]

Greetings, my friend! I saw that you deleted this picture a few weeks ago. What was your intention to do so? Yes, I know: the Disney figures are copyrighted, but the picture is covered by the freedom of panorama. The photographed figure group is permanently installed in a public place, the freedom of panorama allowed. So, why should there be any reason to delete it? Thanks for an answer - to solve one of the dark mysteries of wikimedia commons and some of it's protagonists! --J.-H. Janßen 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fluxx Image Deletion[edit]

You deleted an image of mine for reasons that are unclear. Can you explain? Aldaron 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Import šablony[edit]

Čau, mohl bys prosím tě importovat na Commons z české Wikipedie šablonu Položka namluveného článku kvůli zachování historie? Díky.--sevela.p 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UK High Speed Rail Maps[edit]

You deleted an entire series of maps used in the article High Speed Rail in the United Kingdom. These were created by me. Please explain Dpeilow 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Poxa! Que tristeza! Deletaste, apagaste imagens tão bonitas que coloquei lá...[edit]

Fiquei muito triste. Eram imagens cedidas, de boa fé! Não dá pra reverter? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cesarious (talk • contribs) at 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your image Image:Ilha de Santa Catarina - Baía Sul - Maio 1999 - by Sérgio Schmiegelow.jpg was deleted 08:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC) due to "In category Unknown as of 11 August 2007; no permission" because the permission for it was not specified properly. You were notified of the impending deletion in this edit 02:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC), and yet you did nothing about the problem for two weeks. Exactly how did you get from Sérgio Schmiegelow permission to upload this image using the license you used (probably GFDL)? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Supermarket produce scale.JPG[edit]

Why was this deleted? It was my own work; as any it should have been marked with a free license (as I declare on my userpage). Could you restore it and tag accordingly?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current_requests#Image:MT8450Scale.JPG, which deals with this and two other similar cases. (As you are an administrator, please add Commons:Undeletion requests to your watchlist if you haven't already.) LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Zirland, you’ve deleted Image:Dortmund-Stadtwappen112004.jpg (well, long time ago) and that’ just right, but I could maybe have a use for the original JPEG. Is there a chance to restore that version. If you can send it by e-mail that would be fine. Cheers, --Alex 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you, that the image was deleted before the functionality of image restoring was implemented, so there is no chance to restore it. --Zirland 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Bugger! But thanks for the answer. --Alex 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Can you restore the Image:Buskam.jpg, i was my mistake. I mean Image:Buskam 2007.jpg. Thanks. --Alma 13:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star Wars Pez.jpg[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. Gridge 14:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC).


Hi Zirland, I just lost "Loupin'_on_stane.jpg" which I'm not really worried about, but would like a bit of advice if poss. This pic was from Flickr but was an upload of a picture that had been taken before 1914. So the question is. Can an old picture be uploaded onto Flickr that was out of copyright be THEN regiven a new copyright? Hope this makes sense.... and thx for your time and the work you do to hopefully keep us legal. Victuallers 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I've just uploaded a MASH logo I made by myself. I've declared it public domain - hope the license is well chosen. I hope u won't delete it as u made with previous one. I need this small picture for mash template I've made in polish wikipedia. Best wishes --Vtg 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Johan_Olof_Wallin,_portrait.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Johan_Olof_Wallin,_portrait.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Ρх₥α 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what is the source. I assume I only reuploade this image upon rename request. Since this image is unused, I am deleting it rightaway. --Zirland 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[1] - několikrát smazaná imagevia. Nevím co tu s porušovačema provádíte, jen žaluju. --Tlusťa 09:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Zas to samy. --Tlusťa 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other speedy deletions[edit]

"Not edited for x days" is not a valid reason for images in that category. When an image is put in that category it should have been marked with {{speedy|reason for deletion}}, that reaon is what you should put in the deletion log. If the template was put on top of the page, the reason is (I think) already filled in for you like "content was: {{speedy|reason for deletion}} ..." when you press the delete tab. If no reason or an invalid reason is in the template, you can still delete, but you will have to put a valid delete reason in the log yourself. The reason can simple as "copyvio", "derivative work" or "vandalism", but there should be a reason. / 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedrayes scans[edit]

Hi Zirland,

It seems you've gone ahead and deleted Image:Pedrayes_1.JPG (and probably ~2 and ~3 too). Just yesterday I updated the pages with much source info etc, but did not add a final license because they are not my uploads. I got involved because I translated the uploader's spanish remarks on the talk page of user Siebrand, but it was unclear to me what further info was needed (if any, after my edits), so I didn't translate/issue any extra request to the uploader yet.

Did you look at the most recent status of the pages at all before tossing them out? I certainly hope you did and that you also thus have an opinion about the licensing possibilities (probably meaning you feel the files cannot be licensed?) - if so, for future reference I would be interested to know exactly what that opinion is:

  • Why is PD-old not viable? and/or
  • Why is the fact that the grandson of the deceased author gives permission for usage not sufficient?

It would at the very least be good practice to communicate your reason for not allowing the files on User talk:Jecarreroblancomartinez (me thinks). Cheers Pudding4brains 17:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: Okay, it;s all a bit confusing. You deleted Image:Pedrayes_1.JPG etc, but the equivalent Image:Pedrayes_1.jpg , Image:Pedrayes_2.jpg and Image:Pedrayes_3.jpg still exist. I'm now not sure they were deleted as "duplicates" or because of the licensing problems indicated. Anyway, I've once again added {{Information}} with as much source/permissions info as I could find. The uploader, User:Jecarreroblancomartinez, had already added {{PD-AR-Photo}} - which is probably incorrect (it's not a photo but text). A better option might be {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}, although the work is not really anonymous - but the essence of it would be that the publisher's rights only lasted until 1980 according to Argentine law. The Author however has not deceased more than 70 years ago (hence not PD-Old), but the family grants us usage rights. So, in the end what's probably needed is some statement that they hold the rights and that they license the article as PD, CC-something or GFDL. If you agree, or have other opinions about it would probably still be good to inform the uploader about this (if needed, I would gladly translate). Cheers Pudding4brains 02:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


After investigating, I think you deleted the above image by mistake. [2] There was already a lengthy discussion made in May of 2007, in which it was conluded that the image remains on Wiki Commons [3], but you've went ahead and deleted it anyway. I think the original copyright owner is still user:PRTkand [4], someone who has uploaded the image in 2006. It appears to me that somebody decided to make a crop version of this image and then submit that to this website, so it can be visible there as well but in a different size so that the Artist's name is unseen. According to my findings, Christopher Buyers, owner of that website cannot be the copyright owner of this image. To be more sure, when this black and white (Image:Durrani-Ahmad.jpg) was uploaded on February 4, 2007, the image you've deleted did not exist at the website of Christopher Buyers, rather Image:Durrani-Ahmad.jpg was there at that time. I hope everything make sense to you. I hate to see someone be deprived of something. I would like for you to re-upload the image. PRTkand doesn't appear to be coming online either here or on but I will try to contact that person anyway to let him be aware. I will also try to contact Christopher Buyers, he has to be aware of what is going on because the image was loaded on to his website. Who knows maybe PRTkand and Christopher Buyers know one another, we'll find out later.--Executioner 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think the deletion was unjust, you can request for undeletion. Commons:Undeletion_requests --Zirland 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll do that. In the meantime you've deleted another image that had a clean license. [5] How is it possible for this image to be copyright violation when it is in the public domain and the image was created in 1897 [6] The subject in the image died in 1901, more than 100 years ago. The person who took the picture is not listed, mostly likely he also died more than 70 years ago. In the future, please try to follow the rules on deleting images. It looks to me like someone is wrongly deleting the images or wanting the images to be deleted for their own benefits but not following the rules.--Executioner 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Smazaný obrázek[edit]

Ahoj. Nedávno jsi smazal Image:Pietwald herb.jpg, s tím, že je to duplikát Image:Petrvald (Karvina) CoA CZ.jpg. Zpátky jsem ten obrázek nahrál, jelikož se jedná o mnohem fakticky přesnější exemplář. Ten nahraný Tebou je heraldicky nepřesný, nejen koloristicky, ale také np. vyobrazením orlice. Zdravím. - Darwinek 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahoj. Díky, že se mnou komunikuješ a taky díky za ten nahrazený obrázek, který je nicméně stále nepřesný. Podívej se mimo jiné na , jak vypadá skutečný erb obce. - Darwinek 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nahrál jsem nový znak Petřvaldu - velkou a přesnou verzi ze stránek Podvýboru pro heraldiku a vexikologii PSP ČR. Je to přesná verze znaku, navíc v SVG. A je po problému. Zdravím. - Darwinek 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Skvělé, škoda jen že jsi to nenahrál pod správným jménem. --Zirland 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please delete two images, I have uploaded[edit]

Hi Zirland,

Due to a missunderstanding I have uploaded two images that may not yet be published on the web, because they contain sensible research results, that is not yet published in a journal. I marked them on Friday for speedydeletion, but they are still there, so I thought I should contact an administrator personally. Would you mind to do that ?

The images are and .

Thanks a lot --Curnen 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast deletion. --Curnen 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ballistics (video game)[edit]

List of images:

Who removed the licensing information? Who had tagged these images? Why were they deleted? Why was I not informed? - Hahnchen 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More screenshots of programs running on Windows[edit]

I detected screenshoots of programs running on Windows:

i marked with speedydelete, thanks Shooke 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Check and subcategories, are more screenshots of openoffice running on Microsoft Windows!!, thanks Shooke 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

other images:

thanks again Shooke 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


I see a license... I see two of them! Whats going on? -- Cat ちぃ? 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Impact of deleted categories[edit]

You deleted Category:Academy of Fine Arts in Munich a couple of days ago (its content was: {{badname|Category:Akademie der Bildenden Künste München}}). This meant that the category disappeared for all Wikipedias linking to it (for the second time for this category alone, by the way); someone fixed it in the German WP, but nobody did (so far) in the English one. I think that's rather unfortunate. Shouldn't we leave redirects in place or fix links in WPs? Rl 17:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:TMD(small).jpg[edit]

Hi, you must the person who deleted my own work. Please let me know why there isn't any form if licencing included in the illustration, as you have said in your summary. If I can recall, I remembered adding a creative commons license to it. You should probably alert me if there are discrepancies in any of my files first before speedy delete. I do take my files seriously and all of them are licensed carefully; hence, I never take pride if any one of my own creation is deleted due to misuse of copyright violations.

Hope we can come to a conclusion. Thanks.


01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I listed this image for discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:TMD(small).jpg. Cheers --Zirland 08:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
How long will the discussion last?


00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my talk page[edit]

Hi, Zirland. I'd like to thank you for the deletion of my user and talk pages, yet I believe something else should be done to actually close my account. As you could see I am still able to make edits with my user name. It may seem unfair to other users, who'd rather their talk pages to be deleted too, but are not allowed to do it. As you could see from, for example,here user Huebi tried to clear his/her talk page many times, but was not allowed to do it. On the other hand in my situation even the history of my talk page is no more, but I'm still able to make edits with my old user name. May I please ask you to correct this situation and to close my account completely? If you need to ask me something, please, respond at your talk page. I'll check on it. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I believe that, if Commons policy does not allow a user account to be closed, it would be better to restore my user and my talk page because I would not have liked it to look as my goal was the deletion of the history of my talk page. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored the pages. I am sorry to hear you decided to left the project. Please tell me, if I can do anything for you. --Zirland 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Zirland. When I posted the deletion requests for my user pages I meant that I wanted to close my Commons account completely and then delete my user pages. If it cannot be done, then of course the history of my user pages cannot be deleted either. Thank you very much for offering your help. I'm afraid nobody could do anything for me, but me myself. I'll try, and, who knows. maybe one day I'll be back.--Mbz1 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Leonardo da Vinci's Horse.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the image Image:Leonardo da Vinci's Horse.jpg was deleted by you 11 hours after User:G.dallorto informed me here because it was marked as a copyright violation. I cannot see who marked it as such anymore and therefore cannot ask him/here for a clarification, but I’m quite doubtful it is one.

Could you maybe explain to me how this image can be a copyright violation? As:

  • I shot the image myself, noted it and discussed it as such, and released it under the terms of the GFDL.
  • The statue is at a publicly accessible place in Milan.
  • The designer of the statue is dead since 1519.
  • The makers donated the statue to the city of Milan.

Unless I’m missing something, could please assist me in getting the image and the links from the various wiki’s to it restored? Thanks --Van helsing 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I now see that you gave as reason "no license", I however can not phantom I forgot that. Could you have a look and see if that was "trolled" away? Thanks. --Van helsing 14:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Solved. Elaborate answer to the subject from User:G.dallorto here. --Van helsing 15:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:San luis prov arg.png[edit]

You have deleted this image although it had a permission, see User:ALE!/Flags. Please be more careful next time. I have restored the image. Unfortunately I do not know here it was used. So I can not restore the usages. Do you have an idea? --ALE! ¿…? 14:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Serbia[edit]

You have deleted the wrong file. National flag of Serbia.svg should replace the National flag of Serbia 2004-2006.svg as this is the valid civil flag of Serbia and not a former flag used in 04-06 period as the title of the second filed implies. Thank you. --Avala 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) As you can see here they are both in use --Avala 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Odvozená díla[edit]

Ahoj Zirlande,
jelikož mé jazykové schopnosti umožňují komunikovat jen česky, otravuju s tím tebe.

Jistá část mnou nahraných obrázků (zde) byla smazána jako odvozené dílo. Jedná se o fotografie deskových her. Chci si ušetřit zbytečnou práci (mam jich nafocenejch tak 200 až 300), tak by mě jen zajímalo, jestli je nějaká hranice kdy mi to tu už nechaj a kdy už to smažou. Když mi chtěj smazat obrázek na kterém je rozložený plán, komponenty a víko krabice, to ještě pochopim, ale když mažou rozehranou hru jen proto, že tam nejsou vidět lidi, to už mi přijde trochu moc. No z hlediska definice odvozeného díla je to jedno a můžou to smazat i s těma lidma. Takže asi bude lepší počkat 70 až 100 let a pak ke hrám bude snad možné nějaké ty obrázky doplnit.

No asi budu fotit jen krajinky, ty maj největší šanci na přežití :-), vona totiž taková fotka židle může bejt taky odvozený dílo. No až se to všechno promaže, moc nám tu toho nezbude :-( Jedudedek 14:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)