User talk:Martin H./Archive 22

Archives Older archives Jul 2011 – Oct 2011 Nov 2011 – Apr 2012 Apr 2012 – Apr 2013 Apr 2013 – Jan 2015 Current

Archive Note

Page was archived on March 5, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi Martin, You have removed some very old images from Wikipedia that I uploaded. We do not know who the original copyright holder of these photos is as it was taken many years ago. There is no way that I, or anyone can verify ownership. Skyscraper City is also NOT the copyright holder (as you have stated).

You have also damaged the text in the article, and I will have to spend several hours reformatting it. If you are going to work seriously as a moderator, please be fair and ensure that your work does not damage the article itself otherwise I will have no option but to report you for doing substandard work.

Thank you.

You copied images from random websites and declared them your own work. Do you think that this is accetapble? It does not matter if you can find out the copyright holder or not, see COM:PRP. As long as you not have the copyright holders written permission to a free license you are not allowed to upload here (especially not with such false author claims!). If the copyright holder is unknown, well, no upload possible, that's bad luck. --Martin H. (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to tell you, I'm Italian, I have difficulty speaking English. But I wanted to ask why you deleted the file Florencia Bertotti.--TeenAngels1234

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TeenAngels1234?uselang=it . --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File Deletion: Felix_Funke.JPG

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you with regards your flagging of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Felix_Funke.JPG as not being in the Public Domain.

you mention: "Ferdinand Urbahns, who operated the Atelier für künstlerische Photographie in Kiel, died 1944, this photo is not public domain."

I am the direct Grand Niece and Sole descendant of Felix Funke. This photograph has been paid for by my Grand Uncle when he asked for it to be taken. Ferdinand Urbahns was the photographer but holds no rights to this picture, of which I have the original in our family album. I therefore ask for this picture to be reinstated without delay. Many thanks,

A-M Durrenberger-Funke Am-durren (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course he paid for the work and a physical copy was transfered. But not the intelectual property right, there is not transfer of copyrights in Germany. de:German_copyright_law#Copyright_transfer. Owning a copy does not grant you any copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing template

Why have you changed the format on the picture pages that I've uploaded, from what I changed?Evan-Amos (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Information}} is the standard, I dont see why the multilingual support of Commons should give way for individual designs in the File: namespace - a namespace that belongs to the community, not to individual users and their layout preferences. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can accept it on the basis of multilingual support, and will do something different, but making mass changes to a users personally uploaded photos without any notice or real explanation of what you're doing and why is a terrible way to handle a situation.Evan-Amos (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I didnt change your photos. I changed a file description page, similar to editing an article in Wikipedia. There is no ownership in such pages. If you want to tell something about you and your equipment you should use your userpage. That page is intended for exactly that purpose. On the file description pages it is dispensable. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the way that you handled the situation that I think is terrible. If you're going to be making that many changes to a single user, you can at least send a note or tell a user why.Evan-Amos (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Medieval reproductions of ancient documents

User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_21#Medieval reproductions of ancient documents

Hi Martin, sorry to bring this back from the archive, but I didn't get a change to reply. So, if my understanding is correct (and I want to verify this), it is ok to import those Notitia Dignitatum pictures from BSB, similar to Fuggerorum et Fuggerarum imagines. Correct? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio template removed

Hi Martin. File:Paronama del centro de Salta.jpg is a copyvio. The template was removed twice by uploader [1]. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, he removed my advice in his user page [2]. Alakasam (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Image taken from panoramio with a nonsense {{PD-ineligible}} license and a disappointing author information "I have no idea". There is a special case for uploads like this in Commons:Upload (Ignoro el autor o no sé qué licencia corresponde). --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Mabalu's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

I understand that and I'll do, thank you very much for your help..... Faris knight (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sehr geehrter Herr Martin,

Ich Spiridon Manoliu (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu) lasse Sie wissen, dass ich der Media Commos mitgeteilt habe, dass mein Erbschein gerade übersetzt wird. Sobald mir die Übersetzung vorliegt, werde ich sie an Sie weiterleiten. Inzwischen sind die Bilder meiner Mutter Ioana Oltes (Cornelia Olteanu) rausgenommen worden, obwohl ich der einzige Erbe und Besitzer dieser Bilder bin.

Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, mir zu erklären, warum ich nicht das Recht habe, die Bilder in Commos zu zeigen, auch ohne Erbschein. Ich bitte Sie, Ihre Antwort in deutscher Sprache meiner Bekannten, Frau Matilda Pfeiffer via e-Mail (<[email protected]>) zu senden, da ich nicht genug in der englischen Sprache bewandert bin, um Einzelheiten zu verstehen.

Mit freundlichem Gruss,--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Erstens, es muss Nichts übersetzt werden. Commons ist ein multilinguales Projekt, Freigaben können auch auf Französisch oder Rumänisch an OTRS übermittelt werden. Des weiteren sagt niemand, du habest nicht das Recht Bilder zu zeigen. Du wurdest gebeten, eine schriftliche Freigabe an besagtes OTRS zu schicken, den Instruktionen zum OTRS und auf deiner Benutzerdiskussion folgend. Zuletzt noch der Hinweis, dass beim Upload auf die Richtigkeit der Angaben geachtet werden muss. Die Bilder wurden nicht selbst erstellt, auf der Seite Commons:Upload verwenden wir in solchen Fällen nicht die Option "œuvre personnelle", wie hier geschehen, sondern "œuvre d'une autre provenance". Mfg, --Martin H. (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Note pour la traduction / Anmerkung für die Übersetzerin: OTRS ist eine Referenz auf http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS, Commons:Upload ist eine Referenz auf http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:T%C3%A9l%C3%A9verser&uselang=fr.

Images to delete

Hi Martin, for images File:Lascito-brancusi.jpg and File:Lascito-duchamp.jpg you can remove them without waiting for the 7 days expiration . I made a mistake choosing a license, so...thanks in advance --Brancusi (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand. You uploaded a duplicate of the files, but the problem is still the same, the photographer information is conflicting, the license must not come from someone who owns the photos but from the copyright holder, thats the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand. But the problem should not exist because I am the artist, I am the photographer, the photo is mine and the public domain. So, what do we do? --Brancusi (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First correct the author information, not (I write in source code) |author=[[User:Brancusi|Eredi Brancusi]] because not that group is the photographer but |author=[[User:Brancusi|Walter Battistessa]] if you are that photogapher as you explained above. The second step will be to make sure that the photogrphs are free of third party copyrights, described in Commons:Derivative works. To me most objects in this photo are just utility articles and not artwork, if they are artworks and copyrighted byt he artist then you should also mention the artist. The third step will be to provide a written permission following the instructions in Commons:OTRS from both, you the photographer and copyright holder of the photographic work and, in case there are third party copyrights on the photographed objects, from the artists. This can happen in one written permission for a group of uploaded images. --Martin H. (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I do now. --Brancusi (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CU

User page cigarette spammers appear active again - it may be that there is something to mention to the cu list or alternate accounts etc. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It takes me some hours now to recall what you mean: You mean the electronic cigarette spam. Yeah, looks so. I'll look what I can find out. --Martin H. (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. Spam comes from a large ISP, differently to the spam case in November 2010, and I will not check ranges, its too easy to find. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Direktor and overwriting

File:Franz-Joseph-Österreich-1885.jpg :(( --Roberta F. (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Please do not delete images which I have uploaded.

I work as a Press Officer for Sinn Féin and those photographs are my own work.

Go raibh maith agat. --Baldeadly (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Didnt know that people in Ireland work so late at night in their press offices. File:Caoighmhín Ó Caoláin.jpg was created by a photographer Rory Geary, File:PToibin.jpg was created by Peter Gallagher Photography, File:SMcLellan.jpg is from Ronan McLaughlin. Your claim "those photographs are my own work" is untrue. A press officer will name the true authors and provide evidence that the authors and copyright holders agreed to what he is doing. I deny to belive your second claim that you serve in any such function and that you have any right to do anything with this photos. A press officer will never make such false claims at a public place. Thats something that only people do who believe that the anonymity of the internet protects them. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:MapSlide.jpg

File:MapSlide.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding copyrighted but free-to-use images

Hi there - I had tried to upload an image that belongs to the company Swiss Re but is given free use by Swiss Re. I had checked other content and found, e.g., Bill Gates where it also says the image is copyrighted by the World Economic Forum - but they've given it free use.

Could you tell me what I can do to get this image into Wikimedia Commons? Thanks for your input.

The images from the World Economic Forum (wef) in question are indeed published by the world economic forum under the given license, a free license that allows anyone to reuse and redistribute the image anytime for any purpose including money making purposes and modifications. The images from the Swiss Re website are not published under any such license, they are not comparable to the wef images and not free for any reason. --Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Leere Kategorien

Siehe bitte: Category:Streets in Hanover, Category:Listed buildings in Hanover, Category:Eclectic architecture in Hanover usw.Da ich es nicht besser formulieren kann, habe mir gestattet, auf Deinen dortigen Beitrag an dieser Stelle hinzuweisen und wäre dankbar für den Einsatz administratorischer Autorität. Bohème (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Warten wir mal die Diskussion ab. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry :)

Sorry... Can you help me to find a free images database please :) Adolfoasorlin (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You found one of the most valuable 'database' already - and used it wrong, so what other source should I give you. You have to look for photographers who voluntarily agree to Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi, please delete this picture because is not PD-old. I confused the Author with his father (they have the same name). Thanks --gian_d (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & sorry :) --gian_d (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. Housless blue photo...

It might be better to go ahead and withdraw the picture for now. I took it myself but should probably study the ramifications of the licensing policies before letting this photo go onto the commons. I will experiment with less critical photos before proceeding. Thanks for all of your good work. Houselessnothomeless (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, for uploading please make sure to use the correct upload form, dont add any {{s or }}s if you dont know what youre doing and of course, please dont forget to license you upload. --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Shah_Pahlavi_and_Queen_Soraya.jpg + File:Queen_Soraya.jpg

Olá, Martin: Não há necessidade de encaminhar para votação. Você, como administrador, pode apagar estes arquivos imediatamente, sem ter que incomodar a comunidade com este processo. Já havia solicitado uma vez a você que deletasse todos os arquivos carregados por mim mas, infelizmente, não fui atendido (talvez o Commons julgue conveniente mantê-los). De qualquer forma, tome a atitude de achar necessária, pois não vou encará-la como "algo pessoal" (desde que você pare de se dirigir a mim como se estivesse falando com o balconista de um pub). Aproveitando o ensejo, gostaria de te fazer uma pergunta bastante pertinente: neste caso, qual seria o autor da foto? Não consegui visualizar este item tão importante e, por isso, aguardo ansiosamente uma resposta tua. Boas contribuições! Biólogo32 07:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont invent facts, dont follow bad examples. Man, with uploading you assert that the legal status is correct, how can you assert a legal status if your only knowledge of the file is some invented information based on your personal opinion. I cant understand this. --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Suas afirmações estão corretas e eu me comprometo a não repetir meus erros. Meu pedido inicial permanece (de cancelamento de todos os arquivos caregados por mim) pois, se "inventei" algo nestes dois últimos arquivos, talvez também possa ter inventado nos arquivos anteriores. Gostaria de salientar um ponto que considero tão ou mais importante do que o assunto em pauta no momento. Não te fiz o questionamento sobre isso para tentar justificar meu erro, mas para que você me informasse por que aquele arquivo não foi submetido à eliminação rápida nem levado para votação. É um mau exemplo? Concordo plenamente mas, ainda assim, o arquivo permanece inalterado desde 2007, sem que as informações exigidas por você sejam inseridas e sem que nenhum administrador se atreva a alterar o bad example. Como este existem vários e vários outros arquivos em situações semelhantes ou piores que vão sendo mantidos sem qualquer interferência ou ameaça de eliminação. Você deve saber disso muito melhor que eu, visto que muito raramente faço login ou mesmo uma visita anônima ao Commons, ao contrário de você, que é constante e atuante por aqui. Como membro da comunidade, acho que mereço uma resposta mais polida e, principalmente, mais consistente do que um lacônico ...don't follow bad examples.... Já me comprometi a não repetir os erros anteriores, mas ainda quero saber por que meus erros são tão prontamente "detectados" (em minutos, apenas), enquanto tantos erros semelhantes muitíssimo mais antigos ainda não foram patrulhados. Boas contribuições! Biólogo32 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cat removed

Hi. Can you tell me why you removed this cat on that file ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a 1918 photograph and is the topic 1918 significant to it or is it a 1918 book. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Request Review

Twice now, I have tried to upload a photo that has subsequently been removed. The original photo was taken by TitoMedia (shown on the metadata), but I purchased the photo from them. When the first image was removed, I took a photo of the original photo, so as to remove the metadata from the image (clever pick up from you). Would you please review your decision to remove/delete my photo, as I am the owner of these images. I look forward to your response.

You have to provide a witten permission from the original copyright holder allowing anyone to reuse the photo anywhere, anytime for any purpose. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Please do so following the instructions in Commons:OTRS. If you upload anything please use the correct upload form in Commons:Upload (its from somewhere else) and provide all necessary author and source information. --Martin H. (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also purchasing an med/high resolution image doesn't mean you own the copyright to the photograph. Also never fake to be the author or copyright holder of images as we have already seen DMCA in action on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Single work template deletions

Hi Martin, I noticed you recently substituted and deleted Template:Frau am Fenster by Caspar David Friedrich and Template:Das Lesekabinett by Johann Peter Hasenclever. Although I now realise I did this totally the wrong way, the idea of using a template to share artwork descriptions between files in order to ease maintenance is well-established. The currently accepted way of doing this is actually to use {{Category definition: Object}} and {{Object photo}}. As you can see at [3], this is used for about 80 artworks currently, by many users including User:Zolo, User:Coyau, and User:~Pyb. I converted these two artworks to use that instead. I'll deal with converting all the others in Category:Single artwork templates in the same manner. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think hiding the file description in templates is the worst thing we can do. Its getting more and more difficult to participate for people who dont know how to work with all the templates we use. Also for two or three usages I dont see the advantage of an extra template, some copy&pasting if the information changes is not so much work. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Better with File:Johann Peter Hasenclever - Das Lesekabinett - Google Art Project.jpg, but still our promisse that there is an edit button that you have to klick, find the place where the text is and.. edit is broken. --Martin H. (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but at the least there is the "+/−" link above the painting information which edits the category with the painting information in it (perhaps it should read "[edit]" for consistency?) I agree that the value is less if there are only two or three images, and in the future I'll try to at least wait for there to be at least 4. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know how multilingual, "newbie"-proven or intuitionally a +/- button is, maybe it does it. The hurdle to edit is however high. While I personally prefer a sollution that completely separates the effort to improve the category pages and leaves the file descriptions alone (except of course for improvements with copy&pasting an improvemed artwork template over the different versions), I can see some nice layout things in changing this. Two options offered in this short discussion: First that one I deleted, moving the artwork template to a template, and second that one we have at the moment in the example. From this two options I prefer the second and I suggest to at least turn all usage of the first into the second. Furthermore for example in Category:La Liberté guidant le peuple, to give a famous example with many different upload purposes, there is place for use for an separated artwork description and a a photograph/file template to describe the source and purpose of the file, e.g. an extracted version to describe a detail or a derivative to be used as a logo. But, as said already, I'd prefer any file-page-based-sollution over the two examples. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the new solution is preferable and I will not use the old one. While it presents barriers to editing, the maintenance problems created by forking a description among many copies (as many as 10-15 in the case of Category:The Birth of Venus) are rather staggering. I have observed substantial divergence between descriptions of the same artwork due to having separate file pages for each photo and having each one independently updated over time. This has always been the tradeoff with using templates, but I think for works with many copies it is clearly justified. Ideally software changes would provide some kind of compromise. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Paula Fernandes

Hello Martin

According to Law No. 9610 OF 19 FEBRUARY 1998 Brazil: removed

In case you deleted the photo, was a work of "disclosure" of the singer, not hurt the property right

Thats something like a fair use paragraph of the copyright law, there is no fair use on Commons. The portrait might be free to use for several purposes but it not fulfills the criterias of Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms that must allow anyone to reuse the portrait in any context for any purpose, not only to illustrate information about Paula Fernandes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake copyright

I actually do not hold the copyright on the images I've uploaded, they've been taken by someone else. Could you delete them please?

Copyright

How do I know when a photo is free or has creative common attribution? I took the photo on flickr.com --2811Butterfly (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such photo under a free license on Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Check User

1. User:Achayan
2. User:Palakkappillilachayan

User:Achayan uploaded this image and pretended as photographer and send the OTRS permission from a public email ID. Now User:Palakkappillilachayan is uploading the deleted image after some corrections in the photoshop and says that its his creation. New upload facing deletion now Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG, Previously deleted file is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg. Please advice.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I not used the checkusertools but just blocked him. Thats a DUCK. Looking for one problematic user, that Achayan appears to be, is enough trouble, we dont need a 'clone' of him. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider vector format for some images

Images such as

PSM V84 D016 The mechanism of heredity fig5.jpg could very well be generated in vector format (with Inkscape for example) and these are much superior in many ways. Unless the scan is of an historically important document (an in that case that information should be added to the image's page) of course.

Gregors (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that there are some people patroling the recent files. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tables in DRs

Martin:

I appreciate the effort that goes into putting a mass DR into a table -- it certainly makes it neat and easy to consider. However, when it comes to actually doing the deletion, it slows things down a lot because the new DelReqHandler highlights the whole table while working, so you can delete only one image at a time. If the images are behind bullets

• like this
• image2
• image3

then DelReqHandler will let you delete them as fast as you can click and hit "enter". Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

«File:Chichizola.jpg»

Hola Martin, quería saber que métodos utilizaste para detectar que mi foto tenia derechos de autor... Gracias.

--.•Estebanelv•. (➨Mensajes) 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for tips to not get caught in future? Seriously... just stop uploading unfree files. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake OTRS

I strongly believe this piture File:Kanjirapally_Bishop_Mar_Mathew_Arackal_and_Prasant_Palakkappillil.jpg is not photographed by User:Achayan because its in web resolution and user is trying to fill all the non free photographs in commons, and the OTRS is send from a free mail service OTRS REPLY. I will invite your expertise to look into this...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is from a free email. Generally such releases are accepted unless there's evidence of prior publication or similar. Without prior publication somewhere we really can't demand an official email address, since images can legitimately be from a private person without a website or the like and so all we can do for permissions is take them at their word. Given that it was never sourced to a third party I would've thought that a regular DR would be the way to address it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not an OTRS volunteer. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you able to check these links 001 and 002 ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those two are Wikipedia pages, so they can't be the source of the image if that's what you're asking me to check. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Popular Science Monthly duplicate images

Hi, and thanks for interceding regarding the deletion of the duplicate image. File:PSM V35 D042 The good shepherd.jpg FYI, I am aware of the duplicates, and there are about 15-20 duplicate images out of the ~5,000 uploaded so far.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian copyright question

Hello Martin. I wanted to upload a photograph of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, held in the collection of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. [4]. I'm unclear reading the Commons guidelines about current Russian copyright law whether such an upload is permitted. The photograph obviously predates the Soviet state. Thanks for any guidance you can give. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In such cases where the (assumed) country of origin has a copyright expiration based on the death of the author I not make assesments, if I not know the author or anything about the image and its creation background and not have sources that give me author information. --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that's what I figured. I won't upload then. Appreciate your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Creamfields Australia

Hi Martin I am the Administrator for the company Totem Onelove and actually own the photos taken of our event.... I have the original files here on disc.... I am also quite new to Wiki so I've been having issues knowing what to do. I believe I picked the right copyright restrictions considering we've used watermarked versions of this in other forms of media.

Please use the correct upload form for files that are from somewhere else. Not just declare the photo your 'own work', you act here as a person, not as a company - and unlikely anyone is allowed to reuse this photos for money making purposes as long as "MissMelbourne" is attributed nearby the image. The author is the photographer, not the uploader or someone who was asked to upload. Provide the correct information and follow the procdure described in the upload form: The file was already published elsewhere, so you have to copy the {{OTRS-pending}} into the permission field and you have to provide a written permission to COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Flaggen von Berlin

Hallo Martin, es wurde mir im :de:Portal:Berlin empfohlen, mich mit meinem Problem eventuell auch direkt an dich zu wenden und was ich hiermit tun möchte. Ich habe unter Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Flags of Berlin eine Bitte auf Sperrung mehrere Dateien gestellt. Leider scheint diese Seite nicht so frequentiert zu sein. Deswegen meine Frage/Bitte an dich, kannst du hier helfen? Es wäre natürlich schade die Dateien sperren zu müssen, vielleicht gibt es ja auch einen anderen Weg oder ich muss irgend etwas anders machen. Gruß --Jörg (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Soweit ich das beurteilen kann stimme ich mit deiner Version und deinen Edits diesbezüglich überein. Ich habe eine Datei meiner Beobachtungsliste hinzugefügt. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass der Warnschuss bereits gereicht hat und ein Seitenschutz auf die Datei nicht nötig ist. --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke --Jörg (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Creator

Please, do not substitute my Creator templates, they are very useful, since I can eventually change all the links to author info easily and at once. For instance, I had just moved my info to Meta and could change all the links by adjusting the template. Only the file modified by you stayed in an inappropriate state. I would prefer a namespace Info working like a template, but it doesn't, so Creator is quite a good choice for persons having created the files. What a problem is in that? Petrus Adamus (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Creator template is not intended for users, its for notable artists. See Help:Namespaces, that page does not invite you to use the Creator namespace for personal information about you as a user. For that purpose you have your user page. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And who decided, where exactly the use is permitted and where it isn't? The user, having editted the template most times lately, is Jarekt, who personally did some changes in my Creator template. So he doesn't know the goal of that? Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Creator: namespace is not a place for information about Wiki users. The creator template is associated with notable artists. As much as I love your photos of Khartoum, as much I cant understand why you declare yourself a notable artist now associate yourself with the creator layout and use the creator namespace for overweening self-promotion. Why dont you write an Wikipedia article about yourself? That will be exactly the same. Im sorry to say this. --Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't consider me an artist, just rated as useful to use some template in the author description fields, to enable an easy change of the link. I hadn't put there anything except the name and link, Jarekt later did it and I only didn't revert his edit. I think it is better to use the Creator namespace (as the template has just the name "Creator" and not "Artist" or "Notable Artist"), than create a template with a personal info. Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You use the design (creator template) that we use for notable artist, you use a namespace that is intended to host information about notable artist and nothing else.... Just create your own user template but dont use that creator template. I wonder why you ever did it. You have no property on the content namespace "Creator" and page in that namespace about you obviously falls out of the project scope. Many users have user templates, but not one came to the great idea to use the visual identification of our notable artists templates. Of course you claim yourself a notable artist with doing so and with writing your own page in our topic namespaces. --Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, but who decided the scope of the template? I can just see, that the goal of the template was quite smooth and suddenly [5] Rocket000 wrote, that the template is for notable artists. Maybe there was some voting, I do not know. Nevertheless, I think it's very confusing to use a template named "Creator" just for notable artists, that'd be similar like use a template "House" just for castles. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your questions sounds like we talk about something that always existed and now we have to decide how to use it. Thats not the case. The creator namespace and the creator templates where initialy created for notable artists, it was not created for various other purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mention in Template_talk:Creator#Creator_templates_for_Wikimedia_users we have now Commons:Creator - proposed policy on use of creator namespace. This discussion seems to debate one of the points of this policy. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, don't you consider it quite unseemly to try to persuade me, that your personal opinion is a majority agreement? Even having mentioned nothing about the discussion, showing that the reality is quite different and the opinions varying? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You have no ownership in the file description. I think it is you who not asked before adding yourself to the creator namespace and making yourself part of our educational content, but simply did it following your very personal interests. Writing a vanity article about yourself in Wikipedia, your edits with this creator templates equals this, will of course end up with various tags asking for notability. Linking your vanity article on 100rds of pages will end up in reverts - not just the one revert I tried. You have to live with such reactions and it is you who have to argue properly that information about you is educational and in scope of Wikimedia Commons and worth inclusion in pages outside your very personal userpage. --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Semaoune,_Algerie.jpg

File:Semaoune,_Algerie.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Art-top (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChicagoHistory1

I believe that User:Macy Hefner might be another sock. Would you be able to look into it? Thanks?

(Sorry if I posted this request in the wrong place; I'm not very active on Commons.) Zagalejo (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Another copyright question

Hello, Martin, another question, if you don't mind. This is the link to the 1923 English passport for the travel writer Robert Byron (1905-1941).[6] I believe since the passport was issued by the British government that it is exempt from copyright restrictions. Is that correct? Thanks in advance. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I believe I figured it out. Cheers, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

You deleted a picture I uploaded to use on a Wikipedia page because of copyright. The name of the picture was Trace_legacy.jpg This picture was taken from http://twokinds.keenspot.com/?pageid=4 and the author of this writes on his webpage that everyone is free to change it in any way or print, send or otherwise share these pictures only if you say where it's from and do not use it to make money.

This picture was to be used in a wikipedia page about twokinds and therefore it's free to use.

If this is wrong then I want to know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansjsand (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You already have the answer on your user talkpage: User_talk:Hansjsand#File:Keith_Keiser.jpg. Not use it to make money is not allowed on Commons, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Image7.jpg

File:Image7.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Art-top (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Image6.jpg

File:Image6.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Art-top (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:F-22P_PNS_Zulfiquar.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:F-22P_PNS_Zulfiquar.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Martin H.!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Image1.jpg was uncategorized on 19 March 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Adolfoasorlin's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Agencia Brasil

• Hi. As you ask here, the Creative Commons licence is back in Agencia Brasil. Thanks.Jo Lorib (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Great news, I will later check on COMT:L. --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Files on id.wiki

Hi Martin,
Thanks for your message here. All files have been restored. Cheers — Tjmoel  ^bicara 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will correct them now. --Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This file is restored. Thanks — Tjmoel  ^bicara 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

LOONA

Lieber Martin, vielen Dank für Deinen permission Hinweis gestern bzgl. meines uploads von: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Sinner Ich vertrete LOONA (Marie-Jose van der Kolk)sie wünscht sich gerne dieses Foto als Hauptfoto auf ihrer LOONA Wikipedia Seite, und hat mich darum gebeten darum zu kümmern....ich habe gestern Abend eine Mail mit diesem Persmission Vordruck ausgefüllt an die genannte Mail Adresse von Wikipedia geschickt und es wäre sehr nett von Dir wenn Du uns netterweise dabei behilflich sein kannst, dass bald das o.g. Foto auf LOONA s Wikipedia Seite als Haupt Foto erscheint VIELEN LIEBEN DANK im Voraus! Liebe Grüsse, Alexandra [email protected] ([email protected]) www.loona.com

File:Loona 008.jpg entsprechend markiert. Das Bild im Wikipedia Artikel bitte selber einfügen, de:Hilfe:Bildertutorial/4 oder am besten einfach an einem anderen Artikel abschauen wie es geht. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

VIELEN LIEBEN DANK für Deine Hilfe !!! ´Liebe Grüsse, alex

Guinea

Hi. Can you upload most of the images under here, particularly the photographs by User:Attawayjl. It has some much needed images of Guinea and people of Guinea Bissau. The aerial views of Conakry are valuable.. Attawayjl has over 900 free images of Guinea I think which are greatly needed, mostly Senegal and Guinea. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also I remembered I made a flickr agreement with CharlesFred on flickr 325 sets!! which can be uploaded. Although they seem to like photographing men, they have an awful amount of valuable photos from all around the world. The OTRS ticket can be viewed at File:Agordatmen.jpg. GFDL I believe. Can you upload? I think if you evade the "men of the world" category you could by pass the images of men... Thousands of valuable images like this. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, all edits I do are made by hand, I can not import such large batches. See the flickr batch upload pages please to request this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Across.land.and.time's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hum, I'm confused, sorry. Indeed, reading again the COM:PRP makes me understand I was wrong up'ing those files, because I don't own them.

The sad thing is Commons' rules are, maybe, a bit "overrated". Taking the recurring example that concerned me here : creating/watching a page, as for a music band, and seeing it without a picture, eh, that's kinda empty. I mean, a visual is always worthful to describe something. So, what's the deal, no way to post one if I didn't take it myself or if the (manager's) band has been dead for atleast 70 years? That's a complicated rule, and, to be honnest, that's sad, really.

And what about logo's? There are several ones uploaded by other users (example : logo), so what's the good method?