Túrelio

Dear Túrelio,

two days ago you deleted the picture File:Sunhild Kleingaertner.jpg , uploaded by my client with the account "Leibniz-Institut für Maritime Geschichte" because of a copywright violation. Thank you for taking care, but in this case the accusation is wrong. My client is the owner of the picture and he uploaded it for free use. The website you found and linked as original source is the website of my client, who's also the owner of the picture you deleted: https://www.dsm.museum/ueber-uns/mitarbeitende/prof-dr-sunhild-kleingaertner/ The DSM Museum is the Leibniz-Institut für Maritime Geschichte like its mentioned in the subheadline.

Kind regards, 35c63n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35c63n (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo 35c63n,

ich antworte mal auf deutsch, weil :de ja dein "Heimatprojekt" ist. Das Problem mit Nutzerkonten wie "Leibniz-Institut für Maritime Geschichte" ist, dass jeder beliebige so ein Konto eröffnen kann. Deshalb gibt es für institutionelle Nutzer seit einiger Zeit die Möglichkeit, das Nutzerkonto verifizieren zu lassen, wie es hier: de:Wikipedia:Benutzerverifizierung beschrieben ist. Falls du bzw. das "Leibniz-Institut für Maritime Geschichte" weitere Uploads planen, würde ich das unbedingt empfehlen. Falls nicht bzw. um das o.g. Portrait wiederherstellen zu lassen, sollte das Leibniz-Institut für Maritime Geschichte von seiner offiziellen Emailadresse an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org eine Mail schicken, in der bestätigt wird, dass das Institut entweder selbst der Urheber oder der Rechteinhaber an dem Portrait ist und zustimmt, dass es unter der gewählten freien Lizenz auf Commons verbreitet wird. (Falls der Urheber ein unabhängiger Fotograf ist, ist es Sache des Instituts im Innenverhältnis zu klären, ob er dafür seine Genehmigung gegeben hat). Wenn diese Mail abgeschickt ist, kannst du mir kurz eine Nachricht geben. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio, herzlichen Dank für deine schnelle Rückmeldung. Ich bin auf der Talk Seite auf solch einen Hinweis gestoßen und an meinen Kunden weitergegeben. Das Konto wurde inzwischen, wie aufgefordert, durch ein formloses Schreiben über eine offizielle E-Mail Adresse des Instituts verifiziert. Ich habe auch schon im Auftrag des Instituts eine Undeletion Request gestellt und die Sachlage aufgeklärt. Falls das Portrait infolgedessen nicht wieder hergestellt wird, gebe die Anleitung an den Auftraggeber und Rechteinhaber weiter. Ich danke für die Hilfe. Schöne Grüße! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35c63n (talk • contribs) 10:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio,

falls du mein Edit zur letzten Nachricht nicht gesehen hast: Erstmal einmal vielen Dank für deine schnelle Rückmeldung. Ich hatte solch eine Info auch auf der User Page der Kundin gesehen und daraufhin schon drum gebeten, das Konto verifizieren zu lassen. Das ist auch direkt passiert. Ich weiß nicht wie lange die Bearbeitung nun dauern wird und ob das Portrait nun durch den von mir gestellten Undeletion Antrag wieder eingestellt wird; falls ich oder die Kundin als Urheberin das Foto erneut hochladen müssen, freue ich mich über eine kleine Nachricht.

LG 35c63n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35c63n (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi why is the image deleted ! uploaded for my client with the account "aralikatte" because of a copywright violation. Thank you for taking care, but in this case the accusation is wrong. My client is the owner of the picture and he uploaded it for free use. The website you found and linked as original source is the website of my client, who's also the owner of the picture you deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GC_Chandrashekhar.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aralikatte (talk • contribs) 07:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aralikatte,

the website gcchandrashekhar.com, which you had provided as source of the image, clearly states "Copyright ©2018 Team GC. All Rights Reserved". That is all what counts. You have to provide evidence that this image is under a free license (compliant with COM:L). Only the author/photographer can release an image under a free license. If your "client" is the legal rightsholder (obtained from the author) he has to send a statement of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, My client will send the permission letter by EOD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aralikatte (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

statement of permission I hereby affirm that I, GC Chandrashekhar, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GC_Chandrashekhar.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

GC Chandrashekhar 2018-09-07

Aralikatte (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio, could you also delete the other corrupted images in this category: Category:Palio dela Brenta? Thank you! --Afnecors (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Afnecors (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, I am writing in regards to the article Grant MacPherson, who is the owner of ScotchMyst.com. The article for Wikipedia was strictly developed under his guidance and approval, for which Wikipedia can directly get in touch with him by going on ScotchMyst.com or email him at Grant@ScotchMyst.com. He will clear any doubts that may have arisen since I have written the article under the username of RolexRay. The reason I said to directly contact Grant at ScotchMyst.com for direct verification otherwise if you need me to submit any document I would be happy to do so. I totally respect the rules and policies of copyright infringements and abide by them.

Sincerely, Rolex Ray 5pm Pacific US time Sep 7th 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolexray (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I assume you are refering to the deleted image File:Grant MacPherson.jpg, right? You claimed it to be your own work. If I understand your post corrected, said Mr. Grant MacPherson is the rightsholder? If that is so, then he needs to send a confirmation of his rightsholdership to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Category:Aircraft by operator by function was deleted without discussion. Bidgee (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It had been speedy-nominated for "empty, unneeded, Aircraft by operator is a flat list, does not need sub-indices". Restored for now. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, sadly Joshbaumgartner has used "Being Bold" for anything that is controversial and choosing not to discuss until after the fact. Bidgee (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Please kindly review these images.

• File:Mycogone rosea Link 536739.jpg
• File:Harrya chromapes (Frost) Halling, Nuhn, Osmundson & Manfr. Binder 629697.jpg
• File:Mycogone rosea Link 637447.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank You for your help Turelio. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

When you can, please review these 2 images from M.O.

• File:Cerioporus varius (Pers.) Zmitr. & Kovalenko 756863.jpg
• File:Cerioporus varius (Pers.) Zmitr. & Kovalenko 853279.jpg

Thank You for all your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank You for your reviews Turelio. Have a good day. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello.
Why do you ignore my comment at user talk:Dogad75 #File:Kaikov_Andrey.jpg? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

because I didn't see it, as it was likely posted after the deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, I had posted an article under the name of Grant MacPherson that you had objections about under his company called ScotchMyst. I had requested to get in touch with him directly at Grant@ScotchMyst.com, to rectify any misunderstandings that may have occurred, as I per the article I had posted. Kindly let me know what is the status on this query at your earliest.

Thank you, Rolex Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolexray (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please see User_talk:Túrelio#Grant_MacPherson_1. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

and File:Reprywatyzacja - mapa zniszczeń.png How can I prove that they are my works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niegodzisie (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Niegodzisie,

1) you need to provide information about the sources of the b/w background-images. None of them is likely your own work.

2) for the first image, you need to explain why your work was published more than 1 years earlier on Facebook.

3) for the second image, you need to explain why your work was published more than 1 years earlier on Facebook.

4) if "Miasto Jest Nasze" is the true owner of these images and if you are a representative of them, you could ask them to issue a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . However, it might be easier for you to contact one of my Polish colleagues User:jdx or User:Jarekt. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tak w razie czego mogę pomóc. --Jarekt (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:New_Orleans_header_collage.png&action=edit&redlink=1 was wrongfully deleted. Every image licensed was under Creative Commons, and I released it under creative commons as well. I provided the sources and everything to prove it as I always do.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's where it all began. https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nova_Orle%C3%A3es&action=history --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Túrelio: bump.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, seems you are correct, at least all images mentioned as source are under a free license. Therefore I've restored the image. Wikimedia servers seem currently to have a problem create the low-res thumb. --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The image of the streetcar does not appear in the description of this collage, which must be immediately deleted. Chronus (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Boom! Added it! I would ask what your issue is by the way, since most others don't request swift deletion and instead notify me with a set time frame of finding what may have been missed...--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chronus: , in such cases "no source" would be the correct tag. In addition, with obvious good-faith-uploader it might be sufficient to drop them a note on their talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Túrelio: Thank you for clarifying--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio, this file has source information. Can you tell me what's missing and what I need to do about it? Thanks. Darley-m (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Darley-m,

"Ministry of Culture, Saudi Arabia" is not considered a sufficient source-information on Commons. We (or anybody) needs to be able to verify the source and the claimed license. --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio, was hast du denn hiermit gemeint? Gruß --Schniggendiller (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Schniggendiller,

das was ein misslungenes Einfügen. Habe es nun korrigiert. Danke für den Hinweis. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Túrelio,

I noticed you recently deleted the image mentioned above. (original here: https://www.holebifilmfestival.be/logo/holebifilmfestival2015_logo_large.png)
I'm not sure what license I initially selected, but I do believe it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} (possibly {{trademarked}}).
Compared with, for example, File:Nielsen_logo.svg or File:Steinberg_logo.png, I think the same logic applies here.

Could you take a look ? If you agree, should I upload it again or file an undeletion request ?

thanks for your time — Kwakeroni (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kwakeroni,

the logo-image was deleted because you had tagged it by yourself as non-free logo, which automatically leads to speedy-deletion. After viewing the deleted image, I agree that it might go per PD-textlogo. So, I've restored it. However, be prepared that it might be nominated for deletion by anybody else. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks, I must have been confused with the different rules on Wikipedia. Anyway I'll see if it remains 'up', otherwise I'll contact the organization and request to stick a license to it. — Kwakeroni (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

If you have some time, please kindly review these images.

• File:Monotropa uniflora L 283525.jpg
• File:Mycena maculata P. Karst 692205.jpg
• File:Gymnopus spongiosus (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Halling 828950.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your help Turelio. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting my change to Commons:Deceased contributors. I think it got caught in the process of removing some things that didn't belong. I agree that it should be there. Thanks again. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio, I hope you are well. I noted you deleted my uploads below as you could find them on existing sites. All of these images have been taken from Pixabay and are in the public domain under the CC0 Creative Commons licence. THe images i have uploaded have social media icons edited into them so they look quite different to the Pixabay images they are based on. Hopefully they will add value to those writing social media based works. For example the social media marketing.jpg image can be found here https://pixabay.com/en/dices-over-newspaper-profit-2656028/

In any case i can understand if you did a quick google image search that they would appear so it looks like infringement. Can you confirm how i can ensure future files i have altered from Pixabay are not deleted and what actions i need to take to undelete my 6 files below (alos included links to all pixabay files below).

I appreciate you have a difficult job with endless tasks so hoping my images will not cause issues for you again.

Thanks,

Al/Today Testing

File:Social Media Marketing Strategy.jpg https://pixabay.com/en/keyboard-computer-buttons-laptop-1983410/ File:Social Media Marketing Gamble.jpg - https://pixabay.com/en/poker-full-house-cards-972614/ File:Social Media Marketing Puzzle.jpg - https://pixabay.com/en/puzzle-joining-together-insert-3223740/ File:Linkedin Marketing.jpg - https://pixabay.com/en/workspace-wooden-table-lamp-book-2985783/ File:Social Media Marketing.jpg - https://pixabay.com/en/dices-over-newspaper-profit-2656028/ File:Social Media Addiction.jpg - https://pixabay.com/en/hand-tablets-encapsulate-health-3632914/

Today Testing (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Today Testing,

if File:Social Media Marketing.jpg is an edited version of this Pixabay image, why did you claim it as completely own work? That's the reason why another tagged it as copyvio and why I consequently deleted it.

Anyway, IMO the easiest way to prevent these edited images getting suspected as copyvio, would be to 1) upload the original (unedited) image to Commons, and then as 2) step to upload your (edited) version, under an at least slightly different filename and clearly writing in the source-entry {{Derived from|original.jpg}}. If you could do this, then I could undelete your images.

However, another advise for caution: In the description of your uploads, you asked for a credit/link to www.todaytesting.com. This might be considered as spam and either removed (or the image itself getting deleted).

--Túrelio (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio Regarding your 1st question, I put it as own work after reading the below in 1st paragraph in the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works section. ‘In, either case, unless the underlying work is in the public domain (see Commons:Public domain) or there is evidence that the underlying work has been freely licensed for reuse (for example, under an appropriate Creative Commons license), the original creator of the work must explicitly authorize the copy/ derivative work before it can be uploaded to Commons.’ I interpreted this as allowing me to authorise my derivative work as my own as it was in the public domain and I have altered them considerably. Apologies if I misunderstood the rule there.

Regarding uploading the images, do you want me to upload all my edited versions again or just the originals – not sure because you mention undeleting the existing images in your message. Also where exactly do you input This file was derived from: Original.jpg
? Is this done by choosing ‘this file is not my own work’ and then putting code into ‘source’ or is it added to the description section?

Lastly, thanks for heads up on spam thing. Can you clarify though, the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license Wikimedia uses states under attribution –‘You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor’. Can I specify to attribute to me or my site given that rule? I understand that using the URL can be spammy but if I removed the url and just stated the name of the website would that be reasonable?

Thanks for your help,

Al / Today Testing Today Testing (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

ad 1) whether the author of a PD-released original is mentioned, is mainly a moral/ethical question. IMO, one should do it. As opposed to that, the source of your derivative absolutely needs to be mentioned.

ad 2) no, just the originals. Thereafter, I can undelete your currently deleted derivatives.

ad 3) Correct. But that has nothing to do with copyright or license; that's an application of our (Commons) policy Commons:Project scope.

--Túrelio (talk)

Hi Túrelio Thanks for the update. I have now uploaded all the originals. Not sure if this below link works for you to view them? Kind regards, Al / Today Testing https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Today_Testing&ilshowall=1 Today Testing (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I saw you removed today Yoann Bourgeois' portrait on his wikipedia page saying that we don't have permission to use it I would like to inform you that I modified his page and added this photo on behalf of Yoann as I am working with him and currently in charge of improving his wikipedia page Yoann knows personnally Geraldine and they work together very often; he has bought this photo himself exactly to be able to use it in this kind of situations. I will upload again the portrait and I would be thankful that you do not remove it again

Thank you for your understanding

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarievLaura (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

you claimed to be the author of this photo. Now you confirm that you are not. Crediting the true author is an absolute basic in every country's copyright law. So, even if Bourgeois has obtained copyright/permission from Geraldine Aresteanu, she still needs to be mentioned as author. In addition, in such cases (uploader is not author) the uploader needs to provide a written permission from the author or the copyright-holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . See Commons:Email templates (or Commons:Messages type in French) for the appropiate wording. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

If I am right, we did say that the photo was taken by Geraldine, it was written right underneath the photo Also, when we uploaded the picture, wikipedia doesn't ask us if we own the photo but if we do have the right to use it (at least this is the french translation) which we totally have Anyway, it doesn't really matter to us, maybe we made a mistake in the process and if it is the case we apologise; what we ask is, how can we now upload again Yoann's portrait in the right way ? I tried this afternoon and didn't find an answer to it... thank you for your help All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarievLaura (talk • contribs)

The answer was already in my first response: 5th and 6th sentence. You actually cannot re-upload the same image again, as it was deleted for suspicion of copyvio. Also, it's not necessary, as it can easily be undeleted by me or any other admin. However, first you need to provide a permission as explained in my first answer. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Please help review these 2 images when you can.

• File:Boletus vermiculosoides A.H. Sm. & Thiers 927120 crop.jpg
• File:Boletus vermiculosoides A.H. Sm. & Thiers 654428.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank You for your kind help Turelio. It is much appreciated. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm writing regarding the following files that you deleted after speedy deletion requests:

• File:Dave Pilipovich leads timeout.jpg
• File:Hayden Graham vs. Jacksonville 2016-11-14.jpg
• File:Jacob DeVries and Air Force baseball coaching staff in 2017.jpg
• File:Kurt Kanaskie in 2016.jpg
• File:Scott Wachenheim and Troy Calhoun in 2017.jpg

While it is technically correct that they all had "copyright" licenses on Flickr, it turns out that those licenses are incorrect, an ironic reverse of "license laundering" cases where unscrupulous Flickr users upload others' copyrighted works under free-use CC licenses. AF_Academy is the official Flickr page of the US Air Force Academy, as indicated by the USAFA official Facebook page, so all of its photos are original works of the US Air Force and thus in the public domain. This is a clear case of a false positive, and I hope you reconsider. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arbor to SJ,

I was aware of the contradiction between license on Flickr and assumed status as Gov works. However, from other US gov accounts I know that they sometimes put such images under CC-BY-ND, which is formally also not accepted on Commons and where we ignored the restricted license. However, we also know that US gov entities sometimes present not-own images on their websites, as "courtesy image", which naturally do not fall under the US gov PD clause. So, when this Flickr account is indeed officially by the "AF Academy", they should know what they do. The "all rights reserved" could mean that these images are also "courtesy images" by other authors. IMO, the best would be if you would contact this Flickr account and ask them directly about the 5 images and send their reply to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any evidence other than conjecture ("could mean", "sometimes present not-own images") that these pictures are not official US government works? The Air Force Academy Flickr page puts VIRIN's on the names of all its photos (but lazily omits other descriptive info like captions and photographers, for reasons unknown). A VIRIN is "assigned to all DoD personnel who create Visual Information (VI) records", thus meaning that VIRIN's go strictly to works of the US Department of Defense. One of the deleted photos (of Wachenheim and Calhoun) has the VIRIN 160902-F-KB029-2017, the "F" in the second field standing for US Air Force. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but that's not how it works here. It's the task of the uploader of not-own works to convince the community that the uploads are under a free license. If there were blatant copyvio-evidence, you would have got just 1 short sentence from me. Also, I don't understand why you did not take my hint and just contacted the Flickr-account to get clarity about the copyright. Anyway, as I am offline for the rest of the day (and eventually also tomorrow), I recommend you to take this case to COM:UDR, where other admins may view it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright then. I just wanted to approach you first before attempting UDR. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Im Thread "fragen wegen bewohner des kohle bergwerks..." wird der Klarname eines gewissen Herrn verwendet. Sollte man den vorsichtshalber ausblenden und mit revdel verstecken? DSGVO lässt grüßen, und auch sonst mag ja nicht jeder seinen Namen im Internet wiederfinden. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi De728631,

ich habs einfach mal auf die Initialen gekürzt. Danke für den Hinweis. --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you not only revert my speedy deletion, but also protect the talk page? The content is a duplicate of the file page, with no additional information. --80.140.127.196 07:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

1) Because what you did, is edit-warring. You might even have been blocked. 2) No, it is not, I compared the content. Whether the information on the talkpage is relevant, is a different question, but it's not a duplicate. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What does edit-warring mean? Why does irrelevant information have to be protected?--146.52.1.193 09:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

en:Wikipedia:Edit warring. I didn't say it's irrelevant. Do you really have nothing better to do than to edit the talk page? Why such interest in this page? --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

When you have the time, please kindly review these images.

• File:Conocybe aeruginosa (Romagn.) 928555.jpg
• File:Conocybe aeruginosa (Romagn.) 928556.jpg
• File:Conocybe aeruginosa (Romagn.) 928554.jpg
• File:Conocybe aeruginosa (Romagn.) 928557.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank You Turelio for your kind help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

This image had 2 Public Domain references (one of them is Wikipedia!!!) containing the very same information buried in much text of the Free e-book by Google that Wiki is citing Corpus Reformatorum (details below), yet my original illustration with proper embedded and explicit references through Wikipedia itself (and presently on Wikipedia) was deleted evidently maliciously, diversely, and plurally, due to the fact that subsequently also in the article the "editors" deleted all references to Polish Sarmatian Astronomer Nicolas Copernicus which is a fact of history through a number of other references, which the "editors" also deliberately deleted (about half of the references of books published in the last 500 years on Copernicus)!

The File:Sarmaticus Astronomus Nicolas Copernicus c 1543.jpg that I have created, in fact specifically is cited in the Public Domain through Google e-books, and on Wikipedia, as and at Corpus Reformatorum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Reformatorum The Corpus Reformatorum online CR 4 - 1837

Corpus reformatorum, Volume 4 C.A. Schwetschke, 1837

https://books.google.ca/books?vid=0Nk01EG-OTPT95Zn_Y2&id=QQ8RAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=%22corpus+reformatorum%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22corpus%20reformatorum%22&f=false

You need to scroll down to the cited page 679!

Which was stated in the deleted File:Sarmaticus Astronomus Nicolas Copernicus c 1543.jpg ... “Page 679 of vol. IV of Corpus Reformatorum, containing a letter (of Oct. 16, 1541) from Philip Melanchton to a Mr. Burcard Mithobius, with first historic reference to "that Sarmatian astronomer who is trying to stop the sun and move the earth." ...

Rosetecscc (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

please, no conspiration theories. The file had been tagged by 1 editor as possible copyvio due to "not sure where this came from, but not self made. The texts could be old, but the writing underneath does not. Plus it is text mainly, not an image." Consequently I've performed the deletion.

The problem is not the Latin text, but the separate text portions below the Latin texts, as they are far more recent and clearly within the time-frame for copyright protection. The left text mentions a source from 1953, the right one another source from 1990. So, you could crop away the two smaller portions of the likely copyrighted commentary texts and everything would be o.k., in regard to copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Túrelio, Can you help me with my file? I've took this picture with my own camera, and edit by myself on my laptop. but it has been deleted. (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székely_Norbert)

Thank you.

alencar.rossoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alencar.rossoni (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I see, it's not the same photo as the first version. However, it's not a native camera file. Could you temporarily upload the native camera file? (It can thereafter be removed). --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio,

I would like to upload with the native camera file, but the picture is available now, and it shows that the picture is duplicate, what should I do ? The native camera file is this one IMG_9409.JPG,

Thank you

Alencar.rossoni (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

if I understand you correctly, our software says it's a duplicate and does not allow you to upload the "new" file, right? If yes, then it is not really the native image from the camera, as the EXIF data of the undeleted image clearly shows no camera data at all. The data shown are from an imaging software (Adobe Photoshop), which was used to edit the image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Can you help me to understand, can not I edit a picture in the adobe photoshop and after upload it ? And another question, the picture is available in the commons wikimedia, Can I use it?

Thank you,

Alencar.rossoni (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Túrelio,

Could you explain why File:A vindication of K Fleuron T070182-1.png has been deleted, please? Your motive is: "Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion". Is it a massive deletion of all the files uploaded by a user called "Fæ"?

This file is the title page of a book published in 1711: I hardly think there might be any copyright issue.

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Fae had uploaded xxthousands of scans from old documents. A relative small nummber of them, still hundreths, contain just the scan of a line or a page-number or other useless things, as the original documents were likely scanned automatically and were then "automatically" uploaded to Commons. These to-be-deleted uploads are put into Category:Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion, partly by Fae himself or by others. So, the deletion has nothing to do with copyright, but all with being trash-files. I usually check all, whether they are in use, which I never found. So, in case, the above mentioned file had indeed been in use, tell me and I will undelete it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Túrelio,

Yes, I use it in two articles in French Wikipedia: it allows me to illustrate a section with extra information without creating a note. So if it's not too much trouble, I would need it.

Thank you, --Daehan (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I've undeleted it now. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You recently deleted this file, which I tagged as a clear copyvio. Having looked, I think many other recent uploads by user Maumivi are copyright violations. Perhaps you could take a look? RGloucester (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Will look into it later this week. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

If you have some time, please review these 2 images below.

• File:Chalciporus rubinellus (Peck) Singer 665287.jpg
• File:Chalciporus rubinellus (Peck) Singer 635642.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

When clicking on the MP links, I got "We're sorry, but something went wrong." --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• OK. Perhaps the system is down. That's OK. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, warum schreibst du dem Museum nicht und bittest um Erlaubnis, das Bild zu vernwenden. Damit kann man Werbung für das Museum verbinden. Die müssen doch ein Interesse daran haben (a) gut dazustehen und (b) Werbung für ihr Mmuseum durch das bild zu bekommen. In der BIldunterschrift werdne sie erwähnt. Dein Bild war erheblich bessser als das jetzt verwendete.... Gruß. Mr. bobby (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

ähem, die gelöschten Bilder waren nicht die meinen. Wo auch immer du auf meinen Namen gestoßen bist, das liegt darin dass ich als Admin sie gelöscht habe, auf dringlichen Wunsch des Fotografen, der - mit gewissem Recht - eine Klage des Museums fürchtet. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Túrelio. Can previous versions of a file be deleted? I uploaded some files whose pages I had accidentally cut out. I uploaded the correct ones, but will like to see the old versions removed. They’re just wasting space and are of no use. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But you will not save any space by that, as nothing is really deleted, it's just hidden. Any admin (and higher) can undelete it. Therefore, we perform such version-deletions only if there is a good reason for it. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, then there's no need. I just asked on the presumption that it will save space. Will be more careful. Thanks anyway. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hola, pedi el cambio de mi nombre verdadero por el nuevo Antonio9025 para evitar que se pudieran relacionar los dos nombres, pero aunque la pagina con mi nombre verdadero a sido borrada todavia aparecen los registros donde se indica la relacion entre los dos nombres, se pueden borrar tambien esos registros? Lo digo porque si se pone mi nombre verdadero en google aparece la pagina de wikimedia kommons con los registros de actividad con el nombre antiguo y el nuevo juntos. Agradecería si se pudieran borrar tambien.--Antonio.P9025 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I am not sure to understand what you mean by "los registros". I have now deleted the redirect from your old talkpage to your new talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moin, du hast leider die falsche Version gelöscht.

File:BW Tätigkeitsabzeichen Pioniertruppe.png → File:BW Tätigkeitsabzeichen Pioniere.jpg

Die PNG hatte Transparenz und war korrekt benannt. Ebenso stimmen Quellen und Angaben. Die JPG sollte abgelöst werden. Kannst du das bitte korrigieren? Danke -- Gunnar (💬) 14:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gunnar,

an sich hatte ich die Duplikat-Richtung bewußt herumgedreht, weil mir das nun verbliebene Bild schärfer erschien. Auf Transparenz und so hatte ich allerdings nicht geachtet. Nun umgekehrt. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm PaPa PaPaRoony, the uploader of the photos of the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake. I've asked for permission for the photos and he had said that he permitted the use of the photos. However, I've just received notification s that said that you've just deleted the photos.. May I have an explanation why? PaPa PaPaRoony 21:24 UTC, 30 September 2018

Hi PaPa PaPaRoony,

I've deleted only File:Dampak-GempaPalu-1.jpg, if I remember correctly.

On Twitter[1] you had asked "Can Wikipedia use these photos for their articles? We will credit you for these photos!" Such a "for Wikipedia" permission is not acceptable on Commons, see our licensing policy. You need to ask the author/photographer whether he/she is willing to release his/her images under a free license, which allows anybody to use them, provided the license terms are met.

If you want to do that, you should 1) choose a license, which you want to propose to the Twitter user. I would recommend our preferred CC-BY-SA license. 2) You need to be honest towards the photographer, in the sense that you explain what a release of his images under such a license means: anybody can use it, even commercially; only has to credit the photographer. 3) If he agrees and confirms, you may notify me again. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kannst du den Account Extramasterspongebob bitte sperren? Dein Kollege Doc Taxon hat den vor zwei Jahren in der Wikipedia auch gesperrt, falls du mir nicht glaubst. Ich wusste es nicht, dass ich diesen Account noch habe. Er gehört nämlich mir. Mit Doppelaccounts möchte ich hier eigentlich nicht direkt rumlaufen. Ich bitte um die Sperrung. Danke schon mal. --RS34 (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

See doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0882-6 for source. I do not appreciate that you did not even check the source, which was properly indicated. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did indeed check before deleting, so far for your assumption. However, I looked just at the head of the article and at its end, where it says "© The Author(s). 2017". Restored now. --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Warum wurde das Bild gelöscht? Wir haben jägliche Rechte auf Ihre Bilder :(

Mfg Sandy B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuP2018 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sandy,

weil das Bild Code enthält, der zeigt, das von Facebook kopiert wurde. Material auf Facebook betrachten wir nicht per se als ausreichend frei. D.h., falls du das Foto nicht selbst aufgenommen hast, musst du eine Genehmigung des Photographen an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org senden. Falls du oder die Institution, für die du arbeitest, die Rechte an dem Foto halten, dann musst du dies gegenüber permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org formell erklären, unter Angabe der offiziellen Kontaktdaten, die eine Rückfrage erlauben. Deine Mail wird nicht veröffentlicht, sondern kann nur von unseren OTRS-Mitarbeitern eingesehen werden. --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

If you can, please help review these 2 good images below.

• File:Amanita canescens Dav. T. Jenkins 935533.jpg
• File:Amanita canescens Dav. T. Jenkins 645392.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for your help Turelio. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Plese note that according to the Finnish Copyright Act, § 46a, film stills are free after 50 years of cinematography, similarly as photographs are free according to § 49a. You can read the Act here: Tekijänoikeuslaki (404/1961).

Also, it is rather questionable to delete the file File:Kielletty-kirja.jpg “behind one’s back,” without allowing the uploader to comment on the deletion.

Please undelete the said file. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

My bad, the nominator should have notified you. However, I missed to check for that. Ok, I will temp-undelete the file, but put the request into regular DR. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here we are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kielletty-kirja.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

im a African editor from Namibia and i have the rights to use any of those images. i was given the duty to create wikipedias for big artist's in my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frutnesswork (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You need to provide proof for that claim. You need to contact each of the photographers of the 2 images and ask them whether they are willing to release these images under a Commons-compliant free license (see COM:L). A permissions "for Wikipedia" is not accepted. They need to send their permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ich wollte nachfragen, ob meine Mail (21:04) bei Dir angekommen ist? LG, --Geolina ^{mente et malleo} ✎ 20:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ja, gerade gesehen und erledigt. Grüße --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Vielen herzlichen Dank...--Geolina ^{mente et malleo} ✎ 20:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

علش بغيتي تمسح صورة sourir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamila jamola (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read the comments on my talk page. I would say they prove I did not just opload files with the wrong copyright status. I asked the owner if it was ok and he was fine with it. --Judithcomm (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Replied on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sent a mail to Andor as you suggested. It would have been nice to have been alerted in advance that the deletions were going to take place. I too take the Commons copyright policy very seriously and have done for years now. To be honest, I was offended by the threat to block me. --Judithcomm (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Threat to block? Oh, I see, it's in the template. Sorry, but the notification wasn't individually written to you. It is automatically applied when a no-perm or speedy tag is added to a file. I have zero influence on its content. Anyway, an established user doesn't get blocked so fast. --Túrelio (talk)

Hi,

A proper agreement to OTRS has been sent just today, regarding these 2 pictures. ticket:2018090310003585 Can you undelete them? Cheers, Polimerek (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok. --Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

If you wish you could close this 1 day DR as delete and delete the image...as even the uploader said he made a mistake here. It is not free. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment: Thank You Turelio. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio! Aus welchem Grund wurde die Seite "Walter Helsper" gelöscht? Ich besitze für alle Abbildungen die ausdrückliche Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung durch die Erbengemeinschaft Walter Helsper. Für jedes einzelne Bild habe ich das entsprechende Formular eingereicht. Am 27. und 28.08.2017 ist der Eingang mit automatisierter Antwort von "Permissions-German wikipedia" bestätigt worden. Ich habe bis heute keine weitere Antwort erhalten, auch auf mehrere Anfragen nicht. Stattdessen sind die Bilder ohne weitere Nachricht gelöscht worden, das ist überhaupt nicht zu akzeptieren. Ich bitte um dringende Wiederherstellung aller Dateien! Vielen Dank für Deine Kooperation.--Kirchners (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kirchners,

die Galerie-Seite Walter Helsper wurde gelöscht, weil sie leer war (wenn die Bilder mal wiederhergestellt worden sind, kann ich diese Seite gerne entlöschen). Die Bilder habe ich nicht gelöscht, sondern mein Kollege User:Jcb, allerdings schon vor mehr als 1 Monat. Wenn du eine Genehmigung an OTRS geschickt hast, was in solch einem Fall der Standard ist, kann es leider recht lange dauern. Die Warteschlange (Einreichung -> Entscheidung) liegt derzeit bei 150 Tagen! Das ist eigentlich Wahnsinn; du musst aber bedenken, dass es ausschließlich Ehrenamtler sind, die die unzähligen bei OTRS eingehenden Mails bearbeiten. Da kann ich auch als Admin nichts dran ändern. (Habs mal versucht und mir eine ziemliche Abfuhr eingehandelt) --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Danke für die prompte Antwort. Wie bereits gesagt, hatte ich entsprechende Genehmigungen an OTRS gesendet. Eine Wartezeit von 150 Tagen ist in der Tat sehr bedauerlich, und in meinem Fall noch nicht verstrichen. Sicherlich kannst Du also nichts daran ändern, aber zwei kleine Verbesserungsvorschläge seien angebracht: Ihr solltet Autoren über diese Problematik grundsätzlich informieren. Die Routine "Bild mit mutmaßlichem Urheberrechtsproblem markieren" und nach gewisser Zeit ohne Berücksichtigung der gesendeten Genehmigung an OTRS bzw. ohne jegliche Nachricht das Bild löschen sollte dringend verändert werden.--Kirchners (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was ich i.a. empfehle und was dann meistens auch hilft ist, gleich beim Upload, vorausgesetzt die Genehmigungsmail ist unterwegs, den Baustein {{OTRS pending}} auf das betroffene Bild zu setzen. Dann wird meistens nicht gelöscht. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you please delete this nom - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pacific_Feather_Duster_Sabellastarte_sp.jpg It's not ready yet. Thanks - ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you deleted a handful of images from In Common. I posted a DR a little bit ago due to the same issue, but I guess I didn't have to go through that method. Since you deleted some, I thought I would mention that these three images from the same source are still on Commons, and should probably be deleted as well: File:Jin in 2018.jpg, File:Jin_KBS_Song_Festival_2017.jpg, and File:Jin KBS Song Festival 2017.jpg. DanielleTH (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio, du hast heute ein Foto von Simone Menne gelöscht, weil es angeblich von hercareer stammt, was nicht richtig ist. Es ist ein frei verwendbares Pressebild von ihr, dass für Veranstaltungen und Artikel genutzt werden darf sowie auf ihrer eigenen Seite www.simonemenne.de. Ich bitte dich, dass wieder rückgängig zu machen. Ich stelle keine Bilder ein, die nicht genutzt werden dürfen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaQuickRathgeber (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Anna, ganz so einfach geht es nicht. Du hattest für das Foto File:20180202-13x19-JMai 0345-2.jpg "Jürgen Mai" als Urheber (also nicht du) und als Quelle "Aufnahme einer Person des öffentlichen Lebens" angegeben. Abgesehen davon, dass letzteres keine Quelle ist (höchstens ein Argument warum das Foto nicht gegen Persönlichkeitsrechte verstösst), hast du somit keinerlei für uns überprüfbaren Nachweis erbracht, dass das Foto tatsächlich unter der beanspruchten CC-Lizenz steht. "Pressebilder" gelten bei uns a priori nicht als "frei", weil ihre Nutzung in den meisten Fällen eingeschränkt ist (nur für Berichte im Zusammenhang mit der abgebildeten Person) und sie meist nicht verändert werden dürfen. Dies entspricht aber nicht unseren Vorgaben für frei lizenzierte Bilder (siehe COM:L). Zum weiteren Vorgehen habe ich dir bereits auf deiner Disku geantwortet. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio,

du hast diverse neue Bilder von mir zur Löschung markiert. Du wirst dafür sicher einen Grund haben, aber ich verstehe leider den Grund nicht. Wo ist der Unterschied zwischen dem von selbst geschossenen Bild https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fritz-spritz_Bio_Apfelschorle.jpg zu beispielsweise diesem hier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fritz-kola-02.jpg ? Oder auch diesem hier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monster_3_sides.jpg ?

Sollte tatsächlich ein Verstoß vorliegen, so sollen die Bilder selbstverständlich gelöscht werden.

Ich bin relativ neu, daher würde ich mich über eine Erklärung freuen.

Danke! Willibald11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willibald11 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Es ist so, dass Verpackungen, die mehr als nur Text enthalten, im Zweifelsfall als geschützt anzusehen sind. Das gilt insbesondere wenn es sich um Fotos auf der Verpackung handelt, wie im Fall der Hanuta-Verpackung. Generelle Info dazu (aber auf englisch): Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging. Ich habe für das andere, von dir benannte Foto ebenfalls die Löschung beantragt, allerdings als regulärer LA, um eine Diskussion zu erlauben. Von deinem Foto habe ich den SLA entfernt und in einen reguläre LA umgewandelt: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fritz-kola-02.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, soweit verstanden. Danke. Dann müsste aber gemäß dem von mir aufgeführten Beispiel die Fritz-Flasche durchgehen? Oder das andere Foto auch gelöscht werden. Sonst wird mit zweierlei Maß gemessen. --Willibald11 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alles klar. Ich bin gespannt. --Willibald11 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

"zweierlei Maß" - schau, auf Commons werden täglich ca. 20000 neue Dateien hochgeladen, davon geschätzt 10% Urheberrechtverletzungen. Einige Benutzer, die aber sämtlich Freiwillige sind, kümmern sich darum, sich diese Dateien anzuschauen, ob damit Probleme bestehen. Da ist es wohl logisch, dass viele Dateien durchrutschen. Zudem sind Fälle wie die deinen keine "blatant copyvio", sondern Grenzfälle wo man abschätzen muss, liegt das noch unter oder schon über der Schwelle für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz. --Túrelio (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Das war auch gar nicht böse gemeint! Ihr Freiwilligen macht eine tolle Arbeit. Nur will ich für meine Uploads kämpfen. Nicht, dass ich deswegen noch gesperrt werden. ;) Es gibt unzählige Beispiel von Produktabbildungen, die in meinen Augen dann ebenfalls gegen die oben genannte Regel verstoßen. Daher freue ich mich über die Diskussion, die du gestartet hast. --Willibald11 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your help correcting my mistake. --WhiteBook (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, that's easy. The image was under a license CC-BY-ND-NC[2], which is not allowed on Commons (see COM:L). Not all CC licenses are allowed on Commons, only CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and CC-0. --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:Túrelio,

You've deleted File:NIND MuseeL-bleu ISO3200.jpg minutes after it was marked as a possible copyright violation. This gives no chance to look into the matter and attempt to contact the relevant copyright holder, I don't think that is the proper way to handle deletion requests.

--Trougnouf (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually that is the proper way of dealing with copyright issues which was sanctioned by the Commons community. It is called "speedy deletion" for a reason. I'm sorry, but you as the uploader would have had to take care of researching the copyright status and obtaining a licence from the copyright holder before uploading the image here. Please see Commons:Project scope/Evidence. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that one was a speedy deletion request as all the other related ones weren't, thank you for clearing that up. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tureio,

If you have some time, please review these images below.

• File:Pseudoinonotus dryadeus (Pers.) T. Wagner & M. Fisch 447919.jpg
• File:Hydnellum suaveolens (Scop.) P. Karst 446012.jpg
• File:Neodasyscypha cerina (Pers.) Spooner 725355.jpg
• File:Physarum pezizoideum (Jungh.) Pavill. & Lagarde 796004.jpg

Thank You kindly, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Was offline most of the day. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks Turelio for your help here. Have a good night. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Next time, before you do this and have an image deleted at Commons, please actually look at the photo and see if it truly is a duplicate. In this case, it was not a duplicate but edited to be improved upon, and far beyond just being a crop of same. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Winkelvi,

that wouldn't have helped in this case. As I was able to find out now, shortly before tagging File:Jessica Pare 2014.jpg as a duplicate, another user had overwritten your retouched version with the original (un-retouched) image from Flickr. So, when I duplicate-processed the file, it was indeed a duplicate. --Túrelio (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Who was the editor? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Elisfkc. Nevertheless, my fault was not to recognize this. --Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

A few months ago you had deleted an image that was taken from my website and used on a computer wallpaper website without my permission and apparently copyrighted it. As a result, you deleted it. I uploaded the ORIGINAL (Mine that I am the photographer and owner of the car [1992 Camaro z28])

I am wondering how to re-edit the page so to include my photo since you deleted the "copycat"

This is the original re-uploaded one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:100_1777_orig_size.jpg

The one that I linked originally was "1105863-1920x1080--DesktopNexus.com-.jpg," who is using my picture.

I am trying to figure out how to put it back (Mine) into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro_(third_generation)#1992 like where it was before but using my original one.. Not the one who stole it..

Thanks very much for your help,

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarosource (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Estimado Turelio, ruego no borres fotos unilateralmente sin consultar previamente. Dicha foto fue puesta bajo alerta por el usuario LMLM. Hablé con dicho usuario, explicándole que sobre dicha foto no había problemas de violación de copyright, puesto que la foto la hice yo, y puedo demostrarlo, tengo incluso el archivo RAW de Photoshop. Ruego, entonces y en consecuencia, que no borres todo aquello que pueda parecerte susceptible de borrar sin informarte previamente y preguntar. Muchas gracias, --Granadino7 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm,

the evidence suggests otherwise, as the image was published externally earlier (than uploaded to Commons) and in slightly higher resolution.[3] Therefore it did qualify for speedy-deletion. Anyway, as you mentioned evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to undelete it and put it into a regular DR, which allows presentation of further evidence and a discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, here you are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masgranadafiscalia.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

De qué manera puedo mostrarte que hice la edición de la foto, ¿puedo enviarte a algún correo electrónico capturas de mi escritorio que lo confirmen? Desconozco qué metodos de demostración existen para casos de este tipo. Gracias por tu gentileza al recuperar la imagen provisionalmente, --Granadino7 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, for example you could upload the original image, as it came out of the camera, with camera EXIF data. (you may label it as test upload, so can rapidly delete it) --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have an OTRS ticket for this image you deleted. Please undelete. BTW, is this the best place to ask you to undelete files as I see more which may have good permissions? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done and yes to your question. --Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was fast, thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dera Túrelio, Thankyou for your help. Unfortunately I am not used to insert image in commons, or at least images like these. I Classified them as "OWN" because I took pics or copy of them. And the date are wrong because i insert the date of today. Really most of the pics are taken by a my collegue here in the University. I'll ask him the date as soon as possible (tomorrow morning) and I'll correct them. About pics that could be erased immediately they are taken by the same photograph that works here for us. If is possible not delete them immediately I can ask and modified the licence. It's possible that another person answer or talk with you instead of me: is Alberto Ugolini, the editir of the rewiew. Thankyou again!! --Ricce (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ricce,

I thought something like this. You didn't look like a careless copyviolator. With "date of original photography" I mean the year, of course. That's also important for the evaluation whether some of the older images might be in the public domain already. But therefore we need to know who was the original photographer (and when he/she did die). The still living photographing colleague should send a statement mentioning the file-names of the images, which he had originally shot, and the license under which he wants to release these images. I would recommend not to use PD-self, but instead CC-BY oder CC-BY-SA, which are more appropriate for images of living persons. The permission should be send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . For the wording, see Commons:Modello richiesta di permesso. --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio, Hope all is well,

I don't usually like to ask for DRs to be closed mega early but in this case I was wondering if you could close this DR and then block the uploader (Fieryflames) for a week or 3?,

They're currently edit warring at English Wikipedia and as they've already uploaded 2 copyright violation images something tells me if the image in the DR is deleted they're going to return to immediately upload the same copyvio images,

Many thanks :), –Davey2010^Talk 02:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying. Upload was indeed a blatant copyvio from Getty; this is always speedy-material. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries and many many thanks for dealing with the DR and editor - It's very much appreciated Túrelio :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo,

könnte Du mal einen Blick auf https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Khubaib_Ali_Mohammed_(Portr%C3%A4t).jpg&action=history werfen?

Das Bild wurde offensichtlich ohne Erlaubnis hochgeladen. Nach einer Markierung "no permission" hat der Uploader diese Markierung entfernt und "OTRS kontaktiert" als Text eingefügt (14. September).

Da am 16. Oktober noch immer kein OTRS-Baustein vorhanden war, habe ich das Bild wieder mit "no permission" marktiert. Das wurde von einer IP wieder entfernt und von der IP der Baustein "OTRS pending" eingesetzt. Am nächsten Tag dasselbe Spiel nochmal.

Da der Uploader in deWP ein bezahlter Auftragsschreiber ist und er bzw. die dahinter stehende Agentur bereits vielfach durch Urheberrechtsverletzungen auffiel, vermute ich, dass überhaupt keine Erlaubnis vorliegt und auch über OTRS gar nichts oder nichts Brauchbares eingegangen ist. Ich vermute, die Agentur versucht, mit dem "OTRS pending" die Bildlöschung zu vermeiden (zumindest so lange, bis ihr Auftraggeber gezahlt hat).

Wie kann ich in einem solchen Fall weiter vorgehen? Die Agentur spielt dieses Spiel bei einer ganzen Reihe von Bildern so. --Zxmt (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moin @Zxmt: ,

puuh, Kein einfacher Fall. Es sieht mir zumindest nicht nach einer "blatant copyvio" aus. Via Google-Images und Tineye habe ich das Foto sonst nirgendwo gefunden. Der Hochlader sieht auch nicht aus wie ein typischer sorgloser copyvio-Hochlader. Bei seinem anderen, inzwischen gelöschten Upload hatte er auch nicht behauptet selbst der Urheber zu sein, sondern einen anderen Namen als Urheber angegeben und ebenfalls auf eine Genehmigungsmail verwiesen. Von :de war mir das Konto bislang nicht bekannt. Wenn jemand paid-edits offenlegt und sogar den Auftraggeber nennt, sind bewusste URVs m.E. eher unwahrscheinlich, weil das ja auf den Auftraggeber zurückfällt. Das Problem ist die derzeit exzessive Warteschlange von 154 (!!!) Tagen bei OTRS. Das ist für Externe vollkommen unverständlich und eigentlich auch inakzeptabel. Solange aber nicht mehr Leute bei OTRS mitmachen, wird sich das nicht ändern. Die WMF, die auf Mio. $ sitzt, kümmert das offenbar nicht die Bohne. Zurück zum Fall: in der Gesamtwertung würde ich es insgesamt für angemessen halten, dem Hochlader die 150-160 Tage nach Ankündigung des OTRS-Kontakts (14.9.) zu geben, bevor das Bild gelöscht wird. Das ist aber nur meine Einschätzung; man kann auch anders entscheiden. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Danke für die Einschätzung und Rückmeldung: Die Agentur ("Weltraumagentur") arbeitet halt nicht seriös (vgl. inzwischen gesperrtes Hauptkonto Timon Straub und Sockenzoo: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Timon.Straub ) Benutzer Luuuuuuka ist aber wohl nur "freier Mitarbeiter" und wurde daher (bislang) nicht gesperrt. Die Bild-URVs ziehen sich durch die Artikel der Agentur wie ein roter Faden. Für den Upload werden inzwischen auch Konten angelegt, die notwendige Rechte zumindest möglich erscheinen lassen (bei Swiss Holiday Park z.B. User:SwissHP oder bei Julia Hanzl eben User:JuliaHanzl . Bei anderen Bildern von Hanzl hatte Timon.Straub sogar vermerkt, eine OTRS-Freigabe sei "vorhanden" (vgl. z.B. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Horned_god.jpg ) Damit schafft es die Agentur natürlich, ihre Machenschaften weiter zu führen - die Kunden kriegen die Probleme im Artikel bzw. mit den Bildern erst mit, wenn die Agentur längst ihr Geld hat. Aber wenn es keine anderen Möglichkeiten gibt, dann ist das halt so. --Zxmt (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Bei solch einer Vorgeschichte, die mir nicht bekannt war, sieht die Situation natürlich anders aus. Da wäre eine Löschung 7 Tage nach Erstplazierung von no-perm gerechtfertigt. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Túrelio I am not so experienced in using wikimedia, I feel lost sometimes, I received a notification from you concerning deletions of some my uploads, earlier I received a similar notification from the user and to seek help I asked him about the alternative map that is acceptable by wikipedia, he said OpenStreetMap is ok, and I heeded his advice, now the suggested deletions by you are taken from OpenStreetMap, why do you want to delete them?--Abu aamir (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC) below is my conversation with RonhjonesReply

Hello Ronhjones one of my uploaded sketches was deleted twice on the ground of copyrights without informing me about the alternative, how to display an image of the neighborhood with the surrounding area? my image was a naked imagery of google maps, it was I who defined boundaries and put labels.

I could have taken the same image from Wikimapia but unfortunately Wikimapia is full of scratches. I have seen much bigger images displayed on Wikipedia undeleted. I think that warning needs to be tutorial rather than threatening.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu aamir (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Abu aamir: They are standard messages as generated by the system when there is a copyright issue flagged. Google Map's License is not compatible with Commons. OpenStreetMap is a normal alternative. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Abu aami,

it would help if you could specify to which files/images you are referring.

• File:حدود سبع أبكار.jpg is declared to be from openstreetmap.org, but you did not provide a link to the source-page, where this map is shown. This is needed in order to check the claim that it's free. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Turelio I come to you regarding the suppression of the film poster "Sweet Cocoon" I work for the production company who owns this film's right, and which gave me the permission to publish it on wikipedia How can I do in order to make this poster acceptable for Wikimedia commons ? Thanks a lot --Lindaz818 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lindaz818,

you need to ask the rightsholder (esma ?) to send a Déclaration de consentement (see Commons:Messages type for a template) to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org. It needs to mention the file name and the choosen free license. --Túrelio (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Werxa is just another Sol-lol sock. Checkuser sadly often takes weeks. Not sure what to do about it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Turélio, can you help me? I just uploaded the following images:

• File:PornoMassacre-01.png
• File:PornoMassacre-02.png
• File:PornoMassacreLogo.png

I have permission on all those images, since they were created by me and the members of the band related to them. But I got a message saying that they were marked to be erased... What do I have to do to avoid it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmourao (talk • contribs)

Hi,

let's see about "were created by me and the members of the band":

the 1st one: you wrote "Fotógrafo desconhecido", but it has a clear watermark, likely by the photographer. So, you need to provide his permission.

the 2nd one: you wrote "Fotógrafo desconhecido", but the EXIF data state "Photographer: Marcus Azevedo Fotografia". So, you need to provide his permission.

the 3rd one: you wrote "Criado por Bruno Gozzi". Ok, then you need get him send his permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

--Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Please review these images if you can.

• File:Xanthoria ulophyllodes (Räsänen) 946843.jpg
• File:Gymnopus iocephalus (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Halling 946728.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your kind help Turelio. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why did you sack File:Lung capacity measures.png (hist • logs • abuse log)? Aren’t you handy with tracing history of Commons files? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because the now remaining image is simply (though only slightly) better, I reversed the requested duplicate-deletion. I though a while about that and compared both images. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sehr geehrter Túrelio,

gestern, 20. Oktober um 17:22 Uhr, haben Sie die Datei File:Willem Bartel van der Kooi - De minnebrief.jpg gelöscht und diese Seite weitergeleitet nach File:De minnebrief Rijksmuseum SK-A-1064.jpeg.

Die erste (gelöschte) Datei ist in die Orginal-Große von 5.708 x 6.934 Pixel, die letztere in einer Große von nur 2.164 × 2.652 Pixel. Ich habe probiert um die Datei "De minnebrief Rijksmuseum SK-A-1064.jpeg" zu überschreiben mit der Datei in die Orginal-Große, aber das ist mir nicht gelungen.

Bitte setzen Sie die Datei in die Orginal-Große zurück.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo @Bouwe Brouwer: ,

normalerweise würde ich dir natürlich recht geben, dass die höher aufgelöste Version anstelle der geringer aufgelösten bleiben sollte. In diesem Fall habe ich die beiden Dateien aber recht genau verglichen und bemerkt, dass die höher aufgelöste Version von sichtbar schlechterer Qualität war als die andere Version. Deshalb habe ich so gehandelt. Ich kann die gelöschte Version wieder herstellen, wenn du das möchtest; aber trotzdem sollte die aktuelle Version (auch) bleiben, weil sie einfach besser aussieht. (jetzt bin ich aber ca. 2 h offline) --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio, ich habe die beide Bilder auch genau verglichen. Die höher aufgelöste Version hat weniger Kratzer und ist farbechter. Siehe zum Beispiel die Augenbraue des Jungen: Die niedriger aufgelöste Version hat ein Kratzer durch die Augenbraue, die höher aufgelöste Version nicht. Ein anderes Beispiel ist die Hosen des Jungen: In der höher aufgelösten Version ist die Hose farbecht, bei der niedriger aufgelöste Version tendiert die grüne Hose ein bisschen zu Weiß. Ich denke, es ist besser beide Versionen nebeneinander zu haben. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du die gelöschte Version wiederherstellen würde. --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC).Reply

OK. Restored. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Herzlichen Dank. --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Please help review these images if you can.

• File:Inocybe hystrix (Fr.) P. Karst 947566.jpg
• File:Amanita pachycolea D.E. Stuntz 947840.jpg
• File:Amanita pachycolea D.E. Stuntz 947843.jpg
• File:Amanita calyptroderma G.F. Atk. & V.G. Ballen 701615.jpg

Thank You for all your help and have a day. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank You Turelio and Goodnight from Vancouver. Its 2:43 AM here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

TURELIO, my name is Alberto Ugolini, I am the editor in chief of the scientific journal in the subject. I think you know that EEE is a serious and good scientific journal (formerly Monitore Zoologico Italiano, founded at the endo of '800. I believe that it should be sufficient to convince you that our contribution to Wiki is a serious one. About the images: all the images are submitted together with the reference of their origin. I am sure you can imagine that it is impossible to know who was the author of a picture taken in the early '900! However, in this case we added the name of the person or institution that sent to me the picture. Frankly speaking I don't see any problem of copyright. Please, let me know your opinion taking into account my argumentation. Sincerely Alberto Ugolini Prof of Zoology Editor in Chief of Ethology Ecology & Evolution Dept of Biology University of Firenze Italy +3905527575152 alberto.ugolini@unifi.it — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:760:2C05:45:2DEE:77FB:CA85:D937 (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Prof. Ugolini,

I'll reply at the weekend. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, This photo is from flickr.com Globetrotteur17 and The copyright owner has released this work with the correct Creative Commons license. You can check Flickr.com ... Globetrotteur17 ... Album "Dans l'oeil de mon objectif" ... Fabrice Deville Best Regard --Babin bernard (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. I did[4] already what you should have done. :-) --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please protect my talk page against vandalism by VPN IPs of blocked User Bookworm, Gutmeister and currently active Mendduets. Thanks Satoshi Kondo (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've semi-protected (no IP-edits) your talkpage for 3 months. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Túrelio. Erstmal danke für die Reparatur der zwei Bilder (Quellheiligtum Sudelfelsen achteckiges Bau mit Quader aus Kalksinter .jpg und Sudelfelsbrunnen.jpg) von mir gestern. Allerdings habe ich keine Ahnung was mit den Bildern nicht stimmte. Im Moment habe ich keine Kamera und muss das Handy nutzen. Dort habe ich Open Camera drauf. Seltsamerweise scheint der Fehler nicht bei allen Bildern aufzutreten die ich aufnehme. Wenn Du mir eventuell sagen könntest was bei den Bildern nicht stimmte, kann ich die Bilder eventuell in Zukunft auch selbst prüfen und entsprechend reparieren. --Starkiller3010 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Starkiller3010,

beim Upload (oder kurz danach) wird automatisch (Bot) geprüft, ob die Datei irgendwelchen Code (Daten) enthält, der nicht zu dem jeweiligen Format gehört. Falls ja, wird die Datei entsprechend zur Löschung oder Reinigung markiert. Bei JPEG-Dateien, bei denen so etwas anscheinend am häufigsten vorkommt, kann man z.B. mit der Freeware IrfanView solchen "Fremdcode" einfach verlustlos beseitigen, d.h. ohne dass das Bild nochmal komprimiert werden muss. Ich habe keine Ahnung woher dieser Code stammt, es könnte sowohl die Kamera/Handy sein also auch darin oft ohne Benutzereinfluss ablaufende Prozesse. Vielleicht findest du auf COM:Forum jemanden, der dir mehr dazu sagen kann. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. Vielen Dank. Werde mir mal IrfanView besorgen. Mal sehen ob ich das hinbekomme LG --Starkiller3010 (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you now get flooded with notices whenever someone uses {{PD-1996}}, delete File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a.pdf and move File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a 2.pdf in its place.

That's actually not a bad idea anyway. I had to tack on the "2" just to upload it. The new file was uploaded by my sock, so my sock will be flooded with the useless notices. See phab:T46787 for details. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ähem. Just to understand what you are saying. I shall delete the redir of File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a.pdf to File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a 2.pdf, right. And then File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a 2.pdf shall be renamed to File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a.pdf? --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is correct. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does the QI feature at the top of the image page work? I clicked on it for :File:Pacific Feather Duster Sabellastarte sp.jpg back around 15 Oct or so but can't find it on the QI list. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are referring to the "QI nominator", right? Well, I didn't even know of its existence and have activated it only now in my settings. So, I have no experience with it. Better ask at COM:VP. --Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

I just tried sending this message earlier, but it doesn't seem to have registered, so I'm trying again. I'm a new Wikipedia editor, so I'm having trouble understanding the system.

I just now saw that I had received messages from you about photo permissions. One message concerned the page "Chiiori" and a photo of the Floorhearth. I own the copyright for this but don't know how to validate that.

The other messages concerned photos I had uploaded for a new page for "Ronnarong Khampha," (the page is still in "sandbox" stage). The people who took the photos have given verbal permission, but that's all I have. If this is a problem, please delete those photos and I'll upload others later with no copyright problems.

Also - while I was able a few minutes ago to see your messages, now I can't find them anymore. Where do I go on the Wikipedia menu (the alerts, the notices?) to see them again.

I'm sorry that I'm baffled by the Wikipedia system, since I'm just beginning.

October 28, 2018 Xinqizi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinqizi (talk • contribs)

Hi Xinqizi,

messages about problems with or questions about your uploads to Commons will be posted to your talkpage User talk:Xinqizi. In the settings for your account on Commons, under the paragraph "notifcations", you can ask to get an automatic email when something is posted to your talkpage. Now to your uploads:

• File:Ronnarong - photo 1.jpg — you write "Photo by Pandit Watanakasivish" in the description; so, you need to provide a permission from the photographer to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (Commons:Email templates).
• File:Chiiori irori floor hearths.jpg — the same image has been published earlier than your upload and is credited to Alex Kerr. Is it really your own work, as you claiemd?
• File:"Civilize" 2016.jpg — you wrote "Photo by Pravich", but claim it as "own work". That doesn't fit. Also, it is actually taken from Facebook.

--Túrelio (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Thank you for your quick reply. Concerning the photos:

* File:Ronnarong - photo 1.jpg , it will take time to get the permission from Pandit Watanakasivish, so for the time being, please delete this. I already deleted all the photos from the draft of the Ronnarong Khampha page I had created, which is still, I believe, in my "sandbox." But I don't know if they really were deleted. Please take care of that for me. Later, when I get the proper permissions, I'll start over with these photos.

• File:Chiiori irori floor hearths.jpg, the photo is credited to Alex Kerr, <censored>. I took the picture and I have selectively let certain publications use it to illustrate articles about the house Chiiori in Iya Valley (which belongs to me). I never gave permission to anyone else to use this photo on Wikipedia before, so I can't imagine how it appeared in the "Irori: Jantung Rumah Tradisional Jepang" article earlier. How can I prove this photo is mine and clear it for permission on Wikipedia?

File:"Civilize" 2016.jpg, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had claimed it as my "own work"; that must be one of the mistakes I made in uploading, due to lack of experience with the Wikipedia system. It really was taken by Pravich; I wasn't aware that it had been earlier uploaded to Facebook. It might take some time to get permission from Pravich for this, so please delete for the time being.

Thank you very much, Xinqizi (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC) (Alex Kerr)Reply

Hi Xinqizi,

I've deleted the 1st and 3rd image listed above. I've also "censored" your realname, assuming that you want to retain your pseudonymity in the userspace. WRT your question: if you have a stable email address which is associated with your name, you may simply send an email from it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) stating that you are the author and/or rights holder of File:Chiiori irori floor hearths.jpg and want to release it under the choosen free license. The OTRS-volunteers, who treat your email confidentially, will check your email (and eventually ask for more information or not) and after some time will put a so-called OTRS ticket on the image page, and everything is fine. --Túrelio (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

I'm still getting used to working with the Wikipedia messaging format. I wrote earlier to answer you, but twice my reply seems to have disappeared when I published the changes, so I'm trying again.

Thank you for removing the 2 photos on the Ronnarong Khampha page. I'll upload those later when I get permissions from the photographers. Also thank you for censoring my realname, as I do wish to retain pseudonymity in the userspace. I've sent an email from my personal email address, using the Wikipedia provided email template, granting permission for the use of File:Chiiori irori floor hearths.jpg.

Xinqizi (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC) October 29, 2018Reply

Ticket #2018100210003253 has arrived for the image, so please restore it so I can close the ticket. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MK_Shaked(1)_2.jpg

this was photo i have the copy right to it, i took this photo. the photo that ayelet shaked tweeted is a different photo look at the difference, my photo has an israeli flag in the photo the photo ayelete shaked tweeted has NO israeli flag in it as u can see its a different photo taken from a different camera see link: https://twitter.com/Ayelet__Shaked/status/993113948676345856

please restore my photo, because i own the copyrights to it thanks

just because someone tweeted a similar photo, does not mean that my photo is the same photo, look at both photos, you can clearly see, its taken from 2 different cameras.

also notice my photo was taken "Horizontal" the photo that shaked tweeted was taken "Vertical" clearly 2 different photos.

--Joecento (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I am not really convinced, as all the depicted persons show the same facial features/expressions in both images. Anyway, I'll undelete the image and put it in a regular deletion-request, which gives you time to defend your position and doesn't base the final decision on my personal opinion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, here you are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MK Shaked(1) 2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can show you another photo i took with my camera, they were all smiling for 1 minute so all photos taken look the same, but my photos that i took, where taken from my camera. there were a few people in the room with cameras.

you can clearly see its taken from a different angle from the photo that alyelet shaked tweeted see this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mk_shaked3(1).jpg

where is the form to defend my photo ? --Joecento (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

At the above posted link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MK Shaked(1) 2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This photo was deleted and was not copyrighted, it belongs to a friend of mine (the person on the photo).

If you think it has copyright, so YOU have to PROVE it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyuuzakiL5 (talk • contribs)

Hi RyuuzakiL5,

sorry, but you are in error. You, the uploader, has to prove that his uploads are under the claimed free license.

By your above statement you have confirmed that this image is not your work, contrary to your statement at upload, when you claimed it as own work.

Today every work of art is copyrighted. Only the author/photographer or the rightsholder can release it under a free license (which does not mean it's not copyrighted).

So, if you received the image by Chris Tonietto, who has it also on her Facebook page[5], you need to ask her to send a statement of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in which she needs to confirm that she is the rights holder and that she agrees to release this image under the choosen cc-by-sa license. --Túrelio (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Please review this image when you can.

• File:Mycena atkinsoniana A.H. Sm 952324.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank You, Turelio--Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment: If you have a bit of time, please consider reviewing this great image too.
• File:Cantharellus californicus Arora & Dunham 589002.jpg

Have a good night in Germany Turelio, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Have you seen this? (not fungi, but nice dog-shots from home). --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The new 2019 Vancouver Police 2019 calendar. Very cool indeed!. I did not see it until now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg; you have deleted this image I have uploaded as an illustration in my project of contribution "Nathalie Ros" because you have found it on a website (Koufa Foundation) and thought there was a copyright violation. I have taken this picture myself and I offered it to Nathalie Ros in order for her to use it in her CV; I am the autor and not Koufa Foundation that has no copyright on this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagrimardière (talk • contribs) 10:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Turelio, please, I am a beginner, so could you be so kind to explain me how I could proof that the picture is mine?--Lagrimardière (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Túrelio, you marked this picture as a copyright violation referring to an instagram account. That is my instagram account and the picture is made with my camera. Therefor I'm entitled to the photograph and I'm free to use it. Thanks, P. --Psfv2018 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Psfv2018,

ok. Anyway, as it has been found on Instagram, you should send an email from your Instagram-Account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org just confirming that it is your work and you uploaded it by yourself or agreed to have it uploaded to Commons under the choosen free license. However, I should warn you that this image might be considered promotional and nominated for deletion, especially if it's not used in a Wikipedia article. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please revdel the intermediate versions on File:IMI Kolkata view.png as they are copyright, see e.g. https://imi-k.edu.in/index.php/result-notification. I see you warned the uploader multiple times, but they keep overwriting files and uploading copyright protected images. They were already indef blocked on enwiki for similar behaviour. --Muhandes (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio deleted. User:Santanu99 blocked for 1 week. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. There is another revision under File:IMI Kolkata view.png with the same issue. There are also revisions under File:Flagofraw.JPG, File:India-Kolkata-locator-map.PNG, File:Flag of Central Industrial Security Force.jpg which I suspect are copyvio due to sophisticated logo. Since all other uploads are copyvio I also suspect File:Kazi Nazrul University Asansol.jpg. --Muhandes (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I love this photo!

We are using this image for a non-profit blog guest post by Joseph Frankovic on Faith and Forests, link will be live on 3 November 2018 at 9 am EDT - https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/2018/11/the-kingdom-of-heaven-where-benefactors-and-beneficiaries-are-one/

Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.89.182.2 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Turelio,

Please review this single image when you can. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks again for your kind help Turelio. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Túrelio,

I see you deleted the updated logo File:Schokinag Logo.jpg that I had uploaded for it to be included in the following article. I am working on the article on behalf of the company itself, since the current article is highly outdated. The company gave permission to use the logo in the article. Of course the logo is, as any company logo, under copyright. However, Wikipedia is full of company logos and even though I did read the guidelines on this topic, I cannot understand what it takes for the logo picture to be allowed in a Wikipedia article. Could you please explain this to us? I read in some previous talks that you told someone that a confirmation of the rightsholdership needs to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Would that solve the problem? We would really like to include the logo and I will be looking forward to receiving your indications about this.

Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards, Alesschoki (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)AlesschokiReply

Hallo Alesschoki,

du schreibst ja anscheinend auf deutsch. Also, Logos sind generell eine schwierige Angelegenheit. Auf :de (lokal) wurden sie lange irgendwie toleriert, obwohl die rechtliche Lage eher klar dagegen sprach. Bei dem nun gelöschten Logo File:Schokinag Logo.jpg könnte man diskutieren, ob das überhaupt ausreichend Schöpfungshöhe aufweist, um urheberrechtlich geschützt zu sein. Das ist meist eine schwierige Frage, wenn man kein entsprechendes Gerichtsurteil dazu hat. Du schreibst, dass du die Genehmigung der Firma für "use the logo in the article" hast. Solche "Wikipedia-only"-Genehmigungen werden auf Commons aber grundsätzlich nicht zugelassen. D.h., du brauchst eine allgemeine Freigabe unter einer freien Lizenz (siehe COM:L), die eine Firma natürlich ungern geben wird. Wir setzen auf Logo-Bilder zwar immer auch den Trademark-Baustein; ob das in einem Rechtsstreit um mißbräuchliche Nutzung ausreicht, ist aber nicht klar. Am einfachsten wäre es noch, wenn du das Logo irgendwo im Freien angebracht findest; dann kannst es nämlich via Panoramafreiheit aufnehmen und hochladen. --Túrelio (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please undelete as we have now got a ticket for this image. Please ping me, Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ww2censor: ,   Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Túrelio, pourquoi supprimer Category:1940 in Champagne-Ardenne ? C'est une catégorie qui existe pour les siècles précédents, pour les régions voisines, BOurgogne, Alsace...Lors de la création en 2016 de Grand est les régions existantes précédentes, comme Chamapgne-ardenne y sont renvoyées comme histoire du Grand est et référencées aussi par Champagne-ardenne par année. Si c'est une question de respect des régions administratives existantes à cette époque alors ce serait plutôt la Généralité de Chaalons qui était pertinentes pour l'ancien régime et les coutumes de Vitry et XXX pour le juridique. Cordialement Garitan (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Túrelio, pourquoi supprimer Category:1308 in Marne ? Bad name ? En 1308 la Marne n'est qu'un fleuve, pas une région. C'est une catégorie qui existe pour les siècles précédents, pour les régions voisines, BOurgogne, Alsace...Lors de la création en 2016 de Grand est les régions existantes précédentes, comme Champagne-ardenne y sont renvoyées comme histoire du Grand est et référencées aussi par Champagne-ardenne par année. Si c'est une question de respect des régions administratives existantes à cette époque alors ce serait plutôt la Généralité de Chaalons qui était pertinentes pour l'ancien régime et les coutumes de Vitry et Reims pour le juridique. Cordialement Garitan (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply